Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
20 online now:
PaulK, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (2 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Happy Birthday: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,770 Year: 16,806/19,786 Month: 931/2,598 Week: 177/251 Day: 6/59 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Current status/developments in Intelligent Design Theory
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4077 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 1 of 112 (179619)
01-22-2005 10:32 AM


While there have been developments within evolutionary theory as well as other sciences, I was wondering what the current status is of the field of Intelligent Design?

This is particularly pointed toward those advocating Intelligent Design. I realize there are developments within the legal/political arena, but I am more interested in the scientific arena.

On the theoretical side, have there been any greater definitions or evidence of what objective complexity is? This would take the form of actual formulas and quantitative calculations/definitions.

On the practical side, have there been any more identified irreducibly complex systems, and this discovery promoting greater research/understanding of that system?

I am not being completely sarcastic with this. I haven't been reading any new ID info, and would like to know if there have been any changes within the field, or if it is remaining a static science.

If there have been no new developments as a science, is this reason for concern?

(I guess this subject belongs in Intelligent Design, though it could be in the Misc Topics thread.)


Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by mick, posted 05-28-2005 6:57 PM Silent H has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12620
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 2 of 112 (179622)
01-22-2005 10:38 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12620
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 3 of 112 (179625)
01-22-2005 10:42 AM


Setting the Ground Rules
I'd like to set one little ground rule up front. It will not be considered acceptable to argue, "The evidence for Intelligent Design is all around us," or, "You can tell just by looking at life that it is Intelligently Designed," or anything else of this form. Thanks!


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Silent H, posted 01-23-2005 5:29 AM Admin has not yet responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4077 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 4 of 112 (179855)
01-23-2005 5:29 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Admin
01-22-2005 10:42 AM


Re: Setting the Ground Rules
Absolutely agreed. I am not interested in vague descriptions of why people might have accepted ID, nor concrete descriptions of political advances.

What I want to discuss is ID as a scientific field. It is described as such by its proponents and science is by nature dynamic not static.

I was wondering what new research (theoretical or applied) is coming out of the ID camp. It doesn't even have to be earthshaking but presumably something is going on in the field besides making documentaries and books based on everything said 10 years ago.

If you are an IDist and do not know of anything going on, that is you are not keeping track, I would ask why you aren't interested in following it? If you are an IDist and know nothing is going on in the field, I would like to know if that seems troublesome?


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

"Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Admin, posted 01-22-2005 10:42 AM Admin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by CK, posted 01-23-2005 1:55 PM Silent H has not yet responded

    
CK
Member (Idle past 2385 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 5 of 112 (179950)
01-23-2005 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Silent H
01-23-2005 5:29 AM


Bump
Well I know we have plenty of people here who support ID, didn't want them to miss out on this.

so let's see who gets the ball rolling.....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Silent H, posted 01-23-2005 5:29 AM Silent H has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by CK, posted 01-23-2005 3:45 PM CK has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 112 (179970)
01-23-2005 3:43 PM


...tumbleweeds....
I predict that this thread will comprise entirely of "bumps" and "hello? Anybody posting here?" messages.

  
CK
Member (Idle past 2385 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 7 of 112 (179972)
01-23-2005 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by CK
01-23-2005 1:55 PM


Re: Bump
I guess I'll start us and see if anyone joins in:

A quick google turns up this site:

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/

quote:
We believe objectivity will lead not only to good origins science, but also to constitutional neutrality in this subjective, historical science that unavoidably impacts religion. We promote the scientific evidence of intelligent design because proper consideration of that evidence is necessary to achieve not only scientific objectivity but also constitutional neutrality.

The nearest thing I can find to an overview is this:

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/NCBQ3_3HarrisCalvert.pdf

It states that:

quote:
The central claim of ID theory is that design is empirically detectable. For most people, design detection is an intuitive process that occurs without any thoughtful deliberation.

This is nothing new and echos previous claims about intelligent design. In addition,there is lots of the normal "evolution is wrong in this way therefore".

I've looked around the site and the rest is equally as vague.

I've searched for a bit more on the internet but all the ID sites seem equally vague.

