Biological Evidence Against Intelligent Design

No you can't assume it is false. We agree. It remains a logical possibility. Along with all of the other near infinite unevidenced but logically possible and irrefutable explanations for said phenomenon. But are all possibilities equally likely?If an objectively un-evidenced claim is competing with another mutually exclusive and highly objectively evidenced alternative can we not rationally conclude that one is more likely to be true than the other?Even if the unevidenced claim remains unrefuted (and indeed quite possibly inherently irrefutable).

Well let's take the example of man's evolution by natural selection and random mutation. Is that scientific theory compatible with evolution by godly non-random caused mutation to intentionally result in humankind? Or are those ideas mutually exclusive in your opinion? Can we ever actually refute that there was such godly interference? If not should we be rationaly agnostic about such interference? Or is defacto atheism regarding the role of god in human evolution rationally warranted because we have a plausible and evidenced naturalistic alternative? It rules out a designer that designed things (e.g biological organisms) as they are now. I would argue that the current scientific theory of evolution by natural selection and random mutation rules out a god that had a very non-random end plan for the forms of life as well. So some designers are indisputably ruled out. Whilst others are maybe not. What is the role in of the most interfering kind of designer that it does not rule out in your opinion?What do you make of Micheal Behe's form of ID? Irreducible complexity at the molecular level. Can we disprove or refute that god designed life at the molecular level? Or are our arguments against this form of ID based on invoking more evidenced (and thus likely?) genuinely scientific alternatives rather than direct refutations?If we cannot actually refute godly interference at the molecular (or indeed any other) level should we be rationally agnostic about it? Or is it rationally OK to be defacto atheists about the role of god in directly guiding evolution if we have a plausible and evidenced naturalistic alternative explanation? Yes. That is effectively my question to you. If there is an evidenced naturalistic explanation for something is that mutually exclusive enough to rationally warrant that we reject the unevidenced IDistic alternative as "unlikely"?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

If the Pixies are suitably magical and choose to be undetectable you can't tell the difference. That is the point.As I understand it according to RAZD and CS we should therefore be logically agnostic about this possibility because it cannot actually be refuted. The evidenced mutually exclusive alternative is not sufficiant grounds upon which to dismiss the Pixie proposal as "very unlikely".As for me? - Well I am all for dismissing the Pixies as one possibility of an infinite number of equally unevidenced and evidentially nonsensical but nevertheless logically possible answers and going with the physically evidenced conclusions of science regarding aerodynamic lift.But let's hear what RAZ and CS actually say rather than take my word for it.

What are you suggesting as a viable alternative to random?Random is what we teach in science classrooms. So are you saying that we are teaching kids unevidenced philosophically biased evidentially groundless information when we tell them that evolution occurs by natural selection and random genetic mutation? Should we tell them about all of the logically possible alternatives to "random"?I know you are not an ID as science advocate. I know that. I am jusy trying to get you to think about this and what it means in practise. How do we rule out any deity of any sort imaginable doing anything imaginable? If suitably magical/powerful and undetectable then logically we can't rule it out. There are an infinite number of things that we cannot refute the irrefutable doing. So where does that leave us?I would argue it leaves any such claim in the defacto atheist "very unlikely" category. But what do you think? Well isn't that something of a problem if you want to invoke the supernatural to explain some things and not others? Sorry.............(ish )Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Oh come now. The designer(s) move in mysterious ways. Mere humans are incapable of comprehending or sometimes even recognising the great plan.

