Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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:   Lack of Defining Features of Intelligent Design
Grizz
Member (Idle past 5470 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 1 of 41 (404422)
06-08-2007 7:30 PM


The following is presented within the context of the Intelligent Design argument as expressed in the ideas of individuals such as Michael Behe. I believe such views are usually referred to as theistic evolution whereby an intelligent designer is responsible for some aspect of the evolutionary process.
Obviously the most ambiguous feature of this concept is that it fails to go beyond the abstract. The failure to present any hypothesis regarding the specifc nature of the designer or the specific involvement of the designer in the process is one of the reasons that the ID debate is not very productive.
What is the nature of the posited designer? Is it supernatural or natural? If one were able to demonstrate unequivocally that design is a neccesary component of the process it does not neccesary follow that the designer was supernatural. One could always go out of their way to hypothesis that the desginer was of natural origin - perhaps life on Earth is the result of an alien Exobiologist picking Earth as a labororaroty for genetic experimentation. The possibile conjectures abound. Without specifics one can speculate wildly and go nowhere.
What relation does the designer have to the design? Does the designer sustain the process or simply make the conditions neccesary for the process to arrise spontaneuosly? Did the designer simply put together the molecular machinery and let things take their course?
If the designer is supernatural in origin is this designer omnipotent and omniscient? If so why go through the trouble of tinkering with a natural process when you could simply create it from scracth complete and whole? Why do only half the job and leave the rest to nature?
On another note the common theme I see in the debate put forward by Creationists and ID advocates of all persuasions is the assumption that if the current naturalistic explanation were shown to be false a supernatural explanation is the only alternative.
For the sake of argument we will start with the assumption that Behe's position is correct - The Theory of Evolution in it's current form cannot account for the complexity at the molecular level. We are only left with two conclusions:
A - The process itself cannot be explained by Science or is partly the result of outside influence or design.
B - The Theory in it's current form is incapabale of accounting for the observed complexity. Further advancements will likely bring about a better understanding of the process and bring about a more accurate and complete explanation.
In essence both would require faith so one would need to argue for or against A or B. If I were a totally neutral observer armed with all the facts what arguments would you present to convince me that conclusion A should be given priority over B or vice versa?
Edited by Grizz, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by jar, posted 06-09-2007 11:13 AM Grizz has not replied
 Message 4 by RAZD, posted 06-09-2007 11:30 AM Grizz has not replied
 Message 5 by AZPaul3, posted 06-09-2007 12:45 PM Grizz has replied
 Message 9 by Taz, posted 07-09-2007 11:36 PM Grizz has not replied
 Message 10 by PaulK, posted 07-10-2007 2:35 AM Grizz has not replied
 Message 11 by Parasomnium, posted 07-10-2007 4:53 AM Grizz has not replied
 Message 12 by bertvan, posted 09-23-2007 3:02 PM Grizz has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 41 (404691)
06-09-2007 6:12 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 3 of 41 (404723)
06-09-2007 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Grizz
06-08-2007 7:30 PM


Just ID, not TE
I believe such views are usually referred to as theistic evolution whereby an intelligent designer is responsible for some aspect of the evolutionary process.
Just one quibble. ID is not TE. The idea that GOD created all that is seen and unseen does does preclude GOD using totally natural processes.
If you would like the answers to some of your questions from a TE perspective, the Catechism of Creation is a good place to start.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Grizz, posted 06-08-2007 7:30 PM Grizz has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 4 of 41 (404726)
06-09-2007 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Grizz
06-08-2007 7:30 PM


Obviously the most ambiguous feature of this concept is that it fails to go beyond the abstract. The failure to present any hypothesis regarding the specifc nature of the designer or the specific involvement of the designer in the process is one of the reasons that the ID debate is not very productive.
Of course. If there were a testable hypothesis it could be falsified. The best they have come up with are elements that they perceive as not possible with evolution alone - Irreducible Complexity (IC) - for instance (and IC is falsified). Usually they end up with elements where they cannot conceive how evolution could accomplish something, and thus they operate on the basis of ignorance and lack of data coupled with a leap of faith.
I believe such views are usually referred to as theistic evolution whereby an intelligent designer is responsible for some aspect of the evolutionary process.
I can go you one further: Deism, the belief that god(s) created the universe and left it to develop according to the design, including the beginning of life, but who play no active part in it since. This would be taking the ID concept to it's logical conclusion. The problem for them is that Deism is a faith while it provides for investigating the universe etc from a scientific basis.
Enjoy
ANd welcome to the fray

