Help me understand Intelligent Design

Great, you can read a dictionary. I'm sure we're all very impressed. I notice, though, that you only use the second definitions. Is that because the first definitions prove me right?What you didn't do was provide a definition that was relevant to your point. Can you explain the relevance of any of these definitions to your orignial point? None of these definitions refer to any inherent property of an object; they're all simply interpretations of objects. My questions are not to be dismissed. Can you answer them? Or will you simply abandon your argument? That doesn't answer the question. What is the subatomic basis of purpose - or function, or whatever - that you alluded to? What's the "purpose particle"? Fascinating, but totally irrelevant.

quote:

---

I don't see that we can dismiss the question in light of the above definitions. It is clear from Websters that purpose and function are interchangeable but it is not clear (at least not to my small brain) that they are interchangeable with respect to the position of Intelligent Design. Are you saying that natural selection and random mutation generate systems that have function and hence are "designed"?

---

At this point,I'll let you make that call.This message has been edited by ausar_maat, 10-09-2005 08:16 PM

quote:

---

“Both history and present Darwinian evolutionary practice have shown us that this kind of design-type thinking is involved in the adaptationist paradigm. We treat organisms - the parts at least -- as if they were manufactured, as if they were designed, and then we try to work out their functions. End-directed thinking - teleological thinking - is appropriate in biology because, and only because, organisms seem as if they were manufactured, as if they had been created by an intelligence and put to work.”
Michael Ruse, Darwin and Design: Does evolution have a purpose?, p. 268 (Harvard, 2003)

---

I like the way he put that.This message has been edited by ausar_maat, 10-09-2005 08:43 PM

This could be quote mining rather than valid quoting of the authors position.From Amazon.com Review by Stephen A. Haines (click and scroll down): (bold mine for emPHASis)Looks like an interesting book, have you finished it?{removed doubled pasting ... curious - a bug?}This message has been edited by RAZD, 10*09*2005 08:58 PM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Fascinating, but I don't see how that answers any of my questions.Are you just done with the discussion, or what?

Then the answer is NO. Discussion resolved. One more fallacy of ID put to rest.

fallacy of ID?I told you, I haven't read the ID position thoroughly enough yet. But if you ask me if I do believe in God. The answer is yes. However my understanding of what that means is not appropriate to this thread. But you seem to wanna draw conclusions for me. So I said,well, make your own call then. But in fact, Crash & co. have not been able to debunk any of the points I have brought forward. Not one. Yet, some make themselves feel comfortable in the idea that you have done so, without any solid arguements. At this point, I don't see where this is going anymore. Crash for one is make me repeat myself because he's asking me to reiterate positions, which, time and again, I have proven that I have already done. Why would I reiterate a position with further arguements when one cannot bring new ones to defend his own, nor to reputiate mine? This makes no sense to me?

quote:

---

This could be quote mining rather than valid quoting of the authors position.

---

I'm well aware of Ruse's position actually. This is precisely why I found this quote interesting to use.But remember, Ruse is a philosopher by the way. That's what he teaches at Harvard. He's not the ultimate authority I would turn to the debunk ID.I haven't read Demski yet, but I know he does have a book answering his critics firmly. Apparentely? Will judge for myself when I read it.
But we have to accept that people of equal intellectual strenght will disagree one way or the other. But each side will always claim they have the arguments. But this debate, from what I read thus far, sounds just as religious for non-teleological darwinists, as it is to IDers.
But in the end, no one could or should claim ultimate victory. Much more needs to be explored on the question. Despiste what philosopher Ruse says.
I find that those against ID are almost 'religious' about their positions. I mean, have you read the quote you just posted? It's extremely intolerant. It felt like some Christian conclusions about other religions. But saying something is a fallacy and proving it are two different things. So far, I concentrated on material that debunked ID before I even picked up a book in favor of it, which I have yet to read. But I decided I will read Demski and Behe because, among other things, I have found many of the rebutals more emotional then rational. Many times, purelly based on semantics or some technical issue that has nothing to do with the fundamental question. Nor have any satisfied me on a scientific level.Is that so bad? I am such an heretic or does it make me closed minded? And why are people so harsh with ID? It's like it hurts their feelings or something? That's strange. Anyhow, looking foward to reading Behe and Demski, since I read books and positions who "supposedly' debunked their views, and found them unconvincing. So before they convert me, maybe someone can save my soul and return me to the true neo-darwinist path as taught by Prophets Ronald Fisher, Theodore Dobzhanski and Ernst Mayr .This message has been edited by ausar_maat, 10-10-2005 09:37 PM

I suggest that you post some of them in an appropriate thread. There are only about 3 or 4 basic claims by the IDists that I've seen and they have been shredded here before. Do you have an claim and rebuttal where you find the rebuttal weak? Post the pair. Some of us have a "thing" about dishonesty.

