A thought on Intelligence behind Design

Ahhhhhh... at last a true to life ID theorist! I welcome your presence here Warren, as faux IDers have been mucking up the waters of debate for some time now.That said, I have to disagree with some of the points you have made. PaulK is totally correct that ID theory (as part of its argument) argues for the PRACTICAL impossibility of a thing as proof of ID. Your responses have not countered this point at all, except to shift debate to another part of the ID argument.To put things more clearly, ID theory uses a two prong approach in dealing with evolutionary explanations for observed phenoma.One is to present positive evidence of design. This involves an appeal to use the same scientific criteria we use to judge design in nonbiological phenomena to biological phenomena. In short, asking why should this distinction exist.The other is to raise questions about evolutionary explanations. This is where both Dembski and Behe (and to some lesser extent Wells) argue that evolutionary explanations for observed phenomena, while not logically impossible, are practically impossible and so should be discarded. This is advanced with an assumption that once evo theory is discarded other theories become equally or more viable.Dembski himself argues this point (calling it "eliminative induction") in his essay:
http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3?program=CRSC%2...In this article he further claims that those critical of this method are commiting the "argument of invincible ignorance." I dispute Dembski's position on this, but will leave that for some other thread.The point here is to show that much of ID's position and Behe's arguments in particular are a form of negative argument (used as a positive argument only in that it "weeds out" alternatives) and that it does so only by arguing practical (or in Dembski's words "pragmatic") impossibility.Sorry Warren, but that's from the horse's mouth (or to ID critics perhaps some other part of the equine).The problem from a critic's standpoint is that even if one accepts the second method (eliminative induction) as a form of argument, all it does is challenge specific known methods, without calling into question overall evo theory (which is NOT method specific). This is a point that seems to be missed by ID theorists.Even the popular paradigm of "slow, progressive changes based on genetic mutations" is not a crucial component of evolutionary theory. Punctuated-equilibrium has already altered the "slow, progressive" facet of that paradigm, and Lynn Margulis' work has challenged the "genetic mutation" portion.Evolutionary theory, being a general theory will stand whether those changes become major parts of the working paradigm, and if they eventually go away, replaced by more accurate or explanatory methods for the "evolutionary process."Another problem from the critics standpoint is that neither prong sets out a specific encompassing theory to explain what we see at all. In the first prong, we at least see an analogy that might raise some suggestions of a paradigm, but the second gives us nothing at all to work with.Given his acceptance of the eliminative induction method, one would think that Dembski could understand that ID gets weeded out due to its inability to coherently explain anything nearly as well, as its competitor.As a challenge to you, please show me any statement made by an ID theorist which says anything more than "there may be signs that an intelligent agent may have had a hand in something." I have yet to see any connecting theories which actually explain what I am experiencing every day, and how that took place in the past.------------------
holmes

