Intelligent Design Class to be taught at Cornell University

But looking at the products of known intelligent designers (us) isn't a bad place to begin ones route of comparing in order to develop the..er..idea. If the intelligence did design and was a completely different type to our own then I imagine it will be imperceptable as intelligence. Or looking at it another way: only in so far as it shares attributes of our own intelligence would we be able to recognise it as intelligence. We have our own intelligence as a benchmark of sorts with which to compare its to ours With ID being touted by many (correctly for all I know) as "creationism through the back door" then there might be all the reason in the world. "Made in his image and likeness" if believed would narrow down the searchpath. If one know which haystack the needle is in then it might motivate one to find it. There is no harm in starting out with a presumption then seeing if the science can be stitched together to demonstrate that the presumption is a highly probable affairWhilst I agree that the quality of human designs varys wildly, this can be used to indicate to us on which part of the quality scale the hypothetical intelligent designer is operating. Does the designer share the kind of sloppy, loose-ended characteristics of mans worst yet patently designed efforts. Or does the designer exceed our best If there was no such thing as ToE then ID would have enough circumstantial evidence to warrant further enquiry. Hannahs one is such area to enter the game. To want to carry out an abortion on such an embryonic quest (as so many seem bent on here) strikes me more as a curious attempt to maintain status quo than anything else.Its very early days yet and the opposition is immense. Exam season. The time when everybody is focussed on that impending climax for which both student and teacher have been working for years. Love making usually involves a little more than the sweaty frantic bit at the very end ( a VERY intelligent design in my humble opinion)This message has been edited by iano, 24-Apr-2006 11:38 PM

---

My avatar shows a thief-on-the-cross view of Jesus. One thief said "Lord, remember me when you come into your kingdom". The other remained firmly nailed (spiritually) to the sin that had hung him (physically) there - even as he stared eternity in the face. Who do YOU say that Jesus is? Will you continue to mock him, spit on him and deny him. Or will you call on his name and be saved? "Lord...."

To be honest I wouldn't be able to ascertain whether or not there is any 'science' in ID or not. I see almost fanatical putting down of it by a camp that sees it as creationism in another guise but who also happens to be significantly athiestic - so can't really take the views presented as being neutrally objective. It took (a) Catholic Scientist to point out a simple flaw in Percys argument a few posts ago to highlight the bias.There are many paths to the summit and if (for one doesn't prove things in science as I so often hear) there is the slightest chance of establishing ID as a science and some feel that that is possible then you shouldn't be too surprised if they employ tactics which level the playing field somewhat. Getting folk awakened to the possibilites by bypassing the traditional avenues of peer review (if that is what they indeed do) might cause research finance to be freed up and result in a breakthrough somewhere down the line.A very wealthy believer might be following things and decide at some point that it would be worthwhile putting $10 million into research for example. More news, more headlines, more tv. This is not to say it would always be the case that ID remains media-science (if indeed that is all it is). Finding that natural machines share all the characterics of our very best intelligent designs would create the same kind of splash in the media as does the fact that chimps share 90% or whatever of human genes."Design for purpose" vs. "Continually evolve to better fit" would produce the same kinds of result. Its not that the general shift in perception needs to all that great. Understanding dense, closely reasoned scientifc arguement is the preserve of the few. The rest believe it because they are told. Why not that they believe something else because they are told?Change the perception > generate interest> release funds> more research. You might not laud the tactics but given the level of resistance to it it may be that this is a Frankensteinian monster of your own assist. Not that you could help wanting to fight it so of course.

---

My avatar shows a thief-on-the-cross view of Jesus. One thief said "Lord, remember me when you come into your kingdom". The other remained firmly nailed (spiritually) to the sin that had hung him (physically) there - even as he stared eternity in the face. Who do YOU say that Jesus is? Will you continue to mock him, spit on him and deny him. Or will you call on his name and be saved? "Lord...."

I agree. And it may be the ID-ists can find new theories for the excess baggage. Theories which pose reasons for the baggage which are inherent when one is designing. The more they can explain the design reason for the excess the better the item fits the design hypothesis.Take a typical moulded plastic drinks container. You'll often find a ridge along the axis of the bottle - the result of the moulding process where the mould was joined together and a little material spread into the joint of the mould. Excess, waste, not required. The result of the manufacturing process. Look at the underside of a say, an oval shampoo bottle with a round base and you'll often find a tapered depression moulded into the underside. This acts as a grip point so the the bottle can be spun to a fixed orientation in order to apply a label. Excess for end purpose - essential for manufactureSo it may go...