Well if we accept evolution by natural selection and random mutation what active role does this designer play in designing biological life? Well amen to that. Are you saying that absence of evidence is evidence of absence in this case? Are you a pseudoskeptic with regard to a designer continualy and actively guiding evolution? Can you prove that there isn't a designer continualy and actively guiding evolution? Aren't these the things you accuse me of when I say exactly what you are saying here when people start invoking undetectable entities to explain other aspects of nature? Then on what basis did you just say you would meet any such claim with doubt? Do you consider a supernatural undetectable designer continually guiding evolution to be more or less likely than the naturalistic, evidenced and mutually exclusive alternative? Namely natural selection and random mutation.Is it rational to consider both equally probable? Or is one evidentially superior and thus to be considered more likely to be true? I am saying that any designer actively interfering or directing evolution has been refuted to all practical intents and purposes. Regrdless of the fact that we cannot disprove this claim. Effectively refuted by the acceptance of evolution by natural selection and random mutation. A mutually exclusive evidenced alternative.The scientific conclusion remains tentative. Not proven. As is always the case with regard to evidence based conclusions.
The un-evidenced supernatural conclusion has not been disproven. Thus it remains a logical possibility. As do all other irrefutable possibilities.On this basis I would say that the scientifically evidenced conclusion should rationally be regarded as considerably more probable. And that the unevidenced supernatural conclusion has been refuted to all practical intents and purposes. Thus rationally we would be defacto atheists with regard to the evolutionary process being continually guided by the supernatural agent in question.Do you agree? Or not? Which is exactly what I am doing. But are all possibilities equally likely? Well I don't KNOW either. But are you seriously suggesting that the scientificaly evidenced possibility is no more or less likely to be true than any other?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Biological evidence by definition cannot disprove irrefutable forms of ID. But since when did disproving the undisprovable become a requirement of science? Biological evidence can constitute evidence against the role of an Intelligent Designer in biological processes.Based on the evidence we have concluded evolution by means of natural selection and random mutation. This conclusion is mutually exclusive to the claim that evolution occurs by means of non-random purposeful interference acted out by an undetectable supernatural agent. Or any other similar such inherently irrefutable claim.The scientific conclusion remains tentative. Not proven. As is always the case with regard to evidence based conclusions.
The un-evidenced supernatural conclusion has not been disproven. Thus it remains a logical possibility. As do all other irrefutable possibilities.On this basis I would say that the scientifically evidenced conclusion should rationally be regarded as considerably more probable. And that the unevidenced supernatural conclusion has been refuted to all practical intents and purposes. Thus rationally we would be defacto atheists with regard to the evolutionary process being guided by the supernatural agent in question. No biological evidence against intelligent design? How can evidence in favour of a mutually exclusive alternative not be considered evidence against intelligent design? Are you not conflating disproof with scientific forms of refutation? Scientific refutation in the sense of being effectively disregarded in favour of mutually exclusive and evidentially superior alternative theory.

Obviously biological evidence (the topic of this thread) cannot refute a designer that has no role in biology. As you well know I would argue that the body of empirical knowledge humanity has amassed as a whole would strongly support the unlikelihood of a supernatural designer having any role to play in explaining any aspect of nature. But that is a wider argument that we are not having here. Let's just stick to biological evidence and what this says about the role of an undetectable designer in the biological process.Taking evolutionary biology as our example we can consider the claim being made here that unless something has been disproven it remains unrefuted.You, I and everyone else taking part in this thread agree that evolution by means of natural selection and random mutation is a scientific fact. We have all stood side by side in numerous threads telling those who wish to disrupt the education of this scientific fact that they do not have an evidential or logical leg to stand on.Yet we cannot prove that evolution occurs by means of random mutations. We cannot disprove the claim that there is in fact some undetectable entity directing evolution to some planned end. Yet these two propositions are mutually exclusive. So if we consider natural selection by means of random mutation to be almost certainly true then conversely we must also consider evolution by non-random directed supernatural guidance to be almost certainly false. We are all defacto atheists (yes the dreaded 6 on the Dawkins scale) regarding a supernatural designer that is guiding evolution along some sort of pre-planned script.So I ask you — Are we all pseudoskeptics with regard to the undetectable designer continually guiding evolution? Are we teaching our kids to be pseudoskeptic defacto-atheists towards the logical possibility that there is in fact a supernatural guiding hand behind every genetic mutation? Are we unjustified in teaching evolution by means of natural selection and random mutations as a scientific truth?The idea that we must directly disprove something before we can consider it refuted to all practical and scientific intents and purposes is nonsensical, impractical and not even applied consistently by those who advocate such a stance.Frankly it is a stupid argument.