I'm sorry, this is not how proper science is done. This means one is trying to answer very grandiose questions from the start, rather than looking at small phenomena and building up a larger theory. Again, this is not science. It isn't even proper scientific method used to determine "intelligent agency" (such as forensic science, or SETI).The categories of designed versus not designed sciences are bogus. Astronomy, chemistry. meteorology etc etc are sciences dedicated to investigating/explaining what we see in those categories of natural phenomena, including forces and interactions. Engineering is a study of how to apply forces and interactions to affect changes. Neither is dedicated to studying intelligent or unintelligent phenomena.What I really love is the convenient missing science: biology. Hmmm, which nonbiological science is life most like?Why could the author not accept another possibility, that life is unlike both engineering and chemistry? That there is another category altogether which life is like. I guess for convenience I'd call it "biology." This has to be the biggest crock of... You seem very intelligent Warren, and I cannot believe you don't see the problem in the above statement.My incredulity aside, let me explain. Biology's use of teleological language is one of convenience through analogy. Engineering's use of teleological language is one of necessity because one is discussing how to design something.The idea that there is a "teleology" to biology is a false construct by ID theorists (Dembski in particular). What exactly is the end point of a dog? How about a dinosaur? An engineer can always tell you what the end point of a car is going to be, it's the car he's making! Biological organisms keep changing and they keep changing on their own, and there is no known endpoint except an arbitrary endpoint we designate along the "life" of an organism's changes. This is yet another confusion between the convenience of analogy and a description of reality.There is no such thing as "information" being passed between organisms, there are only chemicals. They react in certain ways. It is convenient for us to conceive (and more importantly to model) interactions/changes in these biochemical systems by using information system analogies. That is all.I find it highly ironic that Behe (in Darwin's Black Box) criticized this very mistaken way of thinking, yet the champion of its practice is his pal Dembski.I would also add that the quote by Davies thrown in at the end is not problematic to evolutionary theory at all, and if anything affects ID much more so.First of all it is in regards to abiogenesis, not evolution.Second (if we apply it to both abiogenesis and evolution) it points up the very thing that evos have been saying all along. Our current inability to explain observed phenomena are due to "new physical principles". Now whether those "principles" are an as yet unknown force (what Davies suggests), several unknown intermediary steps/conditions (what most evos currently suggest), or a wholly different way that biological entities interact (as Lynn Margulis suggests) remains to be seen.Either way it should be obvious that the latter two should be investigated and accepted as more likely candidates, than the more far reaching first option. This should be obvious as "unknown force" only becomes credible once manifestations of the two known forces are essentially ruled out (by thorough investigation). Why jump the gun?In fact, the "new force" does not necessitate an "intelligent force", so that would be further down the line of logical inquiry... unless one simply wants that last thing to be true.One has to be careful not to fall in love with one's models and analogies. They are not the real world. Whether guided by an intelligent force or not, the real world is only chemical interactions and physical forces.While one may apply scientific methodology to determine if a specific structure has been designed, none of the reasons given were credible to think such an investigation would be fruitful.------------------
holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 06-18-2003]

You are correct that if something like Rushmore were found on the moon, it would likely be interpreted and investigated as a designed object.However, crashfrog is correct that such an interpretation would be made only if we recognized the "Rushmoon" as a depiction of something (not random shapes), made by chiseling techniques (not meteorite impacts), and that we know sculptors create chiseled depictions.This requires enough knowledge or experience of the moon and sculpting to rule out "random events" as an explanation by creating a more plausible overriding explanation of design.This has no equivalent in the study of biological organisms.While we are making some very strong progress, we are not close to having a clear picture of all the natural processes which make up any "living system."How then can one leap to claims of what could or could not have caused all bits and pieces of all living systems.Perhaps evos have done themselves a disservice by talking about "random mutations", rather than "unknown or unexplained mutations." The word random seems to fuel the fire of ID theorists who feel that a force of some kind beyond a "random event" is clearly indicated. And so since we see people creating structures similar to those seen in biology, a similar creation event would become the overriding explanation.Perhaps there is some force necessitated behind the changes, and maybe it was not wholly "random" (in the sense that ANYTHING GOES), but that does not mean it was intelligent by any means. Changes may be do to routine chemical reactions given certain conditions, of which we have not fully explored and so do not understand.No known natural processes, does not equate to no natural processes at all.We have a pretty good understanding of what natural processes could possibly effect the landscape of the moon.Not so with organisms... much less the microlevel of organisms which is what underlies the macro changes we see.Neither (as some have pointed out) have we seen any indication that there is an intelligent agency outside of humans, unless one starts with an assumption that life is a designed product. But that is circular reasoning.Lynn Margulis has discussed options beyond "random mutations" and she has done so with some pretty credible scientific research. While I do not think it impossible that a biochemist will eventually find a better explanation for the "unkown reason" biochemical systems change the way they do, Margulis' work is compelling as an overriding explanation for how and why many systems change.I find it upsetting that ID theorists do not deal with Margulis at all. Especially Behe. ID theorists act as if 1960's evolutionary paradigms are the only possibilities, when recent works hold much more realistic possibilities, moreso than reaching for "intelligent entities" of which we have no direct, or testable experience.Since you seem very well read, do you have any reason why Margulis' work should be ignored by ID as a plausible counter to ID claims?And why do you not address conventional evos's multi-stage pathways to complex systems. I understand that it is only a possibility that they are listing. But does that possibility not require full testing, before acceptance of a theory which involves an entity for which there is no physical evidence (the ever unseen designer)?------------------
holmes

