What is Intelligent Design..... and what it isn't

[mrblack]

I think that the presence of that agenda does justify a deep skepticism, particularly since that agenda gives them a stake in a very sensitive culture war issue; namely what sort of presence religion is allowed to have in public schools. I have yet to come accross credible evidence of a similar agenda from the scientific community regarding evolution. The rejection of ID by that community seems to be based primarily on the notion that relying on the supernatural, something ID seems to explicitely do, is simply outside the realm of the discipline. I find this perfectly rational since it seems to work against science's goal of improving human life on Earth. By filling the supernatural in for what is not not currently understood, ID creates an incentive to explain difficult things away as God/the designer rather than delve deeper for more tangible explanations.

As for the scientists I have no idea what they believe or what their individual motivations are. I'm not a conspiracy person so I'm really not going to speculate on it though the pro-ID experts did not sound good in the Dover trial. One of the proponents of ID, Michael Behe even stated on cross examination that his definition of a scientific theory was so loose that astrology would qualify.

The transcript is here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dove...r_v_dover.html (I'm not claiming to have read the entire transcript though I did read the opinion of the court)

Many hospitals and Universities are indeed religiously affiliated or were founded by religious groups but not all religions take issue with evolution or scientific principles in general. I, for example, come from a Catholic background and they do not have an issue with this. They teach regular old evolution in science classes in Catholic schools. Obviously there are plenty of problems with the Catholic Church (not going to delve into that either) but this isn't one of them. As far as I know most religiously affiliated hospitals aren't giving treatments that most medical professionals find to be profoundly flawed.

Well I can see your concerns, however I arrived at an ID perspective even before the DI proposed the idea so perhaps this is part of the problem. I think the DI needs to speak for itself, but even if they have a religious agenda I think ID has the potential for producing good science and so I support their support of it.

As far as teaching or not teaching evolution, I have never been for removing it or replacing it with ID. I just think that they both deserve to be heard.

And although I'm not a Catholic, I have great respect for the Church and what it stands for.

[Uncle Spike]

.

As far as teaching or not teaching evolution, I have never been for removing it or replacing it with ID. I just think that they both deserve to be heard.

And yet, you nor any other ID proponent has come up with a scientific hypothesis, nor done any of the work to merit having what currently is only a philosophical theory be 'heard' as the equivalent of a scientific theory that has been rigorously tested and has proven to be a sound scientific theory. And rather than do the work, so far the argument to date has been an attempt to reduce the standards and to use scientific sounding terminology to cover for the fact no actual scientific work has been produced on behalf of ID...even with the immense funding and political weight that has been put behind it.

[mrblack]

And yet, you nor any other ID proponent has come up with a scientific hypothesis, nor done any of the work to merit having what currently is only a philosophical theory be 'heard' as the equivalent of a scientific theory that has been rigorously tested and has proven to be a sound scientific theory. And rather than do the work, so far the argument to date has been an attempt to reduce the standards and to use scientific sounding terminology to cover for the fact no actual scientific work has been produced on behalf of ID...even with the immense funding and political weight that has been put behind it.

Frankly ID isn't going away. And frankly Darwanism had a beginning once and millions have been spent funding its studies. Where will ID be given the same time/funding? Hard to say.

[Uncle Spike]

Frankly ID isn't going away. And frankly Darwanism had a beginning once and millions have been spent funding its studies. Where will ID be given the same time/funding? Hard to say.

There is no "darwinism", more ID bs and an attempt to continue to reduce science to nothing more than personal opinion so it is on the same plane as creationism, there is a Scientific Theory of Evolution however that has been refined over time and has continued to show it's merit in test after test.

ID still hasn't even come up with a working scientific hypothesis.

It isn't anyone else responsibility to fund and put work into your "theory" and make it scientific anymore than I should be able to demand others fund and do the work to make my Invisible Purple Gnome "theory" scientific. If I wish to advance the conjecture to a hypothesis, then I have to do the work...pretty simple concept. If my work turns out to have some merit, then others will follow and build upon it and continue to test it and if it hold ups over time and through rigorous tests it may eventually become a scientific theory. If not, it joins a long line of other failed ideas.

To date, ID has been nothing more than an attack on the Theory of Evolution through a variety of misconceptions, misrepresentations and flat out falsehoods. You want ID to be science then make it science, do not try to reduce science to mere philosophical 'theory' so that it can qualify. Until you do, then you have no claim for equal time in a science classroom.

