Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Analyzing Intelligent Design {a structural construction of ID theory}
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 46 of 99 (207102)
05-11-2005 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-11-2005 12:30 PM


Jerry, I read some of your posts on the other thread that was closed down. You obviously have some good mathematical skills and a knowledge of information theory, but I am still a skeptic like Mick.
I joined this forum around the same time as you, so I guess we are both relative newbies on similar footing when it comes to posting.
Without getting into questions of designer identity and such, I would like to debate the 'utility' of ID theory for solving problems in applied biology. We can dispense with all the abstract reasoning and mathematics - just show me it's actually good for explaining some tangible, *biological* phenomenon.
I would be convinced of its utility (and therefore afford it some greater degree of respect) if any of the following could be demonstrated:
ID theory provides testable models for predicting the outcome of specific biological processes at the organismal or population levels.
ID theory formulates explanations of tangible, biological phenomena that are *different* (in at least some cases) from those that would be inferred from ToE.
ID theory provides unique inferences that can solve problems in applied biology (say agriculture or medicine) where ToE has either failed, or fallen short of providing an adequate explanation or solution.
What do you say ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-11-2005 12:30 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-11-2005 1:22 PM EZscience has replied

  
Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 99 (207108)
05-11-2005 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by EZscience
05-11-2005 12:56 PM


quote:
Jerry, I read some of your posts on the other thread that was closed down. You obviously have some good mathematical skills and a knowledge of information theory, but I am still a skeptic like Mick.
I joined this forum around the same time as you, so I guess we are both relative newbies on similar footing when it comes to posting.
Ahhh...I did not know this. I think it was the face that made you blend in. In any case, I have certainly enjoyed your posts to me.
quote:
Without getting into questions of designer identity and such, I would like to debate the 'utility' of ID theory for solving problems in applied biology. We can dispense with all the abstract reasoning and mathematics - just show me it's actually good for explaining some tangible, *biological* phenomenon.
I read your entire post, but I can stop right here to answer it:
I cannot do anything you request, EZ. You see, ID is not a separate science from biology and since it is not, I could not quote anything in ID that would explain something biologically, either better, or worse. I can only explain biology by using biology.
ID in itself is not even a theory. It's a scaffolding for examining the theories and laws in science with a different paradigm. While you may see only the quirks of nature in a complex biological system, I may look at that system teleologically and see purpose in it.
Of what good is it? It is only useful if one is curious about the origin of the system. Darwinism has always fell short in logically explaining this. I decided this as a young biology minor over thirty years ago in college. And did you know I can produce a poll that shows only 10% of college graduates that study this accept it without throwing a god in there somewhere?
That's one reason I have devoted my early retirement to educating people in this area. ID is logical and it is the only view of origins out there that will stand in science and math until the cows come home. I would have no other choice but to espouse this over other options if I care to be honest with myself.

Design Dynamics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by EZscience, posted 05-11-2005 12:56 PM EZscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by EZscience, posted 05-11-2005 3:08 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 48 of 99 (207117)
05-11-2005 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-11-2005 9:23 AM


Jerry Don Bauer
I'm afraid there is no such thing as that, anymore than there is a theory of chemistry, anatomy or neural surgery. That's just a myth.
Since we have established that there is no theory of Intelligent Design as there is a theory of eveolution could we perhaps impose upon you to explain what the nature of intelligence in the term Intelligent Design entails?Thank you.
This message has been edited by sidelined, Wed, 2005-05-11 11:54 AM
This message has been edited by sidelined, Wed, 2005-05-11 11:56 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-11-2005 9:23 AM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-11-2005 2:13 PM sidelined has replied

  
Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 99 (207140)
05-11-2005 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by sidelined
05-11-2005 1:36 PM


quote:
Since we have established that there is no theory of Intelligent Design as there is a theory of eveolution could we perhaps impose upon you to explain what the nature of intelligence in the term Intelligent Design entails?Thank you.
Well, there is no real theory of evolution either as theories of science have to be taken though the scientific method to become theories. But that is another thread.
Intelligence just denotes purposeful design from natural design---A house, from a mountain range. That's it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by sidelined, posted 05-11-2005 1:36 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by sidelined, posted 05-11-2005 2:22 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 50 of 99 (207144)
05-11-2005 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-11-2005 2:13 PM


