A thought on Intelligence behind Design

quote:

---

So imagining a vague story with potential pathways counts as the experimental evidence that establishes neo-Darwinian evolution as the cause behind flagellar origins.

---

Like I said, feel free to offer any proposal whatsoever that explains how the BacFlag was intelligently designed. No such thing?Again, whenever you'd like to offer testable ID hypotheses we're listening. No such thing?We're also waiting for an example of any biological organism or structure known to have been created by Intelligence. No such thing?I guess all you have is the claim that we're just biased against all the substantive arguments for intelligent design creationism. That would be a lot more persuasive if you had some sort of real theory to promote.------------------
Quien busca, halla

quote:

---

And do you really expect a teleological explanation to express itself the same as a non-teleological explanation?

---

I don't know what to expect, because you've never offered a teleological hypothesis. You've never offered an explanation of how we're supposed to verify or falsify an IDC hypothesis. You've never offered an explanation of how an IDC hypothesis would be useful in guiding further research.

quote:

---

For the simple sake of argument, imagine the first cells deposited on this planet were bioengineered. How would one really determine the mechanism of design? Do you expect a design theorist to provide you with blueprints, protocols and recipes?

---

What I've been saying here is that intelligent design creationism is not a valid scientific program, because the claims are impossible to verify or falsify through scientific inquiry. Of course it's conceivable that all natural processes are in fact teleological. However, if there's no conceivable way to verify this one way or the other, what use does this teleological assumption have in science?You have only said that you find it unlikely that non-teleological processes could be responsible for complex biological systems, while never giving any example of the ability of intelligence to account for anything in biology. We've even given you a proposal for the possible evolution of the BacFlag (twice), but you have offered us nothing. Give us something or else accept our skepticism.------------------
Quien busca, halla

quote:

---

[Ontological Evidence] is about acquiring data that would be expected to exist if a hypothesis is true. The data then are the fingerprints of the proposed event. Such data might not convince the skeptic, but that's not relevant if you are trying to conduct an investigation.

---

Give me a break, Warren. I could say exactly the same thing about your resistance to the mountain of evidence for naturalistic evolution that is staring you in the face. The core hypotheses of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection have been well confirmed and form the basis of much subsequent scientific progress. Your reluctance to read up on modern biology's real reasoning behind its acceptance of Darwin's concepts (the theory's consistency and verifiability) has made you an easy target for the IDC conspiracy theorists.Is IDC a better explanation for the patterns of change manifested in the fossil record? Does IDC form a better picture of the nested hierarchies among species that exist today? Does IDC give us a clearer understanding of the developmental pathways of species or biological structures? No on all three counts.

quote:

---

I would probably be correct in translating most ID critics "no evidence" claim to mean that no one has proven evolution is impossible and no one has shown us the designer. But I fail to see how either of these, as "evidence for design," would likely exist if design were true.

---

If empirical evidential inference is not likely to uncover proof of Intelligence even if it were true, then perhaps IDC is simply outside the realm of scientific endeavor. There's certainly another reason Intelligence may be hard to prove in biology: it might not be there.------------------
Quien busca, halla

Warren, when you first posted this long passage in Post 46, you only attributed it to an 'ID theorist'. Here you didn't attribute it to anyone. Whose words are they?
EvC Forum: A thought on Intelligence behind DesignQuetzal's question is still unanswered: Is there a way to differentiate between natural "designoid" systems and true [intelligent] design?{edited to fix quote}
------------------
Quien busca, halla[This message has been edited by MrHambre, 07-18-2003]

quote:

---

Is Paul Davies an IDC conspiracy theorist?

---

He's certainly no creationist:
"But the emergence of life and consciousness somewhere and somewhen in the cosmos is, I believe, assured by the underlying laws of nature. The origin of life and consciousness were not interventionist miracles, but nor were they stupendously improbable accidents. They were, I believe, part of the natural outworking of the laws of nature, and as such our existence as conscious enquiring beings springs ultimately from the bedrock of physical existence-those ingenious, felicitous laws."
-Paul Davies, from his Templeton Prize speech, 1995.------------------
Quien busca, halla

quote:

---

An evolvoid phenomena/thing is something that looks like it evolved, but did not. That is, these phenomena/things were designed in such a way that it merely looks like they evolved.

​

First of all, there is no reason for thinking the designer designed things with the intention of making it clear to all that things either evolved or did not evolve.

​

In this case, the hemoglobin gene would be evolvoid. It would clearly be interpreted as the result of mutation and natural selection, when in reality, the changes were designed.

