Does ID predict genetic similarity?

This logic is not correct. The hierarchical organization of matter into planets, solar systems, galaxies, clusters and superclusters, observed universe [interstellar neighborhood deliberately omitted] is consistent with a designer who appreciates that particular organization, but it is not supportive of any such thing because it is not unique to a universe without a designer. In fact, for it to be supportive of the idea, you would need some significant hypotheses that are ruled out by such an order.

It is valid logic. Perhaps not as scientific evidence, but it is valid as a philosophical argument. This is basically how the conversation went.

Evo: "There is no reason to believe that a designer would create organisms so that they fell into a nested hierarchy."
ID: "Well, maybe the designer appreciates order and systematic organization."
Evo: "What makes you think that?"
ID: "All the examples, outside of biology, of order and systematic classification."
Evo: "True, I guess if there was a designer he could also design biological systems in an orderly, systematic fashion." (OK, so I made this last part up , but it should be a logical conclusion)

So, I believe there is a philosophical reason that a designer would create organisms so that they fell into a nested hierarchy.

Now, if ID tried to promote that philosophical concept to say "If there is a designer, then we should see order and systematic organization throughout the universe." (that would be the ID prediction) your comments would definitely apply. I made no such prediction.

While you may be able to artificial construct a counter example, I would submit that such a counter example is not an actual theory about which there is any debate.

I'm sorry, maybe this is just a matter of semantics, but the way this statement is phrased, it sets the rules for any counter example and then uses those rules to disqualify it. It says that any counter example is automatically an artificial construct and therefore cannot be an actual theory. I see these types of arguments from creationists all the time and they are annoying. A better way to phrase this would be "Sure you could come up with a counter example, but I would submit that any such counter example would be artificially constructed and therefore not an actual theory about which there is any debate." idk, maybe I'm just being petty, I knew what you were saying ... but I just don't like arguments phrased like that.

If you think about it, any classification system is "artificial" in that it depends solely on the criteria specified to define the classification system. Sure we try our best to classify things in a "natural" way, but we have to define what that "natural" system is. I would suggest that the problem with counter examples, whether natural or artificial, are that they are not predictors but merely observational explanations.

And yet no ID proponent or creationist would ever accept the argument that examples of unorder and unsystematic, or seemingly illogical choices, that might be indicated as consistent with evolution, are counter examples to a designer or creator.

I would say it goes both ways though. No proponent of evolution would ever accept the argument that examples of order and systematic, seemingly designed products are counter examples to a random, unguided process. We need predictions that are required of one explanation but incompatible with the other. The purpose of this thread is that I want to find out if ID presents any such theories.

This question cannot be answered without making assumption that we can know the purpose, motivation, and limitations of the designer. By manipulating our assumptions, and by including an opportunity for the designer to deviate from any assumption at a whim, ANY state of existence can be accommodated as consistent with a designer. Given the unknowable nature of the designer, it seems unlikely that we could ever find a construction or quality that would strongly support detecting the designer through the designs. We wont find any tool marks that we might find on an arrow head.

But you are making the assumption that we cannot know or discover the qualities of the designer. There are philosophical reasons to accept the existence of an intelligent designer that brought life to this planet. There are philosophical reasons to believe we can discover the character of the designer. The challenge for ID proponents is to find a way to bridge the gap between philosophical rationale and scientific theory. A daunting task indeed, one that you are suggesting is impossible.

BTW, as of this point, I have not found enough reason to support Intelligent design from a scientific perspective. Maybe that will change in time, maybe not ... idk. I am pretty much taking the devil's advocate position on the subject just to generate some discussion. However, I must also admit that from a philosophical perspective, I do support ID but I am unable to turn that philosophical ideology into a scientific approach, and in fact, I am skeptical that it can be done ...

Hi herebedragons,

Evo: "There is no reason to believe that a designer would create organisms so that they fell into a nested hierarchy." ID: "Well, maybe the designer appreciates order and systematic organization." Evo: "What makes you think that?" ID: "All the examples, outside of biology, of order and systematic classification." Evo: "True, I guess if there was a designer he could also design biological systems in an orderly, systematic fashion." (OK, so I made this last part up , but it should be a logical conclusion)

What I would say would be:

Evo: "There is no reason to believe that a designer would create organisms so that they fell into a nested hierarchy."
ID: "Well, maybe the designer made things so that order and systematic organization would occur."
Evo: "What makes you think that?"
ID: "All the examples, outside of biology, of order and systematic classification."
Evo: "True, I guess if there was a designer he could also design biological systems so that order and systematic organization would occur."