Jerry Don Bauer
Intelligence just denotes purposeful design from natural design
I am sorry I did not make this clear.What is the structure by which this intelligence operates? Human intelligence is dependant upon a brain as structure in which electrical and chenmical process allow the thought processes by which intelligence manifests itself.I would like to understand the equivalent nature of the strucre by which intelligence operates in Intelligent Design.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-11-2005 2:13 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-11-2005 5:10 PM sidelined has replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 51 of 99 (207155)
05-11-2005 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-11-2005 1:22 PM


jdb writes:
Of what good is it? It is only useful if one is curious about the origin of the system.
Can I quote you on that?
Because it seems that the kind of ID that they want to get into the public school curriculum is of a very different ilk.
It is promoted as an 'alternative' to neo-Darwinism, and to be truly alternative in my books, it has to provide *functional* explanations as good as, or better than ToE in order to be afforded that status.
If you admit that, then ID theory can never replace Darwinian evolution as a functional model for biology.
ToE does not address the ultimate origins of life, only the mechanisms by which it has changed and can be expected to change, so ID is not an alternative to neo-Darwinism in this sense either.
jdb writes:
I may look at that system teleologically and see purpose in it.
The adaptationist approach of ToE would say that the apparency of purpose in morphological designs is evidence of adaptation without the requirement for teleology, but I am sure you already know that.
Hey - thanks for answering.
I guess I will have to take my beef elsewhere

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-11-2005 1:22 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-11-2005 5:31 PM EZscience has replied
 Message 54 by Brad McFall, posted 05-11-2005 5:47 PM EZscience has replied

  
Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 99 (207203)
05-11-2005 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by sidelined
05-11-2005 2:22 PM


quote:
I am sorry I did not make this clear.What is the structure by which this intelligence operates? Human intelligence is dependant upon a brain as structure in which electrical and chenmical process allow the thought processes by which intelligence manifests itself.I would like to understand the equivalent nature of the strucre by which intelligence operates in Intelligent Design.
That structure would be quantum mechanics. You will have to do a lot of study to understand that. If you care to, I will point you there.

Design Dynamics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by sidelined, posted 05-11-2005 2:22 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by sidelined, posted 05-11-2005 6:24 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

  
Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 99 (207210)
05-11-2005 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by EZscience
05-11-2005 3:08 PM


quote:
Can I quote you on that?
Sure. This is true, but it may get just a tad deeper.
quote:
Because it seems that the kind of ID that they want to get into the public school curriculum is of a very different ilk.
It is promoted as an 'alternative' to neo-Darwinism, and to be truly alternative in my books, it has to provide *functional* explanations as good as, or better than ToE in order to be afforded that status.
Why? There is no such thing as the ToE. Theories of science are taken through the scientific method from observation, then experimentally to a hypothesis, then through experiment by the researcher's peers to theory. Darwinism has no theories that have ever been through that rigorous method to rightfully be taught as theories. So how could we hope to replace something that does not exist? Don't you think your kids should at least know the truth?
Yeah, I peeked. You had to be from Kansas. I would think you were my old buddy Jack Krebs but you are too nice! (I really do consider Jack an Internet buddy, believe it or not, we go back years)
quote:
If you admit that, then ID theory can never replace Darwinian evolution as a functional model for biology.
But Darwinism is not a model of anything. Models have to be based on something. Evidence, math....something. What would you think a Darwinian model would be based on? Supposition doesn't get it in science.
quote:
ToE does not address the ultimate origins of life, only the mechanisms by which it has changed and can be expected to change, so ID is not an alternative to neo-Darwinism in this sense either.
Darwinism HAS to have something to evolve, so that's really just semantics. ID offers a credible scenario of origins. Unless you believe in UFOs and little green aliens, it's the only one out here based on science and math. So why do you have a problem with us teaching this as a possibility along with Darwinism and all its problems--yet potential possibilities? Isn't this just basic honesty?
quote:
The adaptationist approach of ToE would say that the apparency of purpose in morphological designs is evidence of adaptation without the requirement for teleology, but I am sure you already know that.
Hey - thanks for answering.
I guess I will have to take my beef elsewhere
Hang around. You may evolve more beef.