[Mike Habib]

First off let me thank you for your thoughtful responses. They indeed do inspire thought and i appreciate your demeanor.

Thanks very much, I really appreciate the kind words. While we obviously disagree, I appreciate your demeanor as well. In fact, one reason that I came down so strong on your use of Discovery Institute information and the Dover case is that I think you're better than that - they have been awfully conniving and arrogant (I can share some more stories at some point, but there is one involving the burning of a student's oil painting because it depicted stages in human evolution), and I think you do yourself a disservice by associating with those groups.

Are you implying that you are getting ALL the right answers? Seems pretty closed minded. Again..you seem to be implying that evidence of intelligent design is absolutely undetectable. I think this is a fairly "out on the plank" kind of bold statement. Proving design isn't hard for example if we examine radios, or automobiles, or even advance systems like corn mutations which we artificially introduce. I think you are closing your mind to the possibilities.

We definitely do not get all the right answers. In fact, everything is an approximation at some level, so everything is a bit wrong. The key is that we can test for the degree of "wrongness" - i.e. we have tests for precision and accuracy, and can put confidence levels on the results. So far, no ID proposals have met that criteria. I know it sounds like they have, especially judging from certain websites, but I've read the original papers and proposals, and they're really not testable at all. The ID manuscripts also contain some pretty substantial errors (as in things we knew were wrong about 75 years ago; that's pretty bad in the natural sciences).

Proving design is actually a lot harder than you might think. It is, in fact, very difficult to do, even in cases where it seems, intuitively, to be easy. For example, inserted mutations in corn would work pretty much like an evolved system if you were an objective observer that did not know about humans. Automobiles could more easily be shown to be designed, but not because of some critical aspect of structure or complexity. You could show that cars were designed because of details in their development through time, but if you did not have knowledge of humans or their technology then it would be a lot harder than you might think. You would need to resort to things like the material components (which are distinctly different from any of the biological systems on the planet), or the need for a pilot, etc. But more to the point, nothing that the ID proponents have so far suggested actually tests for design. Maybe someone else will come up with one, but so far, the arguments have all basically boiled down to "we don't like the idea that humans are not magically created, so we'll use jargon".

I haven't researched this, but lets just assume you are partially correct. First of all "a purely religious goal" is another pretty absolute statement whih I would tend to not believe. But the fact that ID is sourced by religious folk shouldn't be a criterion for dismissing it. In fact it seems like its the only home modern science seems to allow for it. I would almost think it a natural outcome that the idea would be supported more by those who actually believe it. Its like saying we are surprised that there are black only schools when we used to disallow blacks into white schools.

Now that you've read the document in question, I think you will see that the goals are purely religious, or close to it. Furthermore, this is not a matter of being "sourced" by religious folk - the very concept of ID is just a way to make religious ideas sound scientifically testable.

This sounds like a pretty horrible institution. Very sneaky and purposefully disingenuous. You think they are really not trying to prove ID, but rather are just trying to inject a specific religious agenda to ignorant non suspecting individuals.

That is exactly what they are doing.

Undeniable. I believe in God and so naturally I think that ID will prove to be a productive pursuit. I also see the liberalism and a philosophy that seems to want to push the creator out of the study of the creation. I think the direction that some in physics propose seems to move in a philosophical way. However some of those results have produced usable results.

Philosophical issues of secular trends have no relevance to the validity of scientific ideas or how we should study the living world. Incidentally, one "acid test" for scientific ideas is that they should be equally plausible regardless of religious background. If a supposed scientific idea only makes sense within a particular spiritual or supernatural framework, then it probably isn't a scientific concept. Remember, the point is to ask questions about the physical universe, make models to predict how the universe works, and then test and refine those models so that we end up with useful and reasonable predictions. Liberalism and religious ideals have no bearing.

I think that's a over generalization. I want good science. I believe in God. I believe that science will produce better results if it understands that what they are studying is designed, rather than being undirected.

Then you need to supply physical evidence of the creating being, as well as a way of predicting resultant designs such that we can generate useful results. In other words, you need to demonstrate that your deity exists, and that you can understand its motivations. So far, modeling systems as undirected has given us an excellent framework. So far, I see no indication that a design philosophy adds anything of merit to scientific methodology.