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Grizz, posted 06-08-2007 7:30 PM Grizz has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 5 of 41 (404739)
06-09-2007 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Grizz
06-08-2007 7:30 PM


The Lessons of History
For the sake of argument we will start with the assumption that Behe's position is correct - The Theory of Evolution in it's current form cannot account for the complexity at the molecular level.
Behe's position is not correct. There appear to be no broad questions on the Theory of Evolution itself. We quibble over some important details but Evolution itself is not in question. Evolution does account for the molecular complexity in biological systems quite nicely.
But I'll play the game.
If I were a totally neutral observer armed with all the facts what arguments would you present to convince me that conclusion A should be given priority over B or vice versa?
Conclusion B is given priority as evidenced by history.
Science has an ability and a history of resolveing longstanding mysteries (Evolution's molecular complexity being one already resolved). There is no reason to doubt this will continue.
A quibbling suggestion:
The word "faith" has a set connotation to the religionists to be avoided in science discussions. I prefer "confidence" or "level of confidence" rather then "faith" in some scientific theory/hypothesis/view/whatever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Grizz, posted 06-08-2007 7:30 PM Grizz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Grizz, posted 06-09-2007 2:14 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
Grizz
Member (Idle past 5470 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 6 of 41 (404746)
06-09-2007 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by AZPaul3
06-09-2007 12:45 PM


Re: The Lessons of History
Thank you for the replies. I am hoping for responses from those who advocate the position of ID. It is refreshing to see a forum devoted to such issues where serious discussion trumps polemic. From what I have seen the public discussion of these topics usually generates more heat than light.
Behe's position is not correct. There appear to be no broad questions on the Theory of Evolution itself. We quibble over some important details but Evolution itself is not in question. Evolution does account for the molecular complexity in biological systems quite nicely.
I believe Behe was arguing on 2 fronts:
- We currently lack a detailed understanding of the origin of the ingredients themselves - how did the complex organic structures form along with the associated biochmeical pathways and reactions neccesary for abiogenesis?
- On a higher level once the molecular building blocks are in place natural selection and variation alone cannot account for the evolution of the organism - i.e. the notion of "irreducible complexity".
Obviously the first question still is a subject for much research and will require more understanding of the conditions that existed on primitive Earth. In his book Behe spends quite a bit of time on this subject and it seems to be the catalyst that is feeding his subsequent argument.

"If you and a friend are being chased by a bear all you have to do is run faster than your friend" ..Grizzly Adams
http://www.phototracks.net

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by AZPaul3, posted 06-09-2007 12:45 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by RAZD, posted 06-09-2007 3:42 PM Grizz has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 7 of 41 (404750)
06-09-2007 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Grizz
06-09-2007 2:14 PM


Re: The Lessons of History
I believe Behe was arguing on 2 fronts:
- We currently lack a detailed understanding of the origin of the ingredients themselves - how did the complex organic structures form along with the associated biochmeical pathways and reactions neccesary for abiogenesis?
- On a higher level once the molecular building blocks are in place natural selection and variation alone cannot account for the evolution of the organism - i.e. the notion of "irreducible complexity".
And both of these are gaps in current knowledge, not an inability to arrive at that knowledge (except by the conceptual challenged perhaps). This is called god-of-the-gaps (it only works inside the gaps in knowledge).
The first is the abiogenesis question (not evolution per se, and problematical in that the first sediments that we know could show signs of life do show life already in existence, 3.5 billion years ago, and any older rocks are too metamophised by volcanic action to preserve fossils ... so far). The logical conclusion is that we would be unable to find evidence of how life first developed rather than such development being impossible.
Irreducible Complexity has been refuted, falsified. The fact that Behe (and others) still promote this dead rat shows their willingness to lie rather than to face the truth. See Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments, which also deals with the canard about no gain in information.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Grizz, posted 06-09-2007 2:14 PM Grizz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by PeterMc, posted 07-09-2007 11:01 PM RAZD has not replied
 Message 29 by Elhardt, posted 10-28-2007 8:36 AM RAZD has replied

  
PeterMc
Junior Member (Idle past 6090 days)
Posts: 25
From: New Zealand
Joined: 06-21-2007


Message 8 of 41 (409512)
07-09-2007 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by RAZD
06-09-2007 3:42 PM