Here is the solid argument that you have been unable to address:Random mutation and natural selection, operating entirely according to natural law, are more than sufficient to explain the development of function (which you term "purpose") in organisms. Thus, appeal to intelligent intervention - the premise of ID - is not necessary.No post of your has even attempted to address this point, which as you'll recall, has been my argument all along. We've gone back and forth on some other things but none of your arguments have even touched on this crucial point.

quote:

---

Here is the solid argument that you have been unable to address:

​

Random mutation and natural selection, operating entirely according to natural law, are more than sufficient to explain the development of function (which you term "purpose") in organisms. Thus, appeal to intelligent intervention - the premise of ID - is not necessary.

​

No post of your has even attempted to address this point, which as you'll recall, has been my argument all along. We've gone back and forth on some other things but none of your arguments have even touched on this crucial point.

---

Untrue, we've gone back and forth about the word "purpose". I gave an example of an article I found unsatisfactory for everyone to read. Yet, I was told several times, in defense of Mr.Borrato, that his aim wasn't to attack the fundamental question of ID. That I should impose that on him? Yet, that's what he claimed he was doing.But I haven't read Behe and Dembski yet, I will however. So don't expect me to speak on their behalf.However, in reference to "Thus, appeal to intelligent intervention - the premise of ID - is not necessary."This is why I found Ruse's quote interesting. Because he admits, even though he is an avout opponent of ID, that “We treat organisms - the parts at least -- as if they were manufactured, as if they were designed, and then we try to work out their functions."It's interesting, why ? Because he shows you there really isn't any other way to approach it. To his own admission. Therefore, I find Ronald Fisher & co's school of non-teleological postion on Evolution to be "facultatif" at best. At the end of the day, it's a choice, but all points toward the fact that it has purpose and function. So if it does have a function, why? It's like playing dice and ending up with a computer, randomly. I mean, you say the intervention of intelligence isn't necessary. Ok, necessary to what? Explain the actual phenomena? No, it isn't, nor is it wrong or false to conclude there is such intervention. Neither positions have a scientific impact, per se. Nor does it put a break on science. The consequences of that conclusion, which is a perfectly natural one in light of it's design, has consequences on a social level. It goes back to middle age Islam and Ancient Egypt, and Greeks, marvelling at scientific knowledge as demonstrating God's greatness. Nothing in darwinism infirms that position in the least. Yet, some insitst it does. All it does is show the Bible's account wasn't on point. Beyond that, the neo-darwinist position has shown nothing to infirm a "belief" in God. On the contrary, that turn of events was entirely philosophical on the part of Ronald Fisher and cie. I don't know if what I said is congruent with the ID position or not, but that's my position personally. Now you're the one changing your position, cause initially, you said there weren't no such thing as purpose, which now you're forced to admit there is. The reason is probably that you know the consequences of that admission?Anyhow, will continue this tomorrow, good night all,ps: Ned, the dishonesty bit, that was a little harsh.Also.
again right there,"End-directed thinking - teleological thinking - is appropriate in biology because, and only because, organisms seem as if they were manufactured, as if they had been created by an intelligence and put to work.”...structurally or technically speaking, with this statement, specially in light of his oppinion, he contradicts himself. To say "and only because" makes no sense. Because if there we're any other way to look at it, then they would have looked at it that other way. In that bit, Ruse is being, as Ned would put it, dishonest

quote:

---

That is a peripheral issue to the subject of the essay. It isn't central at all. And the answer - as I pointed out - is that it ISN'T pure chance. There is a selective force favouring camouflage as defence from predators.