You IDers want to help the rest of us out?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by CK, posted 01-23-2005 1:55 PM CK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Admin, posted 01-23-2005 4:00 PM CK has responded
 Message 10 by Silent H, posted 01-23-2005 5:35 PM CK has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12620
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 8 of 112 (179977)
01-23-2005 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by CK
01-23-2005 3:45 PM


Re: Bump
Hi Charles,

Thanks for trying to kick things off. I wanted to respond to just this part in order to reclarify one thing:

Charles Knight writes:

The nearest thing I can find to an overview is this:

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/NCBQ3_3HarrisCalvert.pdf

It states that:

quote:
The central claim of ID theory is that design is empirically detectable. For most people, design detection is an intuitive process that occurs without any thoughtful deliberation.

The ground rules I set in Message 3 rule out arguments for ID of this type because they are not based upon evidence.

I can understand that some might object to a priori ruling out arguments of this type as being inherently unscientific, but before I could make concessions on this the point would have to be made successfully in the Is It Science? forum.

ID cannot point to any scientific field where the fundamental tenet was arrived at by "an intuitive process...without any thoughtful deliberation." ID must fulfill its claim to be science by the same standards used for all science, and not by making up special rules for itself.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by CK, posted 01-23-2005 3:45 PM CK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by CK, posted 01-23-2005 4:06 PM Admin has not yet responded

    
CK
Member (Idle past 2385 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 9 of 112 (179979)
01-23-2005 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Admin
01-23-2005 4:00 PM


Re: Bump
Thanks for that - I should have been more clear with my words - I hightlighted that section BECAUSE it represents the "it's all around us innit!" approach.

So I guess we will just wait for ID friends to help us out....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Admin, posted 01-23-2005 4:00 PM Admin has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4077 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 10 of 112 (179991)
01-23-2005 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by CK
01-23-2005 3:45 PM


Ugh... I hadn't seen the "network" before. I will note that they do say...

Intelligent Design is an intellectual movement that includes a scientific research program for investigating intelligent causes and that challenges naturalistic explanations of origins which currently drive science education and research.

So I guess it is no longer a scientific field, but happens to include a scientific program. All of the activities on the site provided no help regarding actual research, nor did it give information about the status of research.

I went to their link page and found a link to the institute of creation research. Given that ID theorists have been steadfast in denying that they have anything to do with creationists, that link is a pretty interesting piece of counterevidence to that claim. A veritable bone in the wrong strata.

Pressing for actual research info I saw there was a link to an Intelligent Design Undergraduate Research Center. I figure that would have to have some info on research (at least at the undergrad level).

But their project list had nothing yet, and their mission statement seemed to have some rather odd agendas. I list it here...

Mission Statement
The Intelligent Design Undergraduate Research Center (IDURC) is a student organization dedicated to:
1) investigating intelligent design as a viable scientific theory
2) promoting education and critical thinking about neo-Darwinism
3) supporting efforts of those trying to revise school standards to include discussion of the controversy surrounding evolutionary theory
4) providing a forum for high school and college students to present, debate, and discuss their ideas about intelligent design and neo-Darwinism
5) clarifying the debate concerning neo-Darwinism, intelligent design, and creationism
6) encouraging creative exploration of the aesthetic dimensions of design.

So there center really isn't a center but an organization, and they don't actually do research but work on spreading the gospel of ID, as well as exploring "aesthetic elements"? Now I wonder what that could be?

I guess that is how they will sneak in God, he'll be an "aesthetic dimension".

Yep, I would now be interested in an explanation of that, on top of any recent meaningful research which has been produced.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

"Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by CK, posted 01-23-2005 3:45 PM CK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Demosthenes Fan, posted 01-23-2005 6:39 PM Silent H has not yet responded

    
Demosthenes Fan
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 112 (180009)
01-23-2005 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Silent H
01-23-2005 5:35 PM


Their mission statement looks like a watered down regurgitation of the Wedge Strategy document. All they are missing is the governing goals that say that ID promises: “To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.” And then “To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.” :rolleyes: I see nothing new…maybe we will get some IDeists to step up to the plate. I won’t be holding my breath.