I want you to consider why you think some wholly unevidenced designers as reasonable whilst condemning others as "ridiculous". Despite them being evidentially identical.You, I and everyone else taking part in this thread agree that evolution by means of natural selection and random mutation is a scientific fact. We have all stood side by side in numerous threads telling those who wish to disrupt the education of this scientific fact that they do not have an evidential or logical leg to stand on.Yet we cannot prove that evolution occurs by means of random mutations. We cannot disprove the claim that there is in fact some undetectable entity directing evolution to some planned end. Yet these two propositions are mutually exclusive. So if we consider natural selection by means of random mutation to be almost certainly true then conversely we must also consider evolution by non-random directed supernatural guidance to be almost certainly false. We are all defacto atheists (yes the dreaded 6 on the Dawkins scale) regarding a supernatural designer that is guiding evolution along some sort of pre-planned script.So I ask you — Are we all pseudoskeptics with regard to the undetectable designer continually guiding evolution? Are we teaching our kids to be pseudoskeptic defacto-atheists towards the logical possibility that there is in fact a supernatural guiding hand behind every genetic mutation? Are we unjustified in teaching evolution by means of natural selection and random mutations as a scientific truth?The idea that we must directly disprove something before we can consider it refuted to all practical and scientific intents and purposes is nonsensical, impractical and not even applied consistently by those who advocate such a stance.Frankly it is a fucking stupid argument. Why is it any more ridiculous than any other supernatural intervention? Who decides what is ridiculous and what is not? What objective criteria do we apply to determine "ridiculousness"? Well you are wrong. I can only say that I don't believe in evidential certainty so many times. Here is my favourite quote (yet again):Berrtrand Russel - "To my mind the essential thing is that one should base one's arguments upon the kind of grounds that are accepted in science, and one should not regard anything that one accepts as quite certain, but only as probable in a greater or a less degree. Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality".How can you know this with absolute certainty? How can you completely rule it out? You haven't disproved it! You have found a highly evidenced mutually exclusive and superior alternative. But that isn't disproof. It seems that is you and not me who is the actual pseudoskeptic here.I would say this possibility was desperately unlikely to the point of uterly irrelevant. But in a philsophical sense I would still say it was a possibility. Defacto atheist. 6 on the Dawkins scale. But not a pseudoskeptic.Enjoy.

Your relentless insistence that we falsify unfalisifiable claims before considering them to be refuted to all practical intents and purposes is flawed.You, I and everyone else taking part in this thread agree that evolution by means of natural selection and random mutation is a scientific fact. We have all stood side by side in numerous threads telling those who wish to disrupt the education of this scientific fact that they do not have an evidential or logical leg to stand on.Yet we cannot prove that evolution occurs by means of random mutations. We cannot disprove the claim that there is in fact some undetectable entity directing evolution to some planned end. Yet these two propositions are mutually exclusive. So if we consider natural selection by means of random mutation to be almost certainly true then conversely we must also consider evolution by non-random directed supernatural guidance to be almost certainly false. We are all defacto atheists (yes the dreaded 6 on the Dawkins scale) regarding a supernatural designer that is guiding evolution along some sort of pre-planned script.So I ask you — Are we all pseudoskeptics with regard to the undetectable designer continually guiding evolution? Are we teaching our kids to be pseudoskeptic defacto-atheists towards the logical possibility that there is in fact a supernatural guiding hand behind every genetic mutation? Are we unjustified in teaching evolution by means of natural selection and random mutations as a scientific truth?The idea that we must directly disprove something before we can consider it refuted to all practical and scientific intents and purposes is nonsensical, impractical and not even applied consistently by those who advocate such a stance.Frankly it is a fucking stupid argument. Nothing but a retreat into the gaps. Do you consider the deity of the gaps argument to be evidentially and logically sound?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

In a thread about biological evidence we are not going to be able to refute anything other than the role of a designer in biological processes.But that doesn't mean that the "principle behind a whole suite" of related hypotheses cannot be refuted (not disproven) by a more generic form of the same arguments.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Thank fuck for that. I thought that was the whole point of the Pseudoskepticism and logic thread. I also thought you subscribed to that argument. I am truly delighted to hear that this is not the case. Likewise. One more? Surely an acceptance of evolution by natural selection and random mutation has ruled out the entire class of designers that are interfering in the biological process? In fact if we accept the modern Darwinian synthesis as scientific fact what biology related role remains for a designer to fill? Abiogenesis of some sort?Isn't this elimination of specific roles for designers the very definition of a god of the gaps argument? Do you think the god of the gaps argument is evidentially and logically sound? I'm not even attempting to do that. The fact that evolution or biological evidence alone cannot refute a designer in general doesn't mean that this cannot be done by considering evidence more generally.The same thinking regarding mutually exclusive evidenced alternatives and not needing to actually disprove the disprovable to refute it to all practical intents and purposes can be applied to evidence more widely to refute the role of a designer more generally.But that is another discussion.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