Re: The Lessons of History
I agree. I think the lack of "features" in ID are starting to annoy the YEC's. It's neither gutsy science nor solidly faith based. Behe is limiting it's scope down to a god of the very small gaps. Demski is evasive about how any of his theorising could be applied to anything observable in nature. None of them have any comments about how ID can provide better explanations for existing evolutionary data. So, yes it is lacking features. It doesn't give a worthy opponent enough to grab and swing by the tail. To quote someone (in a similar but unrelated context- ref. someone?)"Its not even wrong".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by RAZD, posted 06-09-2007 3:42 PM RAZD has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 9 of 41 (409514)
07-09-2007 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Grizz
06-08-2007 7:30 PM


I guess I'll be the first to speak on behalf of ID in this thread.
Grizz writes:
What is the nature of the posited designer? Is it supernatural or natural?
These are unfair questions. When Darwin first published his theory of evolution, he predicted that there was something to keep the traits and that these things were heredity. Mendel, being named the father of genetics, came later to show that indeed there were traits that were hereditary.
More to the point. Based on your criteria, Darwin's theory would have been thrown out the window outright if someone had asked Darwin how hereditary worked. He would have been stumped, just like the IDists today with your questions.
What relation does the designer have to the design? Does the designer sustain the process or simply make the conditions neccesary for the process to arrise spontaneuosly? Did the designer simply put together the molecular machinery and let things take their course?
If the designer is supernatural in origin is this designer omnipotent and omniscient? If so why go through the trouble of tinkering with a natural process when you could simply create it from scracth complete and whole? Why do only half the job and leave the rest to nature?
Again, these questions are unfair.
IDists claim that the designer is intelligent. Among humans, intelligent designers like engineers and archaetects usually don't design something without putting in their opinion of aesthetics. Otherwise, we'd all be living in houses with exactly the same design, skyscrapers would all look exactly the same, etc.
Some time ago, my wife and I went to chicago and went on a tour to see different types of archaetectures in the city. It was amazing to see how different archaetects had their own ideas on how to present their buildings. So, even among human engineers, we see variations of ideas on how to build something. Why on Earth would you expect a cosmic engineer to be as predictable as you've demanded?
On another note the common theme I see in the debate put forward by Creationists and ID advocates of all persuasions is the assumption that if the current naturalistic explanation were shown to be false a supernatural explanation is the only alternative.
Among the typical creationist and IDist, yes. However, I don't think the more visible IDists and creationists have made such claim.
From what I have read about the claims of ID, it seems to me that they rely more on human intuition than anything else to determine if there was any "design" in such and such organism. It's adhering to common sense.

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Grizz, posted 06-08-2007 7:30 PM Grizz has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 10 of 41 (409535)
07-10-2007 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Grizz
06-08-2007 7:30 PM


I was away the first time this came around.
quote:
What is the nature of the posited designer? Is it supernatural or natural?
THe official ID answer is that the nature of the designer is undetermined, it could even be extraterrestrials. It definitely doesn't have to be God. But ID does not discuss the nature of the Designer because that's theology.
Spot the contradiction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Grizz, posted 06-08-2007 7:30 PM Grizz has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 11 of 41 (409555)
07-10-2007 4:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Grizz
06-08-2007 7:30 PM


Conclusion B
Grizz writes:
What is the nature of the posited designer? [...] perhaps life on Earth is the result of an alien Exobiologist picking Earth as a labororaroty for genetic experimentation.
Whatever the truth about this matter, unless we only want to know about the origin of life on earth and its consequent evolution, and not about the same on a cosmic level, an alien exobiologist is not a viable answer to the question. The alien is itself a biological life form, and a biologist to boot. That assumes - twice even, namely explicitly as well as implicitly - the existence of the very thing we want to explain.
In essence both would require faith so one would need to argue for or against A or B. If I were a totally neutral observer armed with all the facts what arguments would you present to convince me that conclusion A should be given priority over B or vice versa?
To espouse conclusion A is tantamount to throwing in the towel, foregoing completely the possibility of acquiring and using new information. Any position science takes on any matter is always tentative, so A is a conclusion that science would, by its very nature, never condone.
Within the context of your topic, that leaves conclusion B as the only alternative. Fortunately, it is worded in such a way as to provide enough latitude for both evolution on naturalistic principles and an intelligent designer. But in view of what I said earlier about the possibility of an alien experimentalist, the intelligent designer would have to be a supernatural being whose existence is independent of natural principles, such as biology.
The only remaining obstacle for such a being would be the problem of infinite regression with regard to the origin of its complexity, which, if ID is supposed to be an explanation for complexity, is itself in need of such an explanation. Whole threads about this subject have come and gone.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Grizz, posted 06-08-2007 7:30 PM Grizz has not replied

  
bertvan
Junior Member (Idle past 5818 days)
Posts: 29
From: Palm Springs California
Joined: 09-10-2007