Of course anything that is not ruled out by empirical objective evidence could occur, and this runs into the problem of not being falsifiable, and hence not capable of being scientifically tested.

So, I believe there is a philosophical reason that a designer would create organisms so that they fell into a nested hierarchy.

Indeed, for me the question Is ID properly pursued? concludes that it is a philosophical pursuit that uses science to investigate these issues, but isn't itself science.

BTW, as of this point, I have not found enough reason to support Intelligent design from a scientific perspective. ... However, I must also admit that from a philosophical perspective, I do support ID but I am unable to turn that philosophical ideology into a scientific approach, and in fact, I am skeptical that it can be done ...

An excellent position, imho.

Enjoy

Thanks RAZD

Indeed, for me the question Is ID properly pursued? concludes that it is a philosophical pursuit that uses science to investigate these issues, but isn't itself science.

I remember you referencing that thread before and I believe I did look it over. I am sure it had some effect on how I think about ID, but I can't recall any particulars right now. I will go back and read it over when I get a chance.

HBD

But does common descent actually predict aspects like parallel evolution or convergent evolution or is this an explanation of an observation? If a common ancestor was designed or "pre-programmed" with certain genetic traits it would be predictable that the trait would arise in separate lineages.

We observe that different species have different adaptations for the same function. For example, the design of the bird and bat wing are very different, but they serve the same function. The explanation for this observation is convergent evolution where the same selective pressures acted on different ancestors to produce different solutions to the same problem.

As to the second part of the quote, we don't see the same trait evolving independently in different lineages. What we see are htings like the bird and bat wing. These are superficially similar adaptations, but they differ drastically in the details.

I would also suggest that [cosmological bodies] are indeed organized based on shared characteristics as well as scale.

I would be very interested in seeing how this works. For example, do we put the Sun and the gas giant planets in the same group because they share the characteristic of being made out of gas? Do we put the moons of Jupiter and the Earth in the same category because they are made of rock? It would seem to me that there is no way of producing single ranked system based on shared characteristics. However, we can do that with life. As talkorigins puts it:

quote:

---

Although it is trivial to classify anything subjectively in a hierarchical manner, only certain things can be classified objectively in a consistent, unique nested hierarchy. The difference drawn here between "subjective" and "objective" is crucial and requires some elaboration, and it is best illustrated by example. Different models of cars certainly could be classified hierarchically—perhaps one could classify cars first by color, then within each color by number of wheels, then within each wheel number by manufacturer, etc. However, another individual may classify the same cars first by manufacturer, then by size, then by year, then by color, etc. The particular classification scheme chosen for the cars is subjective. In contrast, human languages, which have common ancestors and are derived by descent with modification, generally can be classified in objective nested hierarchies (Pei 1949; Ringe 1999). Nobody would reasonably argue that Spanish should be categorized with German instead of with Portugese.

The difference between classifying cars and classifying languages lies in the fact that, with cars, certain characters (for example, color or manufacturer) must be considered more important than other characters in order for the classification to work. Which types of car characters are more important depends upon the personal preference of the individual who is performing the classification. In other words, certain types of characters must be weighted subjectively in order to classify cars in nested hierarchies; cars do not fall into natural, unique, objective nested hierarchies.

Because of these facts, a cladistic analysis of cars will not produce a unique, consistent, well-supported tree that displays nested hierarchies. A cladistic analysis of cars (or, alternatively, a cladistic analysis of imaginary organisms with randomly assigned characters) will of course result in a phylogeny, but there will be a very large number of other phylogenies, many of them with very different topologies, that are as well-supported by the same data. In contrast, a cladistic analysis of organisms or languages will generally result in a well-supported nested hierarchy, without arbitrarily weighting certain characters (Ringe 1999). Cladistic analysis of a true genealogical process produces one or relatively few phylogenetic trees that are much more well-supported by the data than the other possible trees.
http://www.talkorigins.org/...section1.html#nested_hierarchy

---

From my point of view, cosmological bodies would suffer the same problem as cars when it comes to organizing based on shared characteristics.

Magic implies human attempts to influence events by spells, incantations, etc. And while I am sure there are some that treat the supernatural as magic, there is a distinction. If you merely mean that supernatural events are outside of scientific understanding or detection, then I totally agree.