​

What these examples all show is that things that are designed can be viewed as things that look like they evolved. The evolvoid tendency is very strong.

---

If I came up with anything so absolutely preposterous, I'd have a pseudonym or two myself.You still have Quetzal's question to answer. This is the third time. Is there a way to differentiate natural "designoid" systems and true [intelligent] design?------------------
Quien busca, halla

quote:

---

Direct routes of evolution are the ones best supported by empirical and experimental evidence.[...] And it is precisely this kind of evolution that can't produce an IC system. Yes, it's impossible for modifications along a linear axis to produce IC systems.

---

Care to provide any supporting evidence for this outrageous claim other than your evidently boundless personal incredulity?

quote:

---

Thus, again the co-option explanation is really a return to using chance as an explanation for apparent design, and just as it was not convincing in pre-Darwinian days, it is not convincing today. If one is to invoke co-option, good supporting evidence is required.

---

In the Darwinian framework, a structure has no function other than that selected for in the context of the organism. We've already discussed the bones of the inner ear being co-opted from vestigial reptilian jawbones. It is theorized that the bacterial flagellum originally served as a secretory system until it was co-opted for another purpose. Please let us know on what basis you assume that a biological structure could not have served any other purpose than the one it currently serves.

quote:

---

It must be comfy when your hypotheses about the world only need to be possible.

---

You must take similar comfort in knowing that your hypotheses about the world don't need to be possible, plausible, consistent, verifiable, testable, falsifiable, or even explanatory.------------------
Quien busca, halla

1) Since mousetraps and outboard motors were designed by intelligence, so were things like flagella and adenosine triphosphate. Q. E. D.2) Here are the complex specified details: biological structures were designed by the designing intelligence at some time in the past using the mechanism of design.3) We can tell that certain things were intelligently designed using eliminative induction. This means we're certain they didn't evolve, although we're not saying it's impossible that they could have evolved.4) We can be sure that biological structures were intelligently designed because they look exactly the way we'd expect them to if an intelligence designed them to look the way they look. Corollary: it's not fair for evolutionists to ask why a designer would have designed things to look the way they look, since that would be tantamount to psychoanalyzing the designer, and only IDC theorists are allowed to do that.Can I get a fellowship at the Discovery Institute now?------------------
Quien busca, halla

quote:

---

How could any thinking human being come to the absolute conclussion that design is absent from evolution as many scientists seem to do? And, on the other side of the coin, how could any thinking human being come to the conclusion that humans are now fully capable of understanding and describing the nature and final purpose of a universal intelligence or designing presence as religionists often do?

---

To my way of thinking, you answered your first question with the second. We've spent ages in this forum trying to establish standards for detecting intelligence in natural design, to no avail.At face value, intelligence doesn't seem to be present in natural design. The haphazard history of life on Earth, with all its circuitous routes and mass extinctions, doesn't point to a guiding intelligence. Complex organisms and organs demonstrate design cobbled together from remnants of previous systems, not crafted anew for a unique purpose or function. Natural design displays amidst its messiness an ingenuity that would have been unnecessary if we assume the presence of intelligent intervention.Intelligent design creationists declare that only our preconceptions prevent us from recognizing intelligent design in nature. Simply because at face value we don't notice the designer's intentions, they say, that's no reason to assume that intelligence is absent from the design. In effect, IDC states that the intelligent design assumption is the default position, and any design can be considered the product of intelligence.The biggest problem with this line of thinking is its lack of utility in science. As you stated, even if there were intelligence behind natural design, could we understand or articulate the purposes of this intelligence? It does us no good to assume that there is intelligence behind the chaos of natural design, especially since that assumption doesn't enhance our perspective or widen the scope of scientific inquiry.------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el tuerco es el Rey.

quote:

---

Are you saying that mistakes in evolution should prove the absence of any creative or designing presence or principle in evolution???

---

I'm saying you're presenting your personal philosophy and expecting science to validate it at all costs. You want to see intelligent design in nature, regardless of whether there is evidence of this intelligence. I guess there's no conceivable evidence that could convince you that your intelligent designing presence doesn't exist, so it's hardly a scientific hypothesis.I'm not saying the chaos of evolution proves anything about intelligent design except that this type of inquiry is outside the realm of real science.

quote:

---

And, maybe it is possible that the gas range is a product of a huge number of coincidental events that just look like design. We can know that because no designer or intelligence would have made all those errors.