Message 12 of 41 (423663)
09-23-2007 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Grizz
06-08-2007 7:30 PM


Endogenous Adaptive Mutagenesis
My view of intelligent design is that intelligence is an intrinsic aspect of reality, perhaps primary to matter and energy. Shelldrake has suggested that the laws of nature are entrenched habits. The universe is a democracy in the process of designing itself, intelligently and purposefully. The laws governing inanimate matter are so entrenched that deviation can not be detected by present measuring methods (except perhaps at the quantum level). However, living systems are still very much a design in process and can be observed responding intelligently and purposefully. Even the ability of living systems to respond is limited, but individual organisms can sometimes be observed overruling instincts and genetic determination. Adaptations originate in the living system, not in genomes, and are inherited epigenetically as they develop. They only become encoded into the genome if persistent over many generations. Responses to temperature, altitude, and new food sources are explored by the organism, and can be changed immediately if ineffective, without the finality of “natural selection”. Used organs develop and unused ones atrophy. Means are explored to heal wounds, regenerate tissues, and fight infection.
Such a view might be compatible with materialism, since the intelligence involved is a natural force. However I am dismayed by the tactics used by materialists to prohibit any investigation of intelligence. If intelligence of any form is involved, life is intelligently designed, and I have no objection to religious people believing their god plays a role in the process.
http://30145.myauthorsite.com/

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Grizz, posted 06-08-2007 7:30 PM Grizz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Modulous, posted 09-23-2007 3:30 PM bertvan has not replied
 Message 14 by RAZD, posted 09-23-2007 4:42 PM bertvan has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 13 of 41 (423666)
09-23-2007 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by bertvan
09-23-2007 3:02 PM


Re: Endogenous Adaptive Mutagenesis
However I am dismayed by the tactics used by materialists to prohibit any investigation of intelligence.
The investigation is not prohibited. The ID movement has millions of dollars and has been offered grants for further funding. The leading lights of ID get paid tens of thousands of dollars for short appearances (in court, the public speaking circuit etc). If they had any way of investigating it, money isn't a hindrance.
The problem isn't that there are 'tactics' being employed by 'materialists' to prohibit investigation. The problem is that nobody knows how to investigate it. For example: Design an experiment to test the hypothesis you put forward.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by bertvan, posted 09-23-2007 3:02 PM bertvan has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 14 of 41 (423681)
09-23-2007 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by bertvan
09-23-2007 3:02 PM


IDology and Faith
Such a view might be compatible with materialism, since the intelligence involved is a natural force.
And it could be scientific if you could devise a test that would distinguish between your intelligent natural force and a non-intelligent natural force. Without that ability to falsify the concept it is not science but philosophy.
If intelligence of any form is involved, life is intelligently designed, ...
Not necessarily. People can design chaotic systems where the outcome is not intelligently designed (predicted) even though intelligence was involved.
... and I have no objection to religious people believing their god plays a role in the process.
Which is why we call it religion instead of science. It's based on faith -
faith -noun 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.
(American Heritage Dictionary)
IDology also qualifies as faith and not science.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : subtitle

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by bertvan, posted 09-23-2007 3:02 PM bertvan has not replied

  
bertvan
Junior Member (Idle past 5818 days)
Posts: 29
From: Palm Springs California
Joined: 09-10-2007


Message 15 of 41 (430453)
10-25-2007 3:17 PM


ID is consistent with, but does not require theism
Intelligent design permits, but does not demand, belief in a personal god. Belief that intent exists and plays a role in nature is all that is required. All living systems have some (albeit limited) ability to initiate intelligent, purposeful responses. That living organisms participate in the design their own evolution during growth and development is in contrast to the materialist belief that:
All organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.
If any of these are religious concepts then materialism must be acknowledged as a religion.
http://30145.myauthorsite.com/

No webpage found at provided URL: Qeustions about Materialism

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Jazzns, posted 10-25-2007 3:37 PM bertvan has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024