Magic implies the supernatural. That is what it has always implied. It is MEANT to be kept outside of any attempt to test or verify. Calling something "supernatural" is just another way of saying "don't question it".

Sure there are compelling reasons to believe that evolution occurred, but I don't think that evolution answers all questions about our existence. Perhaps you do, but I sure don't. That doesn't mean that I think we need to appeal to the supernatural to explain something in the natural world we don't understand, but how can we dismiss the possibility outright?

Why should we consider it in the first place? Simply because it could be true? If so, then why not hold a belief in a 2 minute universe that can not possibly be supported by anything other than dogmatic belief alongside the evidenced based conclusion of a 13+ billion year old universe?

Why not start from a position with no beliefs, and then follow the evidence?

ID: "Well, maybe the designer appreciates order and systematic organization."

This is the objectionable part. This is not a conclusion reached logically; what you have done is simply attribute what is already known to a designer to whom you ascribe a desire to do things as you find them.

Thus your sentences are merely consistent and not supportive.

It says that any counter example is automatically an artificial construct and therefore cannot be an actual theory.

No, it does not. In essence I am saying that an ordered arrangement would exist with or without a designer, hence order is not evidence for a designer.

No proponent of evolution would ever accept the argument that examples of order and systematic, seemingly designed products are counter examples to a random, unguided process.

Not so fast.
For one thing, 'seemingly designed' is a meaningless term.

Scientists expect an ordered system to result from common descent and we know that certain deviations from order cannot possibly result from evolution. On the other hand, there is absolutely no design that cannot be created at a whim.

If you think about it, any classification system is "artificial" in that it depends solely on the criteria specified to define the classification system.

You seem to be arguing my position rather than your own.

If you think about it, any classification system is "artificial" in that it depends solely on the criteria specified to define the classification system. Sure we try our best to classify things in a "natural" way, but we have to define what that "natural" system is.

This is one of my pet peeves, along with "that's just an assumption."

The fact that classification systems (and assumptions) are "artificial" (I would use the term "models" instead of "artificial") does not automatically make them wrong, or even suspect.

They may very well be wrong, and in need of correction or refinement, but it is an annoying habit of creationists and others who oppose the results of scientific investigation to use "assumption" and "classification systems" so as to imply they are wild-ass guesses. This is usually done because scientific investigations lead to conclusions which contract scripture, dogma, religious belief, etc.

If one disagrees with either a classification system or an assumption, one should be able to show precisely where it is incorrect, and propose some idea of an alternative. For example, DNA research is showing that some branches of our classification system are wrong, and it is showing where these branches should instead be placed. That is the correct way to do things.

But to claim or even imply that because these models are "artificial," or based on assumptions, that they are automatically incorrect is just plain sloppy reasoning--yet that is frequently the case in the creationist and ID literature.

Here are my thoughts on herebedragons's post.

In the first place, ID as a concept is so loosely defined that one cannot say what it predicts at all.

For example, the "mainstream" ID community (e.g., the Discovery Institute) defines intelligent design in this manner:
"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

However, this "theory" encompasses quite a lot, from cosmology to biology. Furthermore, it is not at all rigorously defined, which - as I stated previously - means that you can't make any real predictions.

Thus, if someone says that ID does or does not predict nested hierarchies in biological organisms, you would first have to define ID.

For example, the view that all species were intelligently designed doesn't predict a nested hierarchical pattern based on DNA sequences. On the other hand, front-loading does predict this precisely because it incorporates both intelligent design and evolution. In short, if we didn't see this nested hierarchical pattern in DNA sequences, front-loading would be effectively falsified (and so would the current theory).

While the global concept of ID doesn't make any true predictions, specific ID hypotheses do make testable predictions. For example, the ID hypothesis that "irreducible complexity can only arise through intelligent intervention" is quite testable. The hypothesis would predict that there are no non-teleological pathways to IC systems.

Conclusion:
Before we can make any statement about what ID predicts, ID as a scientific hypothesis must first be adequately defined.

Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.

Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.

Do you have any other ideas as to what predictions ID makes (in particular as compared to common descent)?

As I said above, ID as a concept doesn't make any predictions because it is so loosely defined. But I think that ID hypotheses do make testable predictions, and predictions that common descent does not make. For example, I've been fleshing out the details of a "rational design hypothesis" for the engineering of molecular machines, a hypothesis which I believe makes testable predictions. Some of my thoughts can be found in the Nature's Engines and Engineering thread.

