Help me understand Intelligent Design (part 2)

Well, the original thread went way off topic despite all my efforts to wrangle it in. So, now that it's topped out and been closed down, I'm going to repost my original question again.I have read several threads here about Intelligent Design / Creationism / Evolution, and something has jumped out.Creationists have a very well developed theory - "God created mankind, all the animals, and all the plants in just the way it's described in the Bible."Evolutionists have a very well developed theory - "Mutations in the genetic code create new traits which can be passed from one generation to the next. Those traits which are benificial thrive. Over time, small changes add up to big changes."But Intelligent Design, not so much...Here's the thing -
Creationists have "mechanics". That is to say they can clearly explain how something happened. "God did this using the power of God."Evolutionists have "mechanics". Mutations happen as a result of copy errors in DNA. Natural Selection happens when something dies before it can reproduce.But the Intelligent Design side of the debate has yet to explain their "mechanics".If you are an ID supporter, can you please step up to the plate?What is Intelligent Design's theory?
What would be tought in schools if ID was the only theory?
What are the "mechanics" of Intelligent Design?
How are designs done? How are they implimented?
What constraints are put on Natural selection to assure that only the incorrectly designed species are killed?
Why are there incorrectly designed species at all?Can anyone explain any of this?

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

I will start with the assumption that there is a theory of intelligent design. In my opinion, if there is such a theory it is a philosophical theory, and not a scientific theory. For no adequate empirical support has been provided or even suggested.In Science vs History - a source of equivocation?, Modulous reminded us that there is an important difference between evolution the theory, and natural history as a separate project that makes use of applied evolutionary theory. In much the same way it is important to distinguish between ID as a theory, and criticisms of evolution as part of a separate project that applies ID.This response will be only about what I understand to be ID, taken as a theory. I base this on my understandings of the writings of Dembski, whom I take to be the originator of the theory. I'll note that Dembski's writings include both ID as theory, and Dembski's musings on ways that the theory might be applied. Dembski himself appears to be mainly a theoretician whose preference would be to leave the applications of his theory to others.With that said, I will suggest my answers to Nuggin's questions. That intelligent design can be deduced from improbability. Lots of probability theory, together with some tenuous philosophy. There are no mechanics given by the theory. The role of the theory is to identify intelligent design. Presumably mechanics of design might be determined in specific applications of the theory, but they are not part of the theory itself.As best I can tell, the theory of intelligent design gives no guidance on how applications of theory might identify the mechanics of design, nor does it appear to give any guidance on how applications would identify the intelligent designer.The mechanics of determining intelligent design appear to be based on determining improbability together with other preconditions. Dembski introduces the concept "specified complexity" in his discussion of these mechanics. With no mechanics given, there can be no answer to this question within the theory of intelligent design. Presumably other theories would then take over to account for these details. Intelligent design theory does not deal with this. Questions about biological diversity might arise as an application of the theory of intelligent design, but they are not themselves part of theory. One must distinguish between incorrect design and apparent incorrect design. One cannot determine that a design is incorrect without first determining the purpose behind the design. As far as I can tell, the theory of intelligent design gives little guidance as to how one would determine this purpose, although the word "specified", as used in "specified complexity" perhaps hints at a direction.

Two questions that I have related to design.Is it correct to say that in design, given two designs that accomplish the same function, the more simple choice is better design than the more complex?If that is the case, would specified complexity be an indication of design or an indication of non-design?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Excellent points.I agree with you that simplicity, not complexity, is the indicator of design. However, I would expect Dembski to disagree. I would expect him to say that it is not simplicity per se, but the presence of a specification.The idea of specification presumed by ID, strikes me as its biggest weakness. I find Dembski's discussion of specification to be quite murky. Presumably Dembski wants to count the DNA as a specifier, thus establishing that there is specified complexity. However, evolutionists consider DNA to be replicas produced by a system of replication. And there is considerable evidence to support this evolutionist account. In my opinion, to show specified complexity in evolution, one should show a separate specification of a replication principle in biology as a whole.

Not just simplicity, but absence of "extraneousity" (if I may coin a term for the existence of extraneous features).This mean not only no vestigial features, but no poorly functioning ones when there are better functioning system in existence elsewhere. They also inherit a dumspter load of creationist challenges that also need to be explained in the ID vernacular:If we were designed from a monkey base then why are monkeys still around?If Intelligent Design makes new species out of old ones then where are the ones that show features from more than one old species - where are the "hopeful monsters" of ID?etc etc etcEnjoy.This message has been edited by RAZD, 10*26*2005 07:42 PM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Only if all the requirements are actually considered. For example a machine that I can't open the covers of is "simpler" but what if I want to upgrade it or fix it?As I think Jar has noted before. The only "intelligent design" that a God could possibly implement for living things is the mechanism of mutations (but limited) and natural selection based on the current environment. At least, I haven't seen anyone think of a better one yet unless God wants the environment to remain extremely constant (and boring).

Sadly, we've apparently frightened off all the ID supporters.This is the second time I've run this thread, and I have yet to have a single ID supporter even try to answer the questions or explain their position.With so little support in the debate, why then do they insist on legal recourse to have their ideas taught in schools?

I guess it is easier to change the state education standards than it is to change the EvC forum rules requiring evidence-based posts

Sigh...I guess we need to completely abandon the whole debate, since no one is willing to support ID at all.Oh, well, victory party at my place. (And yes, you Creationists are invited)

It looks to me as if the Dover trial might come close to demolishing ID, what with Dembski withdrawing as a witness, and Behe saying that astrology fits his view of science.

There were lot's of Iraqi Hijackers involved on 9/11
George Dubya Bush has an Exit Strategy
The Earth is Flat
Al Gore is the POTUS
Abu Gharib was'nt an own goal
Fox News is a fair & unbiased reporter of The Truth
Saddam Hossain was a much bigger threat to World Peace than Kim Sung Il
Osama Bin Laden really regrets The US & Britain diverting most of thier resources to Iraq & away from capturing him
Democracy is going to spread like a row of falling domino's across the totalitarian states of the Midle East. And oh yes, Intelligent Design is a Sound Theory supported by robust evidence...

Hi Steiner62. Welcome to EvCforum.

Glad to be here nwr, thx for the welcome! I've spent the last 20mins trying unsuccessfully to upload an Avatar to my prifile. Thought I'd done it, but no deal. Now I can't get access to the thing that let's me do that, lol. Teething problems I'm sure. I started my first blog a couple of weeks ago, a diatribe against ID among other things. Hope you can check it out, even leave a comment. This Forum looks active nwr. I'm hoping I can have a crack at some dumb Republican God Fearing ID fans sometime soon, lol. We cynical agnostic pinko commie faggot subversive LIBERAL Europeans don't hold back, lol.Regards
Steiner62Ps. & I thought Geneva was in Switzerland, lol

Hi Steiner62. Your avatar seems to have uploaded just fine.The forum web pages are loading slowly tonight. Maybe the server is under a DoS attack, no doubt by those "dumb Republican God Fearing ID fans".Yes, I already took a look at your blog. I particularly loved those kind words you had for our president. There is a suburb of Chicago that is named "Geneva".