And valids one if the view is in fact correct. If it isn't now that is not to say it won't be ever. It is very early days Percy. Whilst I can appreciate that a marauding pack can look at the just-born bambi-legged wilderbeest and think "Lunch", they first have to catch it. Personally I think that by circumventing 'true' science (if that is what is being done) and capturing the publics imagination the pack might find that Bambi gets protected by Mommy Media Excitement...a rather different prospect to take on - as someone else thread was musing along the lines of "how to win the battle for the publics imagination" I didn't post there but my view was that that will be a rather difficult battle. Science has its work cut out when it comes to the larger scheme of things. He wouldn't be found, the evidence would point very strongly in his direction at best (if I understand the pursuit of science correctly)This message has been edited by iano, 25-Apr-2006 10:22 AM

---

My avatar shows a thief-on-the-cross view of Jesus. One thief said "Lord, remember me when you come into your kingdom". The other remained firmly nailed (spiritually) to the sin that had hung him (physically) there - even as he stared eternity in the face. Who do YOU say that Jesus is? Will you continue to mock him, spit on him and deny him. Or will you call on his name and be saved? "Lord...."

Perhaps the wrong choice of words. Strident would be better. Whilst some of what I've read seems genuinely aimed a protecting Science, as beloved, trusted pursuit - much of the commentary here and elsewhere seems otherwise: rabid, thoughtless, band-wagoning.Like I say, its early days. And it may be that ID is never science, but if the aims of the people behind it are indeed to return a creator God to centre-stage and use pseudo-science to enable that then so what? This is a free society - anyone is a free to resist the ID movement if they see fit.Criticising its lack of science is one tack. Personally I don't think that will stop it - the game is being played out on a broader stage. And what tactics one should employ to torpedo it is beyond me.

---

My avatar shows a thief-on-the-cross view of Jesus. One thief said "Lord, remember me when you come into your kingdom". The other remained firmly nailed (spiritually) to the sin that had hung him (physically) there - even as he stared eternity in the face. Who do YOU say that Jesus is? Will you continue to mock him, spit on him and deny him. Or will you call on his name and be saved? "Lord...."

That may well be the case. Knowing that doesn't dissolve the problem however. I think there may be other tacks but I don't see any knock blows against ID with these any more than I do with the one above.The 'trouble' is that only a certain proportion of kids are going to become really interested in science: some are wired that way others prefer music or history or literature or art. The battleground for ID (if it is doing as you suggest in the top quote) is a acceptance amongst the widespread population - not just the far more limited science-orientated one.In order to promote science as more vital than it is currently seen as and hence access more science-exposure time in schools, some other vital area: history, art, music, literature etc... will have to relinquish some of its time. Which is not all that likely to happen - especially if politicians are moving towards an acceptance of ID - even if it is on improper grounds.The battle needs to focus on where the battle can be most effectual. Where that is, I don't know.This message has been edited by iano, 25-Apr-2006 01:54 PM

---

My avatar shows a thief-on-the-cross view of Jesus. One thief said "Lord, remember me when you come into your kingdom". The other remained firmly nailed (spiritually) to the sin that had hung him (physically) there - even as he stared eternity in the face. Who do YOU say that Jesus is? Will you continue to mock him, spit on him and deny him. Or will you call on his name and be saved? "Lord...."

If fact both of us were wrong. It wasn't a flaw in Percys argument I referred to. CS was responding to Omnivorous. Sorry Percy. Hannah is suggesting that people believed the universe was designed. Setting in motion a series of events that would mean the universe came into existance doesn't mean that everything in it was designedfpijqdcw-9uwefopisjdv wepfoujwevcpiwj wasn't the result of a process of design - it was the result of random action. You could infer design from most of what I've typed (cheap shots notwithstanding) but not from that gobbeldygook above. Saying the universe is designed is not the same as saying everything in it is designed. Hopefully you will see that I wasn't calling you biased. I even said earlier that some folk put together reasoned arguements against ID and that others appear to be bandwagon occupants - cheering on but not giving much in the way of reasoned argument against IDThis message has been edited by iano, 25-Apr-2006 05:42 PM

---

My avatar shows a thief-on-the-cross view of Jesus. One thief said "Lord, remember me when you come into your kingdom". The other remained firmly nailed (spiritually) to the sin that had hung him (physically) there - even as he stared eternity in the face. Who do YOU say that Jesus is? Will you continue to mock him, spit on him and deny him. Or will you call on his name and be saved? "Lord...."