​

Thus the non-random element is the selective force which influences which traits are passed on to future generations. The mutations are "random" (in the sense that the probability of their occurrence is not related to their usefulness) but selection ifnluences whether mutations are retained and spread through the gne pool or lost.

---

Let's remember that when PaulK wrote this, we were talking about a bug, that looks just like a leaf. A....leaf.I'd say, yes the selective process favoured it's survival, absolutely. But that the probability of the actual mutation's occurrence is not related to it's usefulness?? I say this is where Fisherite neo-ev gets in trouble. And Borrato, in all his attempts, was not able to deal with that point in his article. Maybe that wasn't his intention, but don't be surprised if I continue to raise the objection though.I think Bottaro is guilty of the same bait-and-switch argumentation that he accuses Behe of doing.This message has been edited by ausar_maat, 10-10-2005 11:17 PM

Okay, answering your bug looks like a leaf thing for the 4th time. Gonna answer it with yet another series of explainations. Hopefully one of these posts will get through to you. It is not NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT a SINGLE mutation that makes a bug look like a leaf.There are NOT a bunch of cockroaches scurrying around, then all of the sudden one is born looking like a leaf.The basic genetic make up of a weiner dog and a great dane are the same. Some switches are turned on in a dane, others are turn on in a weiner dog. The are both dogs.Insects have an exoskeleton, it makes creating external features like horns, bumps, etc, very easy compaired to fleshy mammals.The first members of the leaf-like bugs didn't look exactly like leafs. They just looked MORE like leafs than their cousins. The competition continued, with each generation of non-leafy bugs getting goobled up by birds and the most leafy bugs having lots of kids.It did NOT happen over night. It did NOT happen in a single mutation.There could be literally tens of thousands of small mutation that took place between just green bug and looks a lot like a leaf bug.

As I've been going through the thread, I've noticed plenty of discussion about definitions and the mechanics of Evolution.I am as guilty as anyone, or more so, of allowing this to swing off topic.The point of this thread is this:What are the Mechanics of Intelligent Design? How does Intelligent Design happen? If I were to teach Intelligent Design in a classroom, what exactly would I be teaching?I have yet to hear a single person give a coherent, possitive argument FOR intelligent design.If you support ID, step up. If you just want to attack ToE because you want to feel special about yourself, take it someplace else.

quote:

---

Let's remember that when PaulK wrote this, we were talking about a bug, that looks just like a leaf. A....leaf.

---

Let us remeber also that in the previopus post I also pointed out that there were degrees of resemblance. Simply looking enough like a leaf or stick to evade a casual glance or to stand out that much less against the background would be helpful. It is not an all-or-nothing thing - there are degrees of resemblance that are progressively more helpful.

quote:

---

I'd say, yes the selective process favoured it's survival, absolutely. But that the probability of the actual mutation's occurrence is not
related to it's usefulness?? I say this is where Fisherite neo-ev gets in trouble.

---

It's a series of mutations spread over a long period of time. As Bottaro pointed out different species have different degrees of resemblance. If there were a non-random force mutating the insects wht wouldn't all species acquire the same degree of resemblance ? Why would some come to look like leaves and others like sticks ?

quote:

---

And Borrato, in all his attempts, was not able to deal with that point in his article. Maybe that wasn't his intention, but don't be surprised if I continue to raise the objection though.

---

Maybe ? It's prefectly obvious that Bottaro did not write the articlew specifically to address your education. Sicne the article was about Sermonti's claim and Behe's endorsement of those claims - and neither Sermonti nor Behe raised the point you are trying to argue. So far as can be told they do not challenge the conventional view on the grounds that it could not work in principle. Rather they challenge it on the basis of the claims that Bottaro actually DID answer - e.g. the assertion that the leaf insects were mimicing leaves before any leaves existed.

quote:

---

I think Bottaro is guilty of the same bait-and-switch argumentation that he accuses Behe of doing.

---

It is perfectly obviosu that you have no grounds for doing so.You ask in another post why people are so "hard" on ID. Well it seems claer that the answer is honesty. Apparently you see something wrong in raising truthful critcicisms of ID but regard the riasing of completely spurious attacks against criticisms of ID as morally required - perhaps even divinely commanded. That's a pretty warped view.