Design Dynamics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by EZscience, posted 05-11-2005 3:08 PM EZscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by EZscience, posted 05-11-2005 6:48 PM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied
 Message 62 by EZscience, posted 05-12-2005 9:13 AM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 54 of 99 (207214)
05-11-2005 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by EZscience
05-11-2005 3:08 PM


I have been away for the day so I have not monitored the exchanges in real time as I often do but...I DONT know this
quote:
The adaptationist approach of ToE would say that the apparency of purpose in morphological designs is evidence of adaptation without the requirement for teleology, but I am sure you already know that.
.
The apparenCY in a hypothetical appearence does not necessitate that any claim to purpose in the MORPHOLOGICAL signed on design even given that IT WAS an adapatation is not unless evolution MUST refuse the existence in biology of things in themselves no matter how observed. That however is MORE than is required in a case for teleology based on a rejection of the distinction of phenotype and geneotype where the morphospace becomes defined. So, it is just NOT TRUE that adapatations can not be used in the functioning/working a teleological product from the difference in morphology. I will admit that it might not be pure morphological difference that will become the means fully to the goal or what the form is thus 'for' but there is not such a position as far as I understand what you said,short of indoctination and force on the student's learning, to insist that the evolutionary explanation EXCLUDES via the adaptability the utility of the change in form for the form of the changes that would have been functional if the appearence was not an apparency but sufficiency etc.
The question really is if the apparency is real or is a fools errand. Feel free to see me as the later but I know that not.
I now notice that you were requesting "tangible" examples in applied biology and perhaps if I had read the posts in posting sequence I might not have responded to you with this as I am not ready yet to give the tangible case I broadly outline(d). I hope you take this post as I intended it. Best, Brad.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-11-2005 06:15 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by EZscience, posted 05-11-2005 3:08 PM EZscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by EZscience, posted 05-11-2005 6:45 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 55 of 99 (207218)
05-11-2005 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-11-2005 5:10 PM


Jerry Don Bauer
That structure would be quantum mechanics. You will have to do a lot of study to understand that. If you care to, I will point you there.
Well since nobody does understand QM I doubt that will be the case.However if you wish to make your case we will give that a try.
What in quantum mechanics gives a structure by which an intelligence can operate in an analogous way to the electrochemical process within the human brain that give rise to intelligence?
I will try to spend as much time as I can over the rest of the week and weekend however I do have a few pressing isues at home and work that may take me away for a bit so be patient.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-11-2005 5:10 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-11-2005 7:43 PM sidelined has not replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 56 of 99 (207225)
05-11-2005 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Brad McFall
05-11-2005 5:47 PM


That is kind of hard for me to answer Brad, the way it is phrased.
I am not sure if you are agreeing with me or disagreeing, but I suspect the latter.
Brad writes:
The apparenCY in a hypothetical appearence does not necessitate that any claim to purpose in the MORPHOLOGICAL
I was only refering to the 'apparency 'of design in ACTUAL morphologies, not hypothetical ones,
but whether I concur or not would I guess depend on whether you are refering to proximate or ultimate 'purposes'. A trait can have a proximate purpose. Evolution does not have any purpose, proximate or ultimate.
Brad writes:
where the morphospace becomes defined
What is this 'morphospace' of which you speak ?
brad writes:
...that the evolutionary explanation EXCLUDES via the adaptability the utility of the change in form for the form
Hmm...I don't think I said that. Adaptation almost implies utility by definition.
Morphological forms can have infered adaptative value based on the obvious functionality of their 'design' in the natural environment of the animal.
This is the 'adaptationist approach' to evolutionary explanation and it has its potential inferencial pitfalls, as pointed out by Gould in his essay on the spandrels of San Marcos, but it is still widely accepted as a useful approach provided it is not abused in circular arguments.
The basic conflict between ID and evolutionary theory is one of teleology.
ID sees it everywhere and claims it is undeniable and without redress in ToE.
ToE says that teleological inferences are simply unecessary for functional explanations of change and that they make no useful contribution to such explanations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Brad McFall, posted 05-11-2005 5:47 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Brad McFall, posted 05-11-2005 7:35 PM EZscience has replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 57 of 99 (207226)
05-11-2005 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-11-2005 5:31 PM