Bloody heck, think I'm getting senile in my middle age. Or else just biased. You are of course correct ps. Sorry for wasting your timeAs to bias..that would depend on whether your argument is correct or not. If not, then I would say the statement might well be the result of bias. Or simply honest. Or I could be wrong. Lets have a look see: This is more or less your position and at first flush you have a point. But the only intelligence we could hope to recognise is intelligence which is recognisable by our intelligence. If it isn't, although it may exist, we won't be able to discern it as intelligence. IOW: for intelligence to be seen as intelligence it must share the hallmarks of our intelligence (whatever those hallmarks might be decided to be). All that design in nature has to do in order to be considered design (as a starting principle) is to be apparent to us as being design. A way of refining this down so as to approach the realm of science and prevent any old perception as being considered design, is to formalise it and refine things down - which is what Hannah may have been proposing. To make it jump through some hoops.I was reading an interesting piece on ID in which the basis for not considering ID to be science was discussed. The writer listed about 7 main attributes of what something must generally attain to (according to current accepted practice) before something is considered science. It wasn't that the proposition had to score 10/10 in all areas but it should satisfy reasonably well in most of the 7 attributes. Satisfying a couple wasn't deemed enough (ID failed the test acccording to the writer). It seems that 'what is science' is not that precisely defined. Something can be patently not science (pseudoscience?), something can approach (protoscience?) or be most definitely scienceI imagine the same could be applied to looking at design in nature. We can look at something which to our way of evaluating it seems to have no intelligence attached to it at all. Volcanic rock doesn't have much about it which suggests it was designed (didn't Paleys Watch chart this territory?) whereas Behes blood clotting systems seemingly does. That evolution might accomodate the blood clotting system easily (I presume it does) is not the point here. There is a difference between a rock and the blood clotting system in terms of our being able to recognise attributes of intelligence in its makeupIf you can discern intelligence (or pseudo intelligence if you prefer) then you can for the purpose of the hypothesis perhaps draw a dividing line. You have a starting point from which to delve further and propose more hoops for the intelligence to jump through.You're off and running..(having said all that. I was sitting on the loo a while ago, looking at an orange centipede (actually it had about 20 legs down each side) wander its way across the newspaper I was reading. About a centimetre long and about a 2 mm wide body. It tacked along the edge of the newspaper 'feeling' with its antennae over the edge, backing off then going a little further. It rarely diverted from tracking the edge, perhaps wandering 2 inches in from the edge but 'remembering' its task and heading back to the 'abyss'. Watching it was fascinating, the way it curved its body to change direction by moving certain legs and not others. Its rate of direction change varying between abrupt turns and gentle arcs (why it picked one over the other I do not know). Those little legs flying along at a rate to leave the eyes ability to resolve standing - all worked by some miniature system of nerves and proto?muscles and joints and stuff.If intelligent design, then the intelligence far and away exceeds our own (another hoop to add to investigation into design?) We can perhaps figure out how the centipede works. But we could at best only copy it - if we only knew how (our intelligence hasn't proved itself to be capable of that level of 'design'. Which gives me an idea!Another hoop by way of approaching the investigation into ID is to see if we can find any design of our own which doesn't find itself already replicated in nature in close matching principle (terms to be fought over). When I read about flagella-as-propulsion I immediately asked myself (as an engineer) "what about bearings and seals to stop the prop shaft wearing out the organism and the the medium being swum in from entering the organism") It seems these componants have been included in the evolution/design. The flagella beat me too it.If intelligent then the 20pede tells me it is far far
greater an intelligence than us. We might then expect that it thought of the basic idea first. And that we only produce poor copiesThis message has been edited by iano, 26-Apr-2006 12:50 AM

---

My avatar shows a thief-on-the-cross view of Jesus. One thief said "Lord, remember me when you come into your kingdom". The other remained firmly nailed (spiritually) to the sin that had hung him (physically) there - even as he stared eternity in the face. Who do YOU say that Jesus is? Will you continue to mock him, spit on him and deny him. Or will you call on his name and be saved? "Lord...."

pseudoscience > protoscience > scienceCall it evolution. Like I said, its early days yet. Who knows?