The more generic arguments against ID that I am talking about involve considering the evidence that supports the conclusion that the very concept of an intelligent designer is a human construct. The evidence that is mutually exclusive to (but which cannot disprove) the existence of a designer. The evidence that suggests that when faced with the appearance of design mankind’s natural inclination is to invoke a designer of some sort. The evidence that suggests that we are psychologically predisposed to seeing patterns, meaning and intent in nature where none exists. The evidence that shows we are prone to taking our own ability to create, design and consciously act out our intentions, and to project this onto inanimate objects and mindless physical processes.The anthropological evidence that suggests that all cultures invoke the supernatural to deal with aspects of mortality and to explain seemingly inexplicable natural phenomenon. The historical evidence that shows the various gods have been first amalgamated and then beaten into the dark shadows of ignorance until all that remains are the deistic gods under consideration here. Gods that are nothing more than gods of the gaps.But those arguments are beyond this thread. If we accept evolution by means of natural selection and random mutation what biological role is left for any designer?Surely that is the question posed in this thread? If you get beyond the need to disprove the undisprovable and recognise the evidence in favour of the conclusion that that the very concept of an intelligent designer is a human construction then the generic form of those aguments makes perfect sense.If one is determined to cling onto ones designer on the basis that it cannot be disproved then one is really only different in terms of scale to a creationist in terms of denial of evidence.

My argument in this thread is that biological evidence precludes rational belief in a designer that is involved in biological processes.My argument against a designer in general is the evidence in favour of the conclusion that humans have created the very concept of a supernatural designer. That we are prone to invoking supernatural designers wherever we see the appearance of design.It is not simply refuting individual designers and extrapolating that conclusion in the way you are suggesting.But - again - that is not the topic of this thread. No. It is you who is essentially making a god of the gaps argument. Do you think the god of the gaps argument is evidentially and logically sound?In this thread I have simply restricted myself to showing that acceptance of the modern Darwinian synthesis precludes notions of a designer that are inconsistent with that. Despite them being irrefutable in a logically disprovable sense.In effect showing that scientific refutation and logical disproof are not the same thing. If you consider evolution by natural selection and random mutation to be evidenced and thus true beyond all reasonable doubt, then conversely you must consider any mutually exclusive alternatives to be false beyond all reasonable doubt.I simply apply the same probabalistic thinking to evidence in favour of the very notion of a supernatural designer being either a human invention or a real entity.But - again - that isn't the topic of this thread. But - again - the thinking, logic and form of evidence remains the same in either case.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I didn't say a generic form of the same arguments. I said evidence of the mutually exclusive alternative. Namely evidence in favour of the conclusion that the very concept of a supernatural designer is a human invention.My son's take on the world tells us a lot about human nature. When the car needs gas it is hungry. When the car won't start it is because it isn't feeling well and needs to rest. Night occurs because the Sun gets tired and needs to go to sleep. When I recently sat on the TV remote and shot the volume through the roof he decided that the TV was angry and shouting because nobody was listening to it. Rain is caused by sad clouds crying. Wind is caused by the air wanting to get from one place to another. etc. etc. etc. He is perfectly capable of grasping the fact that some things just happen. But this explanation is way down the list and he intuitively imbues pretty much everything with human-like motives, desires, emotions and conscious intent.It is this same thinking that lies behind belief in fertility gods, harvest gods and Sun gods. It is this that lies behind the tribal sacrifice to appease the volcano god, the attributing of thunder and lightening to Thor and his hammer or the conclusion that the wrath of Zeus has been incurred when an Earthquake (or whatever) occurs. Ultimately it is this same form of thinking that lies behind the generic supernatural designer with his unspecified design role in some unspecified aspect of nature that is being
vaguely advocated here.No matter how appealing you may find belief in this designer and no matter how un-falsifiable you may make him to protect this belief from argument the facts are against you. Every shred of evidence we have, every abandoned and disregarded supernatural explanation for any aspect of nature, points
towards the conclusion that a supernatural designer of any sort is simply a further manifestation of this same thinking. The highly evidenced fact that we as a species are very bad at accepting that things just randomly happen.My son is 3. Others here don't have this excuse. Random shit happens.