Do you have any other ideas as to what predictions ID makes (in particular as compared to common descent)?

As I said above, ID as a concept doesn't make any predictions because it is so loosely defined. But I think that ID hypotheses do make testable predictions, and predictions that common descent does not make. For example, I've been fleshing out the details of a "rational design hypothesis" for the engineering of molecular machines, an ID hypothesis which IMHO makes testable predictions. Some of my ideas are summarized in the Nature's Engines and Engineering thread.

I know I have said this before, but one of my major disappointments with the ID movement is that it primarily focuses on finding flaws in the current biological paradigm instead of working on presenting a rigorous, testable ID hypothesis.

Ewps, a duplicate post. How embarrassing. Moderators, feel free to remove the older of the two posts.

I would suggest that the vagueness of ID is an intentional feature of the movement. ID was always intended as an alliance of anti-evolutionists, influencing the public to get their way, and to get around the First Amendment - if it were as obviously religious as the YEC "Creation Science" it would fail. Thus the official position has to be compatible with a wide range of views - including Young Earth Creationism - and to do so without being obviously religious.

The fact that this vagueness prevents ID from offering a real alternative to evolutionary theory is clearly acceptable to the ID movement. Clearly political considerations come before science or even honesty. For this reason I would suggest that anybody who is interested in scientifically investigating the possibility of "intelligent design" in life should choose a different label, rather than risk tainting themselves with association with the political ID movement.

I would suggest that the vagueness of ID is an intentional feature of the movement. ID was always intended as an alliance of anti-evolutionists,...

Per Kenneth Miller, in "Finding Darwin's God" (I think) - Michael Behe concedes the old Earth and evolution, including humans and the great apes having a common ancestor. Unfortunately, I didn't seem to put that in that topic.

I find Behe to be the intelligent design variety of a theistic evolutionist. I also find Behe to being the strongest supporter of ID, and that's not very strong.

Members may also wish to look over the Theistic Evolution vs. Intelligent Design topic.

Also, there is the Behe on organismal evolution topic.

Moose

Edited by Minnemooseus, : Not "thing", "think".

Edited by Minnemooseus, : Add last sentence and link.

We observe that different species have different adaptations for the same function. For example, the design of the bird and bat wing are very different, but they serve the same function. The explanation for this observation is convergent evolution where the same selective pressures acted on different ancestors to produce different solutions to the same problem.

So you agree that the ToE does not predict convergent evolution, but merely explains the phenomenon?

As to the second part of the quote, we don't see the same trait evolving independently in different lineages. What we see are htings like the bird and bat wing. These are superficially similar adaptations, but they differ drastically in the details.

Perhaps I should have said that the same trait evolves independently in separate taxa. Homoplasy is common and can make classification difficult as sharing a trait does not mean the organisms are directly related. My point is not that this disproves evolution or automatically make phylogenies wrong, it is simple that the ToE does not actually predict homoplasy, rather it allows them and explains them. Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, how does the ToE predict homoplasy?

From my point of view, cosmological bodies would suffer the same problem as cars when it comes to organizing based on shared characteristics.

Agreed. I will relent on this point. (it's not really the topic anyway)

Magic implies the supernatural. That is what it has always implied. It is MEANT to be kept outside of any attempt to test or verify. Calling something "supernatural" is just another way of saying "don't question it".

I agree that some use supernatural explanations as a synonym for "I don't know." It creates a dead end in learning. Where would we be if we thought that AIDS was produced by supernatural causes (which indeed some did)? We would have not tried to find a cure. But that is not my position at all.

When I was a kid I dug a hole in our backyard. It was about 4 foot deep so that I could almost completely stand up in it. I was convinced that just a few more feet and I would be through the Earth and into China. (But my mom found out about it and made me fill it in before I could complete the task). This is how I view searching for the supernatural with science; we say we have dug down 4 feet (maybe a better equivalent of our modern knowledge would be a mile deep) and we haven't found the supernatural yet, so there must not be any. And others say that with just a few more feet of digging we will find it. But, as much as we know about the universe, I don't think we have even scratched the surface.

So as far as science goes, I agree that science is the search for natural causes, not the search for supernatural causes. But philosophy is the search for answers to questions that science cannot answer. Science is NOT the end-all argument.

