Biological Evidence Against Intelligent Design

Phew! I am glad we sorted out that misunderstanding. When you say "agnostic" what do you mean? Are you saying that it is equally probable that this occurred by means of wholly natural processes as it is that it occured with some ID thrown in? So you would talk only about naturalistic answers. At the expense of any intelligent design possibilities. Pre-Darwin this is unlikely to have been the case. Thus I maintain that the evidence in favour of the ToE has refuted intelligent design to all practical intents and purposes.But what if the student in question asked you to hypothesise on an area of biological uncertainty? Would your less evidenced musings also restrict themselves to naturalistic answers? Or would you feel any need to mention intelligent design even as a possibility?You must see where I am going with this. If in the practical context of education (as opposed to bickering about logical possibilities on a debate forum) the ID possibilities do not even get a look in at the hypothesis level when considering gaps in biological knowledge how can one say that ID has been anything other than refuted to all practical intents and purposes? In effect a form of de facto atheism regarding ID prevails. Fair point. Yes. Good point. But how likely to be true do you consider the naturalistic answer (i.e. mindless physical processes) to be? How probable do you consider the role of conflicting designers to be? Is it so unlikely as to be irrelevant to all practical intents and purposes? But you must face that question indirectly every single time a student asks you about any gap in our knowledge. If at that point you restrict yourself to the naturalistic possibilities that are consistent with biological science and completely ignore any ID possibilities then in effect you are being a de facto atheist with regard to ID.Edited by Straggler, : Fix quotes

I used to be a school physics teacher who dreaded having to teach any biology at all. But I had to do it a few times. I don't know these experiments so I have looked thus up - Wiki on the Luria-Delbruck experiment

The conclusion that the universe is actually one week old is mutually exclusive to the conclusion that the universe is actually billions of years old. It cannot be both.The fact that omphalism is designed to be unfalsifiable does not change that discrepancy. Nor does it change the fact that the historical evidence strongly suggests that omphalism is the product of human invention. Like most human claims of the inherently unfalsifiable and unknowable all the evidence we have suggests that the entire concept of omphalism is a human invention.Don't tell me you too are now agnostic regarding omphalism?

