Biased accounts of intelligent design

Jedothek writes: I believe that the work of (e.g.) Stephen C. Meyer is science, as an unbiased reader will find by examining his arguments.

Meyer's work boils down to a God of the Gaps argument, one of the hallmarks of pseudoscience. If you think this is wrong, then point to any ID argument that doesn't boil down to "Evolution is false, therefore it was intelligently designed". It gets even worse when you look at Meyer's specific claims which many have turned out to be false (e.g. lack of pre-cambrian life and transitional forms).

ID is pseudoscience because it can't stand on its own. ID can't produce positive evidence for its own claims. I have never seen a scientist try to support the theory of evolution by saying "There is no evidence for intelligent design, therefore it had to evolve". Not once.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Sketches (if not fully elaborated expositions) of ID arguments that don't boil down to "Evolution is false, therefore it was intelligently designed" can be found at

https://www.discovery.org/...ligent-Design-Stephen-Meyer.pdf

I excerpt a brief passage to indicate the character of the arguments.

“I argued – based upon our uniform experience – that sequences that are both complex and functionally-specified (rich in information
content or specified information) invariably arise only from the activity of intelligent agents.
Thus, I argued that the presence of specified information provides a hallmark or signature of a
designing intelligence.”

Jedothek writes: “I argued – based upon our uniform experience – that sequences that are both complex and functionally-specified (rich in information content or specified information) invariably arise only from the activity of intelligent agents. Thus, I argued that the presence of specified information provides a hallmark or signature of a designing intelligence.”

Where is the evidence that supports this argument? How does one measure complex and functionally-specified sequences? How does one falsify his hypothesis?

For specific answers to your first and second questions, you would do better to consult Meyers’ writings than to listen to my attempts at paraphrase; but I shall offer an argument in the form of a hypothetical illustration that, I think, demonstrates something despite its hypothetical character. Consider:

Scenario I: Suppose that in 1835 ( I am altering history for the purposes of clear illustration ) archaeologists had dug up from the sands of Mesopotamia the first cuneiform tablets seen since ancient times. “Extraordinary,” says one scholar, “an unknown script. I shall copy these markings, publish them, and perhaps soon we shall decipher them and increase vastly our knowledge of ancient times.”
“Oh” scoffs a colleague, “what a fanciful notion. These are just natural formations, brought about by the action of wind and water.”
Who would be taken seriously? The second scholar would be laughed at and dismissed. Why? Because cuneiform, even to those who cannot read it, is clearly intelligently designed. The hypothesis of artifice would be the only one taken seriously.

Scenario II: biologists discover a bewildering array of complex structures and processes in the cell: Flagella, mitochondria, the genetic code itself. One biologist says, “This stuff looks intelligently designed to me.”
His colleagues respond with outrage. “That is unscientific” they yell, “intelligent design can never be a legitimate explanation in science. It is of the nature of science that we employ as hypotheses only natural processes.”

In one case intelligent design is considered to be the only sensible hypothesis; in the other case ID is considered out of the question. What is the difference between the two scenarios? There is only one answer: mainstream scientists believe in human beings ( the putative creators of cuneiform), and they do not believe in God. They know that intelligent design occurs sometimes, but they reject such an explanation whenever it would imply God’s existence. We are faced here with nothing more or less than a dogmatic prejudice against theism – masquerading, of course, as “objectivity.”

The moral of the story is that we often recognize design without trouble, but when the design hypothesis offends a cherished dogma – in this case, atheism – suddenly no amount of evidence for design is deemed sufficient.

With regard to your third question, Taq, it is true that intelligent design is hard to falsify. In the case of the cuneiform tablets, to show that they are not intelligently designed, one would have to provide a detailed scenario of how they might have been formed by geological processes, and preferably show through experiment that wind and water could form such things. You are welcome to raise the question of burden of proof if you wish, but I warn you that the issue is more complicated than any treatment I have encountered.

Jedothek writes: What is the difference between the two scenarios?

Cuneiform tablets look designed - they look like writing carved into stone.

Flagella, mitochondria or the genetic code itself (DNA) look natural.
They are all just natural things in their natural state. Nothing carved into them, nothing added to them, nothing removed. Just natural stuff doing natural things.

If you want to take something that looks natural and say it "looks designed!" to you - you're going to have to identify what you think "design" looks like.

Jedothek writes: Scenario I: Suppose that in 1835 ( I am altering history for the purposes of clear illustration ) archaeologists had dug up from the sands of Mesopotamia the first cuneiform tablets seen since ancient times. “Extraordinary,” says one scholar, “an unknown script. I shall copy these markings, publish them, and perhaps soon we shall decipher them and increase vastly our knowledge of ancient times.” “Oh” scoffs a colleague, “what a fanciful notion. These are just natural formations, brought about by the action of wind and water.” Who would be taken seriously? The second scholar would be laughed at and dismissed. Why? Because cuneiform, even to those who cannot read it, is clearly intelligently designed. The hypothesis of artifice would be the only one taken seriously. Scenario II: biologists discover a bewildering array of complex structures and processes in the cell: Flagella, mitochondria, the genetic code itself. One biologist says, “This stuff looks intelligently designed to me.” His colleagues respond with outrage. “That is unscientific” they yell, “intelligent design can never be a legitimate explanation in science. It is of the nature of science that we employ as hypotheses only natural processes.”

The difference is that we can observe new cells arising through natural processes. It's called biological reproduction.

The moral of the story is that we often recognize design without trouble, but when the design hypothesis offends a cherished dogma – in this case, atheism – suddenly no amount of evidence for design is deemed sufficient.

Evolution is not atheism. There are tons of Christians who accept evolution as the process by which live diversified.