OK Jerry.
I was going to graciously withdraw at this point, but you have raised some issues I must address.
However, I have to take my dinner out of the oven, but in the famous words of a famous governor...
I'LL BE BAAAAAAACK.
EZ

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-11-2005 5:31 PM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 58 of 99 (207232)
05-11-2005 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by EZscience
05-11-2005 6:45 PM


Yes yes, - actual morphologies
the ichythosaour, the fossil sauroid fish, the pterodactyl etc.
I am not sure if the biogeography of the forms rather than the forms (themselves) however spell out the function of for the intelligence but I dont doubt in any way that ID can produce some product from the form of an architect's design. If ID assumes only the creator's universal substance evolutionists might have a point but if the forms are first used on purpose artfully it might be that evolutionary theory MUST be changed when it comes to the creation of the format the function faciliates. It is in reaching THIS point that "hypothetical"forms come in but evolutionists are generally NOT this far seeing to see that ID might even change their own proper domain. Obvoiusly we need the tangibles here. I am not ready. I still have not been able to track down the actual fossil specimens that were responsible for pre reptile prophecies in the past. That is how it comes about that I dont know if the morphologies themselves or the collection localities of the specimens are determinative in this reflection. Regardless I did disagree somewhat with what you were saying inso far as it must be taught that adpatation PRECLUDES teleology. It only will if this hypothetical point IS reached AND there is no ID content in that meantime.
Now you use the doubly confusing terms "proximate or ultimate purposes". I dont have all of the needed Mayr sources at hand just now but it has been my reading that Mayr set up the difference of ultimate and proximate SPECIFICALLY to keep teleology within a specific reading of final causes. My opinion is that Mayr faile at this but to then use the terms as you might be doing only makes the logic mean that Evolution IS against Teleology. evolutionists need not be against teleology if evolution is usable to construct the means TO teleology and so if it was only your point that evolution as theory can be concived without teleology that is obvious.
My point is that teaching students to think against teleogy via whatever it is that you meant and I tried to rephrase perhaps unsuccesfully with the "exclusion" phrase IS A DESIGN that keeps an architect from decideing if the design was by an intelligence or a god (and just because modern evolutionay theory is set up to do its duty without god does not mean that the natural purpose of it can not be thought with) and thus evolution as a discipline is part of the ID'sts problem even if it might also be its solution.
i can give it another go but like you I am still busy with dinner.Pehaphs you feel I am still misreading your posts. If so just give me an up or down vote and I'll spend the necessary time to read closerclosely the entire thread and others related to it that have been posted. Thanks for dealing with me on the tail end of today's conversation.
if by "functional ex for change" the thread has moved the discussion into Wimsatt's position (in Hull, I'll have to track down the book) I'll deal with that but no matter what the combinational selection is there IS a continuity here even if not easy to realize.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-11-2005 07:58 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by EZscience, posted 05-11-2005 6:45 PM EZscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by EZscience, posted 05-11-2005 11:07 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 99 (207234)
05-11-2005 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by sidelined
05-11-2005 6:24 PM


quote:
Well since nobody does understand QM I doubt that will be the case.However if you wish to make your case we will give that a try.
You can start here and take it as far as you want. Please read this post and the one below it.
http://EvC Forum: Foundations of ID

Design Dynamics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by sidelined, posted 05-11-2005 6:24 PM sidelined has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by paisano, posted 05-11-2005 11:32 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 60 of 99 (207260)
05-11-2005 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Brad McFall
05-11-2005 7:35 PM


Brad writes:
Mayr set up the difference of ultimate and proximate SPECIFICALLY to keep teleology within a specific reading of final causes.
Here we are definitely on the same track.
Brad writes:
...to then use the terms as you might be doing only makes the logic mean that Evolution IS against Teleology
Evolution is not *against* teleology, but rather oblivious of, and impervious to it. There is no intrinsic requirement for any 'purpose' or 'guiding hand' to make evolution work. It is just superfluous to the theory as we actually apply it. As you yourself seem to appreciate :
Brad writes:
...just because modern evolutionay theory is set up to do its duty without god does not mean that the natural purpose of it can not be thought with
...although I would probably take issue with any "natural purpose" you might propose.
Brad writes:
Pehaphs you feel I am still misreading your posts.
Brad, I am much more concerned that I am misreading yours

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Brad McFall, posted 05-11-2005 7:35 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024