I think this may have some truth, but it certainly is not the rule at all. And these scientists attend good schools and have impressive resumes, and should not be disqualified for their ideas.

Many of the resumes are not as strong as they look, but that's actually rather beside the point. What we actually have (and I know several of them personally, so I can say this with some confidence) is a very small group of scientists that have decided good science comes secondary to certain philosophical and moral concerns. Basically, these scientists spend much of their time doing reasonable science, but then sometimes switch to doing "pseudoscience" where they attempt to support theistic ideas. This latter category is not acceptable, because it is passed off as science, when it is not. By contrast, there have been many excellent scientists that were also members of the clergy. These individuals did good science, and good preaching - the key in such cases is to not present the religious work as scientifically supported. The founder of the Big Bang model was a priest; he was also very upset when some of his fellow church workers tried to give a religious spin to his model. Other religious figures have taken a similar approach. One bishop remarked that: "The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."

Remember, not all ideas are equal in science: those that are testable and useful are given high weight, while untestable ideas are ignored. Just having an idea does not justify it in the eyes of science (though it is perfectly valid in a social context because we, thankfully, live in a free society).

This is almost insulting. As if somehow religious ideas are pure fiction and could never be tested. It shows a bias on your part IMO.

I make to claim to their veracity. But no, they cannot be tested. There is no way to test for a soul, or for a supernatural being outside of typical time and space. To the extent that we can test for supernatural beings, we have found none - there are no gods on Mount Olympus, nor do demons and goblins underlie the actions of natural systems around us. But the general concepts of things like an afterlife, soul, or all-powerful deities are beyond the scope of physical evidence, pretty much by definition.

Again...declaring it inappropriate to prove or disprove a truth. This sounds like the statement of a sympathetic atheist. If God or a designer exists, it seems to me that evidence for the existance would be a worthwhile pursuit, and using scientific methods to do so shouldn't be restricted.

If you can prove the existence of a deity, then go for it. I see no way of doing so, nor do I see any way of demonstrating, conclusively, that there is no such being.


Cheers,

--MH

[Passerine]

Well lets see:

lefties and liberals - are they really name calling, or just a description?

elitist eggheads - I didn't call anyone specific this.

Now "my type" and "right wing jargon" seems similar to my comments.


The person who wrote "You MORON" seems to describe one who can't refute an argument.

And yet it was in response to one of my posts refuting your argument that Intelligent Design is valid science. If you didn't specifically calling any of us here "lefty, liberal elitist eggheads", are you just making a general statement against people who devote their time to actual science (as opposed to pseudoscience and faulty theology)? Your anti-intellectualism is showing, Mr. Black, and your ad hominem attacks only expose it further.

[Evil Yoda]

Well I disagree. But even if you were right in your assumption, if the creationism folks revised out some of your concerns (and filed off the serial numbers) and used good solid science to prove their ideas and theories, why the fear?

It's not fear as much as dismay. When I see people putting creationism forward and calling it science, but without actually proving it, I'm dismayed that they think this is a good idea. Or, to put it another way, if the design was intelligent, then where's the designer? No one has been able to construct a repeatable, clear experiment that demonstrates the existence of the designer.

There's also some question about the term "intelligent." Consider *just* the heart (which is pretty similar in all vertabrates). It is best described by stealing a line from Star Trek: "it is a primitive structure. Insufficient safeguards built in. Breakdown can occur from many causes. Self-maintenance systems of low reliability." Here are a few problems:

1. Most of the circulation depends on a single chamber of the four (the left ventricle). If it fails, but the rest of the heart is fine, the organism still dies.
2. The electrical activity is regulated by a single node connected in series. If this node fails, serious problems arise.
3. The vessels that nourish the organ do a poor job of cleaning and maintaining their interior surfaces.
4. The "design" of the aorta is laughable.

*I* have what I regard as good ideas on how to correct these problems. Presumably, the "designer" of the universe and of humans would be a lot smarter than me. So, why all the rookie mistakes?

So I guess we're now in the realm of "design," having removed the "intelligent." On the other hand, the heart is "good enough" to keep most of us alive for about thirty-five years. That's about long enough to raise children. Coincidence? I doubt it. Evolution generally stops at "good enough."

The notion that people are putting forward what amounts to mythology and trying to sell it as science is disturbing. It suggests that mankind is regressing intellectually, instead of progressing.