Why not start from a position with no beliefs, and then follow the evidence?

No one ever comes from a position of NO beliefs. Beliefs are foundational to our personalities, our attitudes, our behaviors. Everyone is indoctrinated with beliefs of one type or another at a very early age (some research suggest that our basic personalities and basic belief systems are formed by age 5). Some people cling to their beliefs more tightly than others. Some are willing to adjust or abandon their beliefs based on physical evidence.

Make no mistake that a person's philosophical views will influence one's scientific views and likewise; one's scientific views influence their philosophical views - they are never completely disconnected. What I disagree with is that one view should have the majority of influence over the other. Creationist hold that beliefs have decisive influence over science and are willing to deny the reality of scientific discoveries in order to maintain those beliefs. Philosophical naturalists hold that science (which by its very nature can only discover natural causes) should hold decisive influence over philosophical beliefs. My position is in the middle of those two extremes. I allow both views to influence the other.

But all this is really off topic. I don't need to justify the question "Does ID make predictions that the ToE does not?" That question does not even start with the assumption that there is an intelligent designer. It is asking a question about the "theory" of ID. Whether there are supernatural explanations or not is irrelevant. If ID is to be considered a legitimate science it needs to make predictions about physical evidence that we can discover and those predictions need to be contrary to what we expect to find with the ToE.

HBD

This is the objectionable part. This is not a conclusion reached logically; what you have done is simply attribute what is already known to a designer to whom you ascribe a desire to do things as you find them. Thus your sentences are merely consistent and not supportive.

It seems you are confusing scientific validity with philosophical rationale. I did not propose that line of reasoning as scientific support of ID or of a designer. You start with the assumption that there is no way to know the what the characteristics of an intelligent designer would be should one exist. I start with the assumption that the character of the designer would be revealed in his designs. You can deduce some of the character traits of Monet by studying his paintings - for example: he was fascinated by the effects that different lighting conditions have on landscapes. In the same way, we can deduce characteristics of the designer by studying his designs.

What is actually objectionable is assuming a designer in the first place, no?

No, it does not. In essence I am saying that an ordered arrangement would exist with or without a designer, hence order is not evidence for a designer.

Sorry, I knew what you were saying, I was just being nit-picky about terminology. However, I did not intend it to be scientific evidence for a designer. If I implied that, my bad. I think you misunderstood me though. RAZD didn't seem to take it that way as he would have corrected me on that gaff. I think you are confusing philosophical reasons with scientific reasons.

You seem to be arguing my position rather than your own.

That's probably because from a scientific perspective I probably agree with you on most things, but it seems where we disagree is philosophically.

Scientists expect an ordered system to result from common descent and we know that certain deviations from order cannot possibly result from evolution. On the other hand, there is absolutely no design that cannot be created at a whim.

Another reason it seems I am arguing your position. This was my assertion in the OP. So it seems you are arguing my position

------
Let me ask you this question, from a philosophical perspective (not requiring the burden of scientific proof). Which is a more logical position?

A. A random, unguided process brought all the laws of physics into existence and established the extreme order we observe in the universe, or

B. An intelligent being brought all the laws of physics into existance and established the extreme order we observe in the universe.

I choose 'B'. Now I ask where does this philosophy overlap with science? At this point I don't know. Maybe not at all. That is why I started this thread. Where does the philosophy of ID overlap with science? The place it would overlap would, by necessity, need to make specific predictions that are contrary to the predictions that the ToE makes. Otherwise, it is merely explanatory.

HBD

They may very well be wrong, and in need of correction or refinement, but it is an annoying habit of creationists and others who oppose the results of scientific investigation to use "assumption" and "classification systems" so as to imply they are wild-ass guesses. This is usually done because scientific investigations lead to conclusions which contract scripture, dogma, religious belief, etc.

I hope you didn't take this as my position as I wasn't trying to imply that classification systems were "wild-ass guesses" or that they were automatically wrong in any way. They are based on the criteria used to define them but I realize we do try to make that criteria mesh with reality. Any subjectivity that enters into this criteria would presumably be corrected over time. I like the term "model" and will use that from now on.

along with "that's just an assumption."

In the discussion I was having with a creationist that I mentioned in the OP, this is the argument he kept using over and over and over ... I gave specific examples of when it was perfectly logical to make an assumption, but he didn't want to hear those examples and just continued with the idea that all assumptions are illogical.