I don't get it Warren. You have at least attempted an answer to just about everyone but me. What's the problem?I find this particularly annoying when you then make statements like this... Rather than viewing biological entities as their closest nonbiological analogy, why not view them as... biological entities?Where is your assessment of Margulis' work? She is one of the pioneers which helped dispel that sac of soup imagery (specifically in bacteria), without rushing to the sac of nuts and bolts imagery.------------------
holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 06-26-2003]

sorry, accidental double post. deleted.[This message has been edited by holmes, 06-26-2003]

Warren still up to your tricks I see. A complete repost of an earlier assertion which has already been questioned, to which you have not replied.This is not the proper way to carry out an argument. In fact I believe its against the rules of this forum. And this is twice you've done it.The following is a repost of my reply. Please do not rerepost your argument until you have at least responded in some credible manner... I'm sorry, this is not how proper science is done. This means one is trying to answer very grandiose questions from the start, rather than looking at small phenomena and building up a larger theory. Again, this is not science. It isn't even proper scientific method used to determine "intelligent agency" (such as forensic science, or SETI).The categories of designed versus not designed sciences are bogus. Astronomy, chemistry. meteorology etc etc are sciences dedicated to investigating/explaining what we see in those categories of natural phenomena, including forces and interactions. Engineering is a study of how to apply forces and interactions to affect changes. Neither is dedicated to studying intelligent or unintelligent phenomena.What I really love is the convenient missing science: biology. Hmmm, which nonbiological science is life most like?Why could the author not accept another possibility, that life is unlike both engineering and chemistry? That there is another category altogether which life is like. I guess for convenience I'd call it "biology." This has to be the biggest crock of... You seem very intelligent Warren, and I cannot believe you don't see the problem in the above statement.My incredulity aside, let me explain. Biology's use of teleological language is one of convenience through analogy. Engineering's use of teleological language is one of necessity because one is discussing how to design something.The idea that there is a "teleology" to biology is a false construct by ID theorists (Dembski in particular). What exactly is the end point of a dog? How about a dinosaur? An engineer can always tell you what the end point of a car is going to be, it's the car he's making! Biological organisms keep changing and they keep changing on their own, and there is no known endpoint except an arbitrary endpoint we designate along the "life" of an organism's changes. This is yet another confusion between the convenience of analogy and a description of reality.There is no such thing as "information" being passed between organisms, there are only chemicals. They react in certain ways. It is convenient for us to conceive (and more importantly to model) interactions/changes in these biochemical systems by using information system analogies. That is all.I find it highly ironic that Behe (in Darwin's Black Box) criticized this very mistaken way of thinking, yet the champion of its practice is his pal Dembski.I would also add that the quote by Davies thrown in at the end is not problematic to evolutionary theory at all, and if anything affects ID much more so.First of all it is in regards to abiogenesis, not evolution.Second (if we apply it to both abiogenesis and evolution) it points up the very thing that evos have been saying all along. Our current inability to explain observed phenomena are due to "new physical principles". Now whether those "principles" are an as yet unknown force (what Davies suggests), several unknown intermediary steps/conditions (what most evos currently suggest), or a wholly different way that biological entities interact (as Lynn Margulis suggests) remains to be seen.Either way it should be obvious that the latter two should be investigated and accepted as more likely candidates, than the more far reaching first option. This should be obvious as "unknown force" only becomes credible once manifestations of the two known forces are essentially ruled out (by thorough investigation). Why jump the gun?In fact, the "new force" does not necessitate an "intelligent force", so that would be further down the line of logical inquiry... unless one simply wants that last thing to be true.One has to be careful not to fall in love with one's models and analogies. They are not the real world. Whether guided by an intelligent force or not, the real world is only chemical interactions and physical forces.While one may apply scientific methodology to determine if a specific structure has been designed, none of the reasons given were credible to think such an investigation would be fruitful.------------------
holmes