Because the same can be said of jolly magical undetectable, unknowable and unverifiable Santa or the unknowable and unverifiable existence of the Easter Bunny. In fact it can be said about a near infinite arrayof things which I, nor I doubt you, are genuinely agnostic about. These things may exist. It is possible. But I would say desperately unlikely. Why do you consider the things that people make "serious claims about " to be any more or less likely to exist than things that they don't? Why is that your criteria when evidentially they remain identical?Anyway - I am asking you to seriously consider whether or not omphalism is evidentially different to the IPU, whether or not omphalisms is more or less likley to be true than the IPU and whether or not omphalism is thus any more or less worthy of your agnosticism than the IPU. So what do you say? Who decides whether a claim is "serious" or not? It may well be the more pragmatic one in terms of living a stress free life (I kinda envy you ambivelance). It may well be the most socially acceptable one. But it is not the most evidentially consistent one.You seem to consider agnosticism a social frame of mind rather than a position reliant on evidence. That is all very well. But it is not really the point in a thread about evidence is it? Nonsense. Omphalism (AKA Last Thursdayism) claims that the universe is less than a week old.If I use my Pixie dust to magic a fully formed tree into existence with a 100 years of tree rings perfectly consistent with having existed for a hundred years is it true to say that this tree has actually existed for a hundred years?Because that is all omphalism is. Except on a grander scale.Edited by Straggler, : SpellingEdited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I am utterly unprepared for the level of biological detail you are considering this at. I am broadly thinking in terms of naturalistic Vs non-naturalistic rather than specific detailed biological theories. Uncertainty - Absolutely. I don't claim to be certain about the absence of a supernatural designer at all. In fact I would go so far as to say certainty on such matters is rationally impossible. But I would say the involvement of a supernatural designer was very unlikely. And I would also say that this is an evidentially valid conclusion. I want to find out if you agree with this or not. But would that be evidentially valid? It is my argument that the long history of overturning supernatural answers with naturalistic ones along with the wider evidence that humans are prone to invoking design, conscious intent and the supernatural all wholly justify such a stance. In effect we operate in paradigm whereby the naturalistic possibility is always considered superior to the supernatural one. But the basis of this paradigm is not just an "absence of evidence" or "world view". It is wholly pragmatic and wholly evidenced. It is based on the the rampant success and positive evidence in favour of the naturalistic model over the supernatural alternative. What about saying that we can ignore it because we have a deeply evidenced and successful alternative mutually exclusive paradigm in which to operate? Is that not effectively evidence "against"? Then on what evidential basis are we justified in promoting naturalistic explanations at the expense of intelligent design ones? The answer (I think) is that biological evidence operates in the wider context of scientific evidence which in turn operates within the deeply evidenced as superior paradigm of methodological naturalism.The end result of this is that we are in practise de facto atheists with regard to the role of the supernatural in biological design. Not just in the trivial practical sense of taking the path of least practical resistence. But in the wholly evidentially justifiable sense of actually considering ID to have been refuted to all practical intents and purposes. Not disproved. But refuted by the superiority of the mutually exclusive naturalistic model within the bounds of scientific tentativity. But do you think that is evidentially justified? That remains my key question. Hopefully you can see why I think there is evidence against it that does not just amount to "absence of evidence is evidence of absence". Because in fact no claim or theory can every operate in a complete vacuum of all evidence. We have plenty of evidence on which to infer the likelihood that any gap in knowledge is more likley to be filled by mindless natural processes than supernatural intelligent designers. Hah! My pleasure! Which is why I am interested in your take on whether or not it is evidentially valid to concentrate on naturalistic possibilities at the expense of intelligent design possibilities when considering gaps in biological knowledge?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Very fair point. I am once again assuming that everybody is aware of the terminology used in a series of debates on similar subjects. My bad. We have generally used the Dawkins scale of belief as a reference. Obvioulsy replace God with whatever we are talking about here. For the record I would argue that the rational position with regard to omphalism is a 6 (de facto atheist). Where do you stand? Well exactly! The conclusion of omphalism that the universe has existed for less than a week remains wholly mutually exclusive with the conclusion of empiricism that the universe has existed for billions of years.It is exactly because of this mutual incompatibility that omphalism is required to make itself unfalsifiable by being being empirically irrefutable. But the means of making the conclusion doesn't change the fact that the two conclusions are mutually exclusive.Seriously how can you conclude both that the universe didn't exist last Wednesday whilst at the same time concluding that it has existed for billions of years? Without your head exploding?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Not really no. He simply takes into account the fact that certainty is not an option with regard to evidence based arguments and that de facto atheism is not a declaration of certainty. As Bertrand Russel put it: "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"Omphalism was a Young Earth Creationist invention derived such that they could conclude that the Earth was actually less than 10,000 years old (as dictated by the bible) regardless of what the scientific evidence might say to the contrary.So I ask you how long do you think the Earth has existed? Billions of years? Less than 10,000 years? Or both simultaneously?You cannot claim a high degree of confidence in the Earth being billions of years old whilst also claiming to be anything but a de facto atheist with regard to the conclusion that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old (or less than a week old in the case of "Last Thursdayism").The two conclusions are mutually exclusive. This is just indisputable.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : Spelling

It isn't. It is avoiding the question. How long do you believe the Earth has actually existed?

Fair enough. I think we need to distinguish between the likelihood of an intelligent designer that is itself the product of mindless natural processes and an intelligent designer that is inherently "supernatural" (whatever exactly that means - which we can come to if necessary).With regard to an advanced complex alien lifeform (for example) that itself evolved (or was otherwise derived from less compex origins and mindless physical processes) and that may have had some role in Earths biological design at the very early stages (abiogenesis sort of stuff)...........Well I am skeptical to be honest. But rationally I think I would say that a greater degree of agnosticism is justified in this case. There is no direct evidence for such a conclusion but there is relatively little against it either (I reserve the right to qualify this as I haven't thought about it that much).However with regard to the possibility of a supernatural designer? Well all the evidence available strongly implies that the entire concept of a supernatural designer is a human invention. And thus I remain deeply skeptical and advocate that this skepticism is evidentially justified Yes if the designer themselves is also subject to such laws.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Well if you believe that the Earth is billions of years old based on the empirical evidence you cannot claim to be agnostic about the omphalist claim that the empirical evidence is lying and that the earth is less than 10,000 years old can you?The two are blatantly mutually exclusive. Oh don't be so damn precious. Pointing out that you are wrong is not "bullying". The point you are missing is that omphalism is not claiming "metaphysical truth" (whatever that means anyway). Omphalism is claiming physical truth. Namely that the Earth\Universe has physically existed for less than 10,000 years.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Hey Mod How are we objectively determining complexity? One of the most common ID arguments is that X is too complex to have arisen naturally. Are we not in danger here of making the mirror image claim that Y is not simple enough to have occurred naturally?How are we objectively assessing complexity/simplicity and the boundary between that which can have arisen on it's own and that which cannot?I intuitively agree with Dawkins argument. But this concerns me.

