A thought on Intelligence behind Design

I absolutely agree. How much evidence of haphazard, short-sighted design do they need before they admit that it may not be guided by an Intelligence? I've always relied on the measure of how much or little impact additional information would have on a certain hypothesis. The Intelligence theorists can accomodate any data whatsoever, because they assume what they're trying to prove. Nothing could conceiveably contradict the hypothesis that 'The Intelligence wanted it designed this way.' This is what makes the theory unscientific: not only its unfalsifiability, but its general lack of utility to guide further investigation.

For one IT CAN Not be THAT DOCTORS CAN involutarily commit believers because they ( docs taught by elite biologists) TELL the patient that it is THEIR CHEMICALS to which the patient assents WITH INTEREST and the DOCSPHD continue to modularize the chemistry AGAINST this physchial claim for then one has a covert means of religious persecution and oppression (sociobiology passed in textu) as IT DOES currently EXIST in the US and was not declined by Gould as he passed on out of this living life we lead. Simply arguing the difference of Gould and Dawkins does prevent third parties or states from acting against the power of the people even if thought to be in best interests.

The above post is a computer-generated string of meaningless characters whose appearance is that of a designed communication emanating from intelligence but is actually the result of unguided mechanistic processes. Proof if you need it.------------------
"Do not proffer sympathy to the mentally ill. It is a bottomless pit."
-William S. Burroughs

I argued in another thread that the 'sign' of an
'intelligent design' was simplicity ... which didn't go
down well with IDer's, but kind of died through then
abandoning the train of thought ... funny that.

They are looking for life on Mars because they recognize that we don't have exclusive rights to its existence here on Earth. As far as we understand how the universe works, the same laws of science work on Mars or any other place in the universe that work on the Earth and Mars is a likely candidate for life processes having taken place at least early in its history.

Great point. Behe and the ID'ers assert until blue in the face that biological complexity that fails every conceivable standard of Intelligent Design is still a sign of Intelligence as long as it's Irreducible Complexity. Behe's use of Rube Goldberg cartoons in "Darwin's Black Box" is so ironic it hurts: the joke is that no Intelligence would ever design anything as insanely complex as that. If Behe and his acolytes are so stuck on analogies, why can't they see that a machine so jury-rigged that it will stop functioning if ONE part is removed isn't a testament to Intelligence at all?

Some people talk about how wonderful the human body is too ...
but try doing an FMEA on it sometime ... you'd never get
it through a design review team!!!!!

quote:

---

The above post is a computer-generated string of meaningless characters whose appearance is that of a designed communication emanating from intelligence but is actually the result of unguided mechanistic processes. Proof if you need it.

---

Interesting... do elaborate.

You make a valid distinction between design as a concept and Intelligent Design. It seems we've both noticed the semantics involved in Behe's conflation of the two definitions. This is a point he belabors in "Darwin's Black Box" but never comes close to resolving: the believer in Intelligent Design must overlook suboptimal design in nature, while the critics of ID are obliged to know why it's proof of Intelligence even if suboptimal. The answer given is usually that we can't assume the Intelligence wouldn't design something that way. We may be excused for wondering why ID proponents can determine how an Intelligence would design, but not how it wouldn't.There's a more interesting issue lurking there as well. I'm fully aware of the limitations of the human body and the suboptimal design of many of the structures therein, but I'm still staggered by how wonderful it is. It's impressive only because it's the product of billions of years of design work carried out step by step. As you noted, it's much less impressive if it were carried out by an Intelligence with the sole intention of creating a Human Being.

MrHambre<< Behe and his acolytes are so stuck on analogies, why can't they see that a machine so jury-rigged that it will stop functioning if ONE part is removed isn't a testament to Intelligence at all? >>All machines have an irreducible core from which the removal of one part will cause it to cease functioning.[This message has been edited by Warren, 06-25-2003]

All machines? By your definition, then, an Intelligent Designer could not design a machine (biological or otherwise) that could function with a part removed from this 'irreducible core'? Wouldn't this, in fact, be proof positive of Super Intelligent Design and not the opposite?

If removing a part doesn't cause a system to cease functioning then it wasn't IC to begin with. An IC system by definition is a system that can't be reduced any further without losing the function of the system.[This message has been edited by Warren, 06-25-2003]

MrHambre<< The Intelligence theorists... assume what they're trying to prove. >>Are you suggesting that proponents of the non-teleological view don't begin with the assumption that everything is explained by non-teleological causes and then seek to flesh out what they already believe?From such a position, all evidence must point to a non-teleological cause. If it doesn't, then it becomes "no evidence." That is, a non-teleologist has only two options - evidence for a non-teleological cause or the unknown. Thus, it is common for non-teleologists to interpret the fact that there is no evidence for their positions to mean we are dealing with the unknown. This also explains why it is that when non-teleologists are asked what type of data they would consider evidence for ID, they inevitably retreat into the realm where they demand certain proofs of ID. They are so indebted to their world view that it is not possible for them to tolerate an ID inference because it is only an inference. They demand proof and certainty. There are no subtle clues from nature that would cause a non-teleologist to suspect ID at the origin of life. On the other hand, all that's needed to convince them a non-teleological cause was behind the origin of life is a plausible "could have happened" story.[This message has been edited by Warren, 06-25-2003]

That's a matter of interpretation. I think both the definition and the relevance of 'irreducible complexity' are lacking.Behe himself describes IC thus: "By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."His description ignores the fact that some of the biological phenomena he calls IC can be reduced. Dolphins evidently do without the Hagemann factor, an important step in human blood clotting. Of course, Behe described the blood clotting cascade as IC.What we want to know is why IC is offered as proof of Intelligent Design when it could be equally offered as evidence of a design flaw. Successive changes to a system could indeed incorporate improvements that only subsequently became essential. It seems more logical to me that a sign of truly Intelligent Design would be a system composed of interactive parts that did not cease functioning due to the removal of any one part.So if you agree that the blood clotting cascade is IC, then dolphins shouldn't be able to do without the Hagemann factor. However, if you agree that the Intelligent Design is in their ability to do without that important step, you've effectively refuted Behe.

MrHambre: "So if you agree that the blood clotting cascade is IC, then dolphins shouldn't be able to do without the Hagemann factor. However, if you agree that the Intelligent Design is in their ability to do without that important step, you've effectively refuted Behe."Irreducible complexity does not imply there is only one way of doing something, it just implies that one particular system will cease functioning if changed. What if dolphins just have a different pathway for blood clotting, which is also irreducibly complex?Actually, I have long stated that I employ the concept of IC with regard to molecular machines and neither the mammalian middle ear or the blood clotting cascade qualifies.[This message has been edited by Warren, 06-25-2003]