I have defended ID in other threads, arguing that it is NOT ridiculous to ask what markers people might use to identify "designed" biological entities from naturally occuring entities.As our ability to genetically modify life (especially plants, as genetically modified foods are becoming more common), this will become a legitimate question.For example, there was the artist who engineered a rabbit that glowed. Let's say he never announced his project and simply set the animal free. And it mated and that trait became inherited and no one noticed these glowing rabbits until there was a small population already established.At first people would be stunned. Rabbits suddenly "evolved" the ability to glow????? Of course study would begin to determine what happened. Well what would they find? How would scientists come to figure out that the rabbit had been invented (even if they are never able to track down the "artist" who created that "species").The problem, Warren, is that ID has yet to come up with anything close to an answer. The closest that ID has come is Behe's "irreducibly complex" entities, but even this has not been fully fleshed out.To make matters worse, ID theorists have jumped from a legitimate avenue of research (how to detect designed organisms), to conclusions that life has been designed! And to top it all off ID theorists are already discussing the social and moral consequences of the fact that we are designed. And this is a great example of the disturbing nature of discussion we have been reduced to. In essence you are saying that unless people agree with you, or talk only in such a way that your theories cannot be questioned, you will not talk with them.IDers limit debate on ID to only discussions on how right ID can be.This is one big problem scientists face even getting onto an official ID forum. Dembski's personal forum requires that no one post anything that questions ID theory. What the hell good is that?You asked what people would consider a real sign that organic entities had been designed. They gave you legitimate answers. You cannot toss them away simply because they are too restrictive FOR YOU or YOUR THEORY.In order to be a science, ID MUST come up with an answer of when we can say we KNOW that an entity has been designed. This requires the ability to select between a designed and nondesigned entity.If it cannot do this, then ID is not a science it is theoretical conjecture.We can always ask in a round about way, well what would we see if life was designed (or even better what if it had been designed in such a way that we can't tell it's designed)? But by its very construction then, it will end up finding design, because that is an initial assumption of the question.Evolutionary theorists do not ask "what would we see if life was not designed?", and then look for clues.What do I think of John's list?I think a designer could just as easily use spare parts as new ones so point #1 is not sufficient.#2 is not an objective evaluation. For example what is the absolute "function" of hair, or nails, or tastebuds, or genitals? They all serve many different functions and to varying degrees of success... though I'd have to say most work "well". Perfection (meaning no failures at all when used) might indicate a pretty good design, but then again I am unsure how to tell between that and perfect adaptation.holmes------------------
holmes