Absolutely. I could not agree more. And have said so numerous times on multiple occasions. But if you believe the empirical conclusion that the Earth is probably billions of years old you can hardly also conclude that you are utterly agnostic towards the non-empirical omphalistic conclusion that it is less than 10,000 years old. Except in the trivial sense of not having absolute certainty. Which, as I have repeatedly stated, I also do not believe in. Here is Bertrand Russel on that yet again: "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"Absolutely. I could not agree with that more either. No. I am talking about your contradictory claims. On one hand you state confidence in the empirically evidenced conclusion whilst on the other you mainitain that you are wholly agnostic about a conclusion based on denying the validity of the empirical evidence.That is ridiculous. However you word it.

Oh. I have just seen this having already applied to nwr. Sorry.If he or anyone else wants to discuss omphalism further I will start a new topic. I think it is one of those subjects that gets the normally rational and evidentially sane into a mode of unthinking agnosticism for all the wrong reasons. For that reason it might be a worthwhile topic in it's own right.

What biological evidence is there against Intelligent Design? That was the question posed in the OP. The following is my answer.In every single practical sense evolutionary theory has refuted the Intelligent Design (ID) hypothesis. This does not mean that the role of ID in biology has been disproved. It remains a logical and philosophical possibility. But little more. Because the mutually exclusive and highly evidenced wholly naturalistic alternative is so successful in terms of explanation, prediction and evidential foundation that nobody beyond those with a religious agenda and those who choose to spend their time bickering on debate boards gives the philosophically possible role of ID in biology a second thought. Any role that can be claimed for an intelligent designer in the realm of biology has been refuted by Darwinism.No teacher of biology except those with a subjective religious agenda of some sort would consider it necessary to teach anything but that the species on Earth are the product of mindless natural processes. No educator except those with a religious agenda would feel the need to include in their syllabus the philosophical possibility of evolution that includes a bit of intelligent design thrown in here and there along the way. Perhaps more pertinent to this discussion is the fact that no serious biological researcher investigating as yet unexplained areas of biology (i.e. the much lauded gaps) is including the role of a supernatural designer in their hypotheses. Even those biologists working on the fringes of, or slightly outside, the modern Darwinian synthesis do not posit an un-evolved intelligent designer as a meaningful explanation to any as yet unsolved biological question (unless, again, there is an underlying religious agenda of some sort). ID has been all but eliminated by the modern Darwinian synthesis in every way that matters. In every way beyond philosophical musings. To all practical intents and purposes the world of biology is de facto atheist with regard to the role of an intelligent designer having any role in the design of biological systems. And the theory of evolution is indisputably responsible for this.But is this de facto atheism towards ID evidentially justified? Proponents of intelligent design would say NO. They would say that the fact that a wholly naturalistic form of evolution has been promoted at the expense of ID is the result of philosophical bias rather than evidence. They would say that those researchers exploring gaps in our knowledge are unjustified in considering and researching only naturalistic possibilities without also considering intelligent design as a meaningful and evidentially valid alternative. They would (notoriously) claim that teaching only naturalistic evolutionary biology whilst excluding intelligent design as a valid alternative possibility is a form of naturalistic indoctrination. Are they right? Are we evidentially justified in ignoring the possible intelligent design answers to gaps and in effect treating them as irrelevant and unworthy of serious consideration?I say yes. I say that the intelligent design hypothesis has demonstrated itself to be utterly worthless every single time it has been tested or examined. I say that the naturalistic answer has shown itself to be wholly superior at every available opportunity. I say that there is no contest or even debate beyond the philosophical. The success of evolutionary theory has been one of the most significant stepping stones towards the pre-eminence of the wider naturalistic paradigm. But it is far from the only step. The success of naturalism over superstition is founded upon, and evidenced by, the entirety of human history and the uni-directional flow of scientific advancement in the face of supernatural retreat. This forms an impressive and ever progressing wall of evidence against which any proposed intelligent design explanation must be considered.So what is the evidence against Intelligent Design? The evidence against intelligent design is all of the evidence in favour of a wholly naturalistic form of evolution. And that incorporates all of the evidence that supports the modern Darwinian synthesis and all of the evidence that supports the wider naturalistic scientific paradigm. The entirety of, and history of, human evidence based thought and knowledge. How much more evidence do you need?

Simplicity can breed complexity. In so far as there is any dispute at all that isn't it. In the context of deriving the "obviously" complex from the "obviously" simple - Yes. But when we are talking about immaterial entities (which I consider to have their own evidential problems) how can we measure complexity or simplicity? How can we meaningfully say that "God" is too complex to have been the first non-caused cause when we don't know what "complexity" is in any objective sense?Dawkins says that simple to complex is an evidenced and one way conclusion. And I agree intuitively. But it troubles me that we cannot objectively define what it is that is that is simple or complex in the context of this argument.Whether you agree or disagree do you see where I am coming from? And if I am being dum I suspect that there are others asking that same questions....Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.