I disagree. Evolution happens to be something which is described as best explaining the evidence, making it a solid theory - even unto some (not necessarily you) describing it as factThis is not to say that one can't develop a theory which decribes aspects of the whole show better than evolution. One doesn't need to refer to evolution to do that. I understand ID allows for evolution to work on the designed elements.But they could be just playing it a little tongue in cheek, a little politically. It would help the ID idea be inserted in many peoples minds if evolution isn't thrown out the door. Bite sized attempts at capturing the wider imaginationIf that is indeed the focus.

The idea isn't so much as to infer design on some subjective level but to investigate attributes of (for instance) the very best of what human intellignece can design to see what that looks like. And then to compare this process to the...er..natural world and so come up with items there that share these attributes.Say a list could be compiled of 100 markers which are characteristic of intelligent designs (human designs being the reference point). All kinds of things could be included say for example aspects introduced simply to allow the item to be manufactured and which are redundant to main purpose afterwards.You now have something to test for and you now have something to predict if you begin to get a feel for a particular item in natureAnd say some item is investigated which scores highly (for the science would be to develop ways to test and to comment on this). Say it score 9/10 on 98 of the attributes to which it is being compared?Would that not allow that items evidence to support the theory?

"Diagnostic traits" that is the phrase I was looking for!Lets suppose it wasn't 'some' but very, very many - like I proposed. That one infers design is not so much ignoring evolution as examining whether or not a better explanation is to be had.And say as things progress and it is found that even more refined diagnostic traits (yum) associated with human intelligent design are found also in nature.Could a day be reached when this theory (for it would now have a hypothesis, a way of doing its science, be able to pose predictions etc) better explains even 1 item (blood clotting, the eye etc). For the day it does, either ToE modifies or it gets dumped.The fact that human intelligence is the standard against which things are compared so as to infer design poses no problem. That same standard is the one used to infer evolutionThis message has been edited by iano, 26-Apr-2006 11:01 AM

Not at all. There is no need for a new approach to take into account the existing approach as it seeks to establish itself. It is its own affair and is only bounded by the principles of scientific method in establishing itself - not some other product of scienfific method. Sure, comparison needs to be carried out - but only as one stand alone aspect of a theory (no design at all) against another (some design).And it isn't really comparison which is going on it is competing. ID will deal with the findings and conclusions of ToE if and when it reaches the point of being able to - not by dismantling ToE but by offering a explanation that better accounts for the observations. I'm not all that au fait with the current ID position but I'll take your word for it. But as I have said a couple of times already. This is early days. I was just posing some ideas as to how ID might enter the realm of science it seems so far to have been excluded from (by its own making if folk here are correct)This message has been edited by iano, 26-Apr-2006 11:32 AM

Not sure what you mean by 1.Regarding 2. The only design methods we would recognise would be ones which are intelligable in terms of our own design markers. Which means we could only infer intelligence in so far as it rowed along side our own. If we were "made in its image and likeness", if our intelligence mirrored its intelligence in some derivative* way.It could be that it designed but in ways we do not find intelligable. It could be more intelligent than us in other words, but we may not be able to see that.But we don't need any more that inferring intelligent design up to the limit of our own ability to design in order to infer intelligent design. And the closer it approaches our best (the better the score on more and more markers) the higher the probability that design is 'fact' That wouldn't support design, that would prove it. But it is not necessary to prove hypotheses, only to provide explanation for observations which gives ever-higher probabilities that this in fact was the way it happened. If its good enough for ToE it is good enough for ID.* I say 'derivative' for if probability-of-design reaches levels which mean it can be taken (like ToE currently, popularily is) as 'fact' then it would be apparent that the intellect which designed things like the cell is more advanced than us. The designs can at best only be scienficially recognised as equal to our own ability to design (we cannot produce design markers which we ourselves don't employ in some way) But its manufacturing ability would infer an intelligence currently not demonstrated to be possessed by us.I think of that little centipede crawling across my newspapers. There was a time, a more ignorant time, when I would have shook it off and stood on it

You seem to be arguing that there cannot be two competing theories. The game is "the best theory wins" not "I hold all the best cards already so bugger off"