Well you can keep talking about what would be necessary to produce a working hypothesis and begin an investigation, but that is not the end of the story in science.Maybe you don't realize that ID critics are cutting ID a major amount of slack. In essence, most critics have said okay let's accept for the sake of argument that you have provided the necessary requirements for a working hypothesis. The next step is to begin an investigation.HOW DO YOU BEGIN AN INVESTIGATION??????? That's the whole point Warren! There is no plausible method for investigation. At least none given by ID theorists.So let's all say this together: ID has won. ID theorists have enough "ontological" reasons to begin an investigation.Now let's get on with it you IDIOTs and stop arguing if you have the right to start an investigation.Let's move to where most of us already are and looking at how to investigate such things. Now that you have won, Warren, what do you propose we do to investigate whether something is ID or not??? Laughter would probably be the response. Can't you look around you and see all the things not being assembled by an intelligent designer all the time?Unless, you view all wombs and eggs as the designer's "factory" and he is busy working in all of them to create each new living being.Granted a "designer" may have created initial life to be able to reproduce itself so it wouldn't have to work in eggs and wombs from now till eternity. It may even be POSSIBLE that we are programmed through our initial design to have some "endpoint".But that teleology is not obvious, while the constant creation of new life without the immediate help of a hands-on designer (with an intended end "model" in mind) is obvious. You can keep saying that as many times as you want to, but that doesn't make it so. Show me how I misinterpreted the article by dembski that I referenced. It makes no distinctions about evolution and darwinian evolution.In it he is clearly talking about logical argument itself, which is applicable to ANY topic. He is arguing for the legitimacy of negative arguments as positive proof for one's own position. And he also argues that one can argue for "pragmatic" impossibility, which is to be differentiated from theoretical impossibility (which even I agree is impossible to argue).Please respond to this in asome real way. Like why not actually read the article I referenced?------------------
holmes

Hey don't confuse ID theorists with their followers (who apparently can't read either, since I have yet to see one understanding Demsbki).ID theorists like Dembski and Behe and Wells and maybe even Johnson are okay spellers and fine with grammar. In fact, it could be argued that Debski is overachieving in his spelling and grammar. Frankly, I think he uses a thesaurus even for simple words like "the".I think Mr.Hambre did a fine job as an ID theorist.Now, someone give him his honorary ID science diploma and make sure his straight jacket is tailored to match the official institute's "design".------------------
holmes

You just don't seem to get it. The quote you posted is exactly what I have been saying all along, as well as what a few other ID critics have said.We DO get it. Dembski is not talking about arguments or evidence for the "logical" impossibility that an IC system had evolved.What he is talking about is the "pragmatic" impossibility of their evolution.Unfortunately, as has already been pointed out, such negative arguments are NOT proof or evidence for the correctness of ID.All that he can possibly argue is that a specific theory of how a particular IC system evolved is not likely. Even his mathematical calculations--- a laugh in themselves--- are only good if we assume that he knows exact conditions and mechanisms so that his calculations are realistic for any particular system.Please deal with the problems of his arguing for "pragmatic" impossibility, and stop pretending like I am saying "logical" impossibility.Here's an analogy to help. You (or Dembski and Behe) can say it is like the chance of water to form Mount Rushmore, for an IC system to have evolved... but that does not make a magical fairy designing whole or partial organic entities any more likely than water forming Mount Rushmore.And as I have already pointed out, ID theory NEVER deals with evolutionary theories that deal with nonrandom changes in biological entities.------------------
holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 07-23-2003]