With regard to your third question, Taq, it is true that intelligent design is hard to falsify. In the case of the cuneiform tablets, to show that they are not intelligently designed, one would have to provide a detailed scenario of how they might have been formed by geological processes, and preferably show through experiment that wind and water could form such things. You are welcome to raise the question of burden of proof if you wish, but I warn you that the issue is more complicated than any treatment I have encountered.

I can take a single bacterium and put it in broth. The next day I have billions of new bacteria, all through natural processes. ID falsified.

"The difference is that we can observe new cells arising through natural processes. It's called biological reproduction."

But here the new cell arises from one of equal complexity. The old cell, especially its nucleic acid, already has the structure that, to some, looks designed. The question is: how did that complex structure arise originally?

An analogue to your statement would be: “See, I have just photocopied the poem that we call ‘Ode to a Nightingale’; the copy was produced by an unintelligent machine working according to natural principles . Therefore, there is no need to suppose that there was some intelligent agent called a ‘poet’ who composed the poem originally.”

“Evolution is not atheism. There are tons of Christians who accept evolution as the process by which live diversified.”

This is subtly wide of the mark. Evolution might have happened according to various processes (“mechanisms”). But when atheists see indications of intelligent design, they react irrationally because they fear that the evidence will lead them to believe in a superhuman designer, often supposed to be God.

“I can take a single bacterium and put it in broth. The next day I have billions of new bacteria, all through natural processes. ID falsified.”

See my response to your first point.

Jedothek writes: But here the new cell arises from one of equal complexity.

You need evidence for this assertion.

But when atheists see indications of intelligent design, they react irrationally because they fear that the evidence will lead them to believe in a superhuman designer, often supposed to be God.

Fake mindreading is not a valid argument.

Jedothek: But here the new cell arises from one of equal complexity.

Taq: You need evidence for this assertion.

Jedothek: when organisms reproduce, the offspring, generally, is not any more complex that the parents. Are you denying this? If you are, then, on the the contrary it is you who need to give an example of increasing complexity in reproduction.

But when atheists see indications of intelligent design, they react irrationally because they fear that the evidence will lead them to believe in a superhuman designer, often supposed to be God.

A couple points.

- There is no evidence of intelligent design. The arguments for the proposition are theological and/or logically fallacious in nature.

- Opponents of intelligent design react negatively to it because its promoters were stupid enough to publish an outline of their goals and methods. Have you read the wedge document? Do you understand the problems associated with outlining a plan for the integration of your hypothesis into society broadly, and education specifically, which plan places "find evidence for hypothesis" after its implementation in said plan?

Isn't pediatric cancer evidence of poor design? Isn't 8.7 million species on Earth evidence of poor design?

Can I jump in this thread?

Actually, I had been contacting Meyer (and all camps against Evolution) to join forces with me since EVOLUTION, although it is totally wrong, has more models than the old ID as being supported by Meyer and Behe.

For example,
1. In the topic of change of species.. evolution model is evolution ..old ID? none
2. In the topic of origin of species...evolution is the model with its mechanisms...old ID? Creation?
3. In the topic of biological cell... evolution model is gradual formation, from simple to complex (Stupid Darwin reasoning)... in the old ID? complex or coded information
4. In the whole topic in Biology as complete theory? Evolution is the answer...old ID? none.

whereas in the new Intelligent Design ..

1. has universal boundary line between intel to non-intel...evolution? None! A must for science!!!
2. new id has universal limit of origin...evolution? none! A MUST for science!!!
3. new id model of origin is intellen creation... evolution?? evolution...no-intelligent change...test?? none!
4. Change of species? interrelation... evolution?? non-intel change...no test, thus, not science!
5. origin of species...interrelation with creation... evolution? change A to B? with no test? no science

Thus, evolution will never win against the new ID ... Meyer and all of you should know it or be forever defeated by Evolution!

Edited by MrIntelligentDesign, : No reason given.

Edited by MrIntelligentDesign, : No reason given.

Edited by MrIntelligentDesign, : No reason given.

whereas in the new Intelligent Design .. 1. has universal boundary line between intel to non-intel...evolution? None! A must for science!!!

Bullshit. You can't even define what this means. I don't believe you. Show me.

2. new id has universal limit of origin...evolution? none! A MUST for science!!!

Bullshit. You can't even define what this means. I don't believe you. Show me.

3. new id model of origin is intellen creation... evolution?? evolution...no-intelligent change...test?? none!

Yes. Creation. God. We know the liturgy. It's bunk.

4. Change of species? interrelation... evolution?? non-intel change...no test, thus, not science!

You lie. The science is exceptionally rich in evolution. The science is what found evolution and debunked your god.

5. origin of species...interrelation with creation... evolution? change A to B? with no test? no science

You lie. The science is exceptionally rich in evolution. The science is what found evolution and debunked your god.

Thus, evolution will never win against the new ID ... Meyer and all of you should know it or be forever defeated by Evolution!

You lost 250 years ago. Not gonna change. Not with your crap.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

whereas in the new Intelligent Design .. 1. has universal boundary line between intel to non-intel

Can you describe that universal boundary line between intel to non-intel for us please?

whereas in the new Intelligent Design .. 4. Change of species? interrelation... evolution?? non-intel change

So, can you explain why and how Primate front legs became arms and hands and why and how Pterosaur front legs became wings and why the wings do not look like airplane wings?

quote:

---

Actually, I had been contacting Meyer (and all camps against Evolution) to join forces with me since EVOLUTION, although it is totally wrong, has more models than the old ID as being supported by Meyer and Behe.

---

And Meyer et al will not be interested. They still wish to maintain the illusion that ID is a rational, scientific enterprise. Joining forces with you would only hurt that.

I can only repeat my earlier advice. Get psychiatric help.