"He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife." ~ Douglas Adams

“I wish more people would shave with Occam's Razor.” Orson Scott Card


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Silent H, posted 01-23-2005 5:35 PM Silent H has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by CK, posted 01-24-2005 5:23 AM Demosthenes Fan has not yet responded

  
CK
Member (Idle past 2385 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 12 of 112 (180116)
01-24-2005 5:23 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Demosthenes Fan
01-23-2005 6:39 PM


Bump
I just can't understand this lack of response....come on IDers where are you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Demosthenes Fan, posted 01-23-2005 6:39 PM Demosthenes Fan has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by CK, posted 01-24-2005 8:46 AM CK has not yet responded

  
CK
Member (Idle past 2385 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 13 of 112 (180147)
01-24-2005 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by CK
01-24-2005 5:23 AM


Re: Bump
I've decided to see if some christians on another board may be able to point the way - for that aim I've basically stole the first post (thank Holmes!!!)

http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?s=5e74ee2c04af46336955297b1c46ced8&showtopic=27


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by CK, posted 01-24-2005 5:23 AM CK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Silent H, posted 01-24-2005 10:21 AM CK has responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4077 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 14 of 112 (180164)
01-24-2005 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by CK
01-24-2005 8:46 AM


Re: Bump
I love the first response link. Not sure if the person was ID positive or negative, but it was great to point to a page attempting to answer what ID has done lately.

Here is a link to the page of answers of what ID scientists are up to right now. They have more in depth discussions at that page but here is the "short answer"...

The Short Answer: ID has made much progress in its < 10 year existence. This includes refining the methods through which we can detect design, to finding a number of examples of design in biology. Design has also expanded to look for design in the fields of paleontology, systematics, cosmology, and the origin of life. William Dembski identifies 12 areas of intelligent design progress(note that some of these are philosophical contributions): 1) design detection, 2) biological information, 3) evolvability, 4) evolutionary computation, 5) technological evolution, 6) irreducible complexity in biology, 7) natural vs. artificial design in bioterrorism, 8) Steganography and biosteganography, 9) cosmic design, 10) SETI, 11) philosophy of mind, and 12) autonomy vs. guidance.

So before it has even proven the basics for detecting design in general it has expanded to look for design in other fields??? Everything above 7 (and especially 7) just seems like tacked on points.

Indeed what the hell is natural design in bioterrorism? Are they saying how to detect if we are facing a manufactured virus vs a naturally occuring one?

I also love the first sentence of the long answer...

ID has been around for a little less than 10 years. Though funding has scared, much of its work has centered around honing the theoretical mechanisms for detecting design. This was basically settled through William Dembski's The Design Inference (1988).

So let me get this straight, ID has been around for less than 10 years, and much of that time as been spent honing theoretical mechanisms which were in fact settled over 15 years ago? This makes no sense whatsoever.

And as if making a confession instead of promoting ID it goes on to say...

It should be remembered that much work thus far in ID isn't "new"--Behe's Darwin's Black Box and Wells' Icons of Evolution both look at existing knowledge and simply proclaim that Darwinian modes of explanation are bankrupt. Although it isn't "new research" it is hugely significant in setting the stage for motivations to go in a new direction.

Thus admitting that there wasn't really any research that went into the original work as is, and apparently they even realize that Behe and Wells just made a statement without backing things up. At least that is how it reads here. I must admit that is how I felt as I read the noted books.

On a more direct note that page does contain a link to 2003 article by Dembski, listing peer reviewed journal articles supporting ID theory. Here is the link/file...

http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.09.ID_FAQ.pdf

We can of course discuss the list of articles and whether they do indeed contribute to ID research. Let's not just bash them though. Let's approach them in an openminded and friendly manner.

Do those articles look like good beginnings for ID research? I should add, do they count as ID having peer reviewed articles?

This message has been edited by holmes, 01-24-2005 10:22 AM


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by CK, posted 01-24-2005 8:46 AM CK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by CK, posted 01-24-2005 10:37 AM Silent H has not yet responded
 Message 16 by Wounded King, posted 01-24-2005 10:45 AM Silent H has responded
 Message 43 by Rrhain, posted 02-20-2005 9:52 PM Silent H has not yet responded

    
CK
Member (Idle past 2385 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 15 of 112 (180184)
01-24-2005 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Silent H
01-24-2005 10:21 AM


Re: Bump
I fail to see the SETI connection that they make - maybe I'm just stupid but I don't see how it links to intelligent design (in the manner they use it).

Can someone explain it to me?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Silent H, posted 01-24-2005 10:21 AM Silent H has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Demosthenes Fan, posted 01-26-2005 10:03 PM CK has not yet responded
 Message 44 by Rrhain, posted 02-20-2005 10:04 PM CK has not yet responded
 Message 89 by Fluke, posted 07-13-2005 2:20 AM CK has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019