The history of the example you just gave, should explain the problem in your reasoning (or that of the ID camp, if you are merely playing devil's advocate).It was NOT the people that ascribed illness to eternally "invisible presences", like demons or Gods, that eventually discovered microbial organisms were responsible. Neither were they discovered with the help of those who argued scientists (at the time) shouldn't bother seeking natural causes, and instead look for supernatural connections (like sin causing illness.If the techniques advocated by ID theorists--- or the logic you just set up--- had held sway, we might still have no explanation for illness. After all, the microbes seen under the scope could have ideologically been written off as piggy-backing on other "invisible intelligent entities" which actually cause the damage, or have designated that person for disease.And this is exactly what ID is doing today for scientific investigations into human origins. Teachers and scientists are being told that they should throw out their tools and restructure investigations so that "teleology" and "intelligent designers" are always left open as scientific explanations until ruled out (which they never can be by their very nature), or preferably be the default position (based on lame analogies).By the way, I believe you made a slight mistake in answering MrH's question. He asked "Isn't a philosophical question out of the realm of scientific enquiry?". "Realm of scientific enquiry" means the scope of science itself, not the current limits of technology or accumulated data. You seem to have equivocated between the two in your answer.If you don't understand what I mean, let me use an example. Let's say seismic readings suggest something "happened" at the very bottom of an oceanic trench. We might not have the physical means to find out exactly what happened due to the depth of the trench, but that does not remove the question of what happened from the realm of scientific enquiry.However the question of whether coral reefs are "built" according to the taste of Poseidon, IS beyond the realm of scientific enquiry.Uhmmm, while I'm at it let me note Mr.H made a mistake as well. Since science is a branch of philosophy--- natural philosophy--- scientific enquiry answers philosophical questions all the time. I believe what mr H meant to say is "metaphysical" questions. That is the branch of philosophy dealing with reality beyond the scope of the physical. IMHO, you did not make this case at all, or at least not a convincing one. Evolution in biology is similar to the evolution of ideas, therefore a force which has the capability of thinking might be influencing/driving evolution?First of all, just because something is like something else does not mean either are connected in any way. It feels like an analogy has once again escaped its boundaries, to become a description of reality.Second of all, anything that "adapts to the situation or environment" will be like something else which "adapts to the situation or environment". It doesn't seem that hard to find other examples in nature.How about the flow of water from a mountaintop? A river will do all sorts of changing based on changing conditions, to reach a lower level. or how about solar systems reacting/adapting to new gravitational/energy environments (like intruding planetary bodies). Maybe those are a stretch...How about societies? or even collectives of social organisms (like beehives and ant colonies)? It is very easy to see these colonies of organisms adapting to both internal and external changes, as if it was an intelligent entity separate from the beings which make them up. But it is simply the collective response of each individual organism which add up to a seeming "decision" or "change" being made by the collective.Lynn Margulis would probably have more examples along this line. Think symbiotic relationships. I actually loathe these kinds of questions and responses. Having to continually explain that a good analogy, or similarity, does not mean anything more than that is annoying to me.When people use analogies to avoid answering direct questions of how we can measure, or detect some phenomema--- a phenomena those same people raise as a "possibility" science MUST consider--- it usually means that THEY feel threatened.For example, I notice Warren has never answered any concrete question I have raised. Not even the very simple one of what we should do if everyon totally AGREED with him that there is reason to SUSPECT that ID exists.In the end that is the only important question to science. How do we move from "suspicion" to "knowledge" on a subject?It seems to me the only medium an ID culture can survive in, is one of suspicion. ID theorists can surprise me at any time by finally connecting the dots.------------------
holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 08-04-2003]

I totally agree with this necessary move on the part of ID theorists to make their theory scientifically credible.I have started a new thread topic in the "Intelligent Design" forum to pursue this very thing... leaving this thread for what it is supposed to be about (intelligence behind design).------------------
holmes

Although I am unaware of these "studies", this sounds true enough. I think many critics have already admitted there are no scientific reasons to dismiss the HYPOTHESIS of design.The problem is you have to move on from HYPOTHESIS to an experiment that can provide sounde evidence to support that hypothesis.Unfortunately ID has yet to produce a serious philosophically sound experiment. That's the beauty isn't it? They both APPEAR equivalent, but they are not, especially in the methodology of their EXPERIMENTS and RESEARCH METHODS. This is much more critical than methodologies of forming HYPOTHESES.Current ID methodologies involve producing claims that are untestable, or unfalsifiable. Unsupported? In some sense yes, but I will admit that IC systems provide some support for the HYPOTHESIS of ID, even if that support is incredibly shaky.I just opened a new topic thread within the Intelligent Design forum, addressing this very thing... moving from suspicion to evidence to support a design hypothesis. I would love to see you contribute to that thread.In fact, you should enjoy my first post as I answer your long put challenge to deliver a reason to suspect ID.------------------
holmes