---

This is the rock-solid foundation of your Magic Happy Love Science, that the diversity and complexity of nature is just like, well, a gas range. It's a new one.------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el tuerco es el Rey.

quote:

---

You can't make the case that ID theorists have anymore of a philosophical need to see design in nature than the materialist has a desire to see no design in nature.

---

Oh, Warren, you are the most hopelessly predictable purveyor of semantic nonsense I've ever run across. How many times have you come up with this tired old canard, and how many times have we tried to impress upon you how sadly and irretrievably you are mistaken?One more time. Science isn't going to prove or disprove anything as far as ontological naturalism, i.e. the existence or non-existence of a Grand Designer behind all chemical reactions and Intervening Intelligence who creates complex natural systems. Methodological naturalism is merely a realistic constraint used by believers and nonbelievers alike to ensure that scientific results are consistent, repeatable, and verifiable.Science is only going to come up with material mechanisms for natural processes. You are free to believe that these mechanisms are controlled or guided by an Intelligence, but there will never be any way to scientifically support this philosophical opinion. If your version of New Age Magic Happy Love Science makes you feel good, that's great. If it makes you feel good to suspect that the rest of us (and any scientists who fail to acknowledge the Grand Designer) are merely looking for ways to defend our rabid atheism and immorality, that's great. Just great.------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el tuerco es el Rey.

Barry,

quote:

---

If there is an organizing or directional principle in the universe expressed in the evolution of life on our planet in the reproduction and the natural selection of more complex and adaptible organisms it may be an, as yet, undiscoverd law or principle - something like the laws of physics or mathematics.

---

And all I'm saying is that until it's discovered, how do we know it's there?Pardon me for my sarcasm, but I feel strongly that you New Age types sell nature short in an unforgivable way. The theory of evolution by natural selection, the complexity of DNA, contemporary cosmology, and many other not-so-recent scientific discoveries have presented a picture of our world and universe that is much more staggering, impressive, and thought-provoking than anything dreamed up by ancient mythology or New Age flakes. The fact that I don't feel the need to complement this amazing picture with a few half-baked ideas based on nothing but personal caprices shows that I appreciate the real world as we can currently understand it.If you care to tell me why modern science needs to incorporate feel-good principles or directions or intelligences when there is currently no way to detect or understand them, fine. Otherwise you're wasting our time. Nature is not lacking, Barry, your view of it is.------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el tuerco es el Rey.

Barry,Is my view of 'open-minded' lacking because I don't consider your make-believe mechanisms and principles relevant?Is my view of 'questioning' lacking because I have the nerve to question the scientific basis of a theory put forth as scientific?Is my view of 'investigation' lacking because I mentioned that scientific investigation isn't likely to let you draw whatever conclusions you want?Guilty as charged.------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el tuerco es el Rey.

quote:

---

"If human evolutionary creative activity is driven by human intelligence, and if it is a product of evolution, and if it replicates evolution, could there be an as yet undiscovered directional, or creative or intelligent principle that relates to the evolution of life on our planet?"

​

My understanding from the responses I see here is that anyone who would even propose this question could only be someone who's brains have fallen out

---

No one is saying you shouldn't ask the question, Barry. I personally answered your question in the affirmative. It's certainly conceivable that you are correct. However, I and several other people here have asked you questions in return and you have not acknowledged them:1) Isn't this a philosophical question, out of the realm of scientific inquiry?2) What sort of evidence do we have that the assumption that there is Intelligence would benefit scientific inquiry?3) What sort of evidence would you accept that the design you see in Nature is not the product of intelligence?

quote:

---

if that's the case...I would agree with you that this is not a discussion that I belong in. Adios

---

We've heard it all before, Barry. If the discussion doesn't tell you what you want to hear, you say you're leaving. Then you come back and say you're through discussing the matter, etc.------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el tuerco es el Rey.

Barry,Thank you for responding to the questions. The reason this particular forum was set up was to determine if there is any way to distinguish between intelligent, directed design and natural undirected design. If I understand your argument correctly, it seems that you don't believe there is any design that can be considered the product of purposeless, undirected forces. This is because it is always conceivable that we simply don't understand the basis of the designer's intentions, so declaring a phenomenon void of teleology is always premature.In that case, why do you accept the notion that disease is the product of microbes? Shouldn't we either ascribe purpose to the microbes themselves or acknowledge the possibility that the Creative Principle is using the microbes for its greater purpose? Isn't it conceivable that the weather only seems to be the result of air pressure, electrical polarity and other natural forces, and is in fact directed by Creative Intelligence?In other words, where do we draw the line?------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el tuerco es el Rey.