Okay I take total responsibility for not making my argument clear enough... it was written late at night... but it seems like you ahd to avoid the examples I gave (which you requested) in order to make this comment about me.I was trying to say that drawing evidence or conclusions from your analogy or such analogies are philosophically unsound because all sorts of analogies like this can be made and to pick one over the other are arbitrary.Let me stick with one of the examples I gave.Evolution resulted in the development of human creativity. Yet human creativity has resulted in societies. These societies function as individuals separate from the humans which make them up.A society can be said to have a memory and a temperament and a way of functioning. In fact, societies can start molding the individuals that make them up, without a conscious effort from the individuals within. Furthermore, societies try to replicate themselves by affecting and interacting with other societies, as well as reproducing by moving to new areas.You decided to stop at the level of the humand mind and say that this indicates perhaps an intelligent force guides evolution.But that is to ignore the society. The colony. Perhaps it is not a singular intelligent force guiding things then, but a collective force.Then again maybe the collective is not the end either.Lynn Margulis has already extended the line of argument you have started and past the end point I have just done in stating "mindless society" as the force guiding evolution.One could just as simply say that it is an active Universe (objects in motion) which results in things having to continually adapt and those which do it best end up replicating. This does not take intelligence at all. And to pick one set of adapting and replicating things as the model of what must be driving the universe, seems as I said at the beginning... arbitrary. Well humanocentric anyway.Oh yes, and I should explain why constantly dealing with analogies tires me out. This is because we should be moving from them to evidence. Analogies are simple placeholders or shorthand to understand underlying evidence.A scientific theory cannot live by analogies alone... and my brain, in contemplating ID, is beginning to starve for real sustenance.------------------
holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 08-06-2003]

Don't put words in my mouth Barry. If you have read my posts you'll know I'm much more tolerant and flexible on ID than most.While I think currently there are no good arguments or evidence for ID, I do not think it is impossible to come up with scenarios that would be evidence for ID. I'm simply not for watering down science in order to make a particular theory more credible.Most of ID offends me because its leaders have decided to undermine science itself in order to have their way now Now NOW!!!! It seems if they really had some "faith" in their conclusions they wouldn't have to lobby congress and or campaign for an overthrow of coherent scientific methodology and philosophy. I mean any movement that calls for the overthrow of Occam's razor and the argument from ignorance should raise eyebrows in anyone that considers themselves a scientist.Anyhow, I have understood your argument. I get it that evolution has resulted in the human mind. But that is among other things.This is my point which you have not addressed.First, evolution is similar to other processes seen in an active universe where things must constantly adapt to changing situations in order to "survive". Why do we not address these as well?Second, out of evolution has come societies and social colonies. These are larger and perhaps more important than the individual human mind. That is depending on your point of view.You have chosen to look at the human mind as a product of evolution. That is the equivalent (using your own analogies) of focusing solely on the gas oven as a product of the human mind. There is much more than the human mind (or singular human creativity) which has come out of the PROCESS of evolution.I realize you are saying that it is not proof of ID. Perhaps not even evidence for ID? It certainly isn't evidence if you can't explain how to move from your observation to a point of knowledge.But if it is not proof, nor is it really evidence, what is it other than an exercise in thumb-twiddling, or mental masturbation? It may be fun for a while but it doesn't produce anything useful. Like trying to answer the question if there is an end to the Universe (where there may always be something beyond the end, if there is an end to be seen).So evolution has produced the human mind. The human mind (aka creativity or ideas) replicates itself similar to the way evolution involves replication.Maybe this means something? Maybe it does not. So where in SCIENCE do we go from here?All you have added is "IF there is an ID and it has replicated itself in human intelligence we must be able to find some evidence." I don't see how this is necessary at all. Maybe we could. But maybe not. The question would be what are we seeing that would indicate this.But why couldn't it just as easily be the force of collective will of Nature... i.e. Margulis' Gaia... that creates a biosphere, to continue replicating itself, with all sorts of offshoots (including ideas)? This doesn't even require intentional "design".Does this make more sense? Yes your "what if" may be there, but so are countless other "what ifs".This is not to be sarcastic, but in all honesty it only seems like a religion or a faith can take what you have advanced further than the interesting similarity or "analogy" that it is.------------------
holmes