Its silly and sad to fear ID and to go to such great lengths to discredit it.

ID pretty much discredits itself, without help from me or anyone else. Which is why belief in it is so disturbing.

[unclesharkey]

Evil Yoda.....and stuff made by humans by intelligent design is any better than stuff made by nature....?

I don't think that argument holds water. I heard it before. What can man make through intelligent design that nature has not already created? I think we give ourselves too much credit. We only know the tip of the iceberg.

There is a driving force behind nature or there is not......how is one argument better than the other?

It sure is doing a lot of something for no good reason........I guess the universe evolved from baby universes that evolved from even smaller pre-universes.....which evolved from nothing....which one day decided it was bored and came into existence. Then over and infinite amount of time it evolved into the universe we know and love today.

I would say that argument could hold equal ground with some entity with great scientific knowledge decided he was bored and set into motion a formula that created the universe that we know and love today.

Who created the creator?.......Who created the nothing that created the universe?....or if the universe was always here then why was it here and not there.........where did it come from.....

[Uncle Spike]

Uncle Sharkey,

There is a huge difference between abiogenesis and the modern scientific theory of evolution. Evolution doesn't claim anything regarding the universe as a whole, it only deals with what happened after "life" arose on Earth and as such makes no claim in regards to that.

[Eastside Terp]

Irreducible complexity is basically the argument of perpetual ignorance...that there is no possible way it can ever be figured out, so therefore it was designed.

The problem with that argument being that every time it has been proposed by ID adherants, their example has been refuted over time. (bacterium flagellum, blood clotting cascade, etc...). It is akin to someone saying 2 thousand years ago that because the process of a volcano erupting could not be explained at the time it must have been happening because the gods were angry. And each time it gets explained, the goal post just gets moved to the next thing they think can't be explained and it is declared "proof"..over and over again.

The probability arguments have all also been proven faulty as a misrepresentation of how probabilities work. (also called the 'argument from really big numbers) One of the creationist/ID arguments is that it is so statistically improbable for a full chain of 574 amino acids to spontaneously form into a hemoglobin molecule that it couldn't possibly have happened by saying the probability that this molecule resulted by the random chance arrangement of the four nucleotides is 1 out of 4^6000 or 2.3x10^3216.

Now of course, we have a couple problems...first it's simply bs. We have no way of calculating all the variables involved at each step along the way to have any clue what the probability equation would be. The point is just t come up with a 1 in (really really big number) set of odds and declare therefore it didn't happen! However, we can all make all manner of equally statistically improbable things happen all the time. What is the probability that out of any one person on the whole earth I will meet any one of them in a day? Any 2? Any 3? Any 100? Yet on a given day I come across hundreds of people all the time, yet through the magic of b.s. probabilities I can declare each of those meetings impossible to have occured!

And, no one is arguing that hemoglobin molecules simply formed from nothing in a single random event. We also know from a great number of studies such as this one that we are finding out how/why hemoglobin developed as it did and what some of the differences along the way have been.

good post ....

and Mike's were right on as well..........

[georjec2]

That would make sense that he would quote the Old Testament since he was Jewish. I can't think of him ever commenting on creation, though. And his "turn the other cheek" certainly contradicts "an eye for eye", n'est-ce pas?



As you said, it's an intuitive feeling. A feeling that one is more than just blood vessels and muscle and tissue and such. I would be more than happy to discuss the idea of a soul, and creationism, in a philosophy class. I don't like seeing it passed off as an alternative science.

What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how
infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and
admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like
a god! -- Shakespeare

More than 80% of the people on earth believe that we come form something greater than ourselves. Regardless of religion , culture or country the common denominator of the underpinnings of spirituality...is that we come form something greater than ourselves. What that thing is..I don't know. But I do know or think I know there is something.


p.s. Shakespeare...a genius.

[unclesharkey]

Uncle Sharkey,

There is a huge difference between abiogenesis and the modern scientific theory of evolution. Evolution doesn't claim anything regarding the universe as a whole, it only deals with what happened after "life" arose on Earth and as such makes no claim in regards to that.

Yes but don't you think there would be a connection...?

I mean we can only talk about Earth it is the only example we have.....like I said the tip of the iceberg.

[Evil Yoda]

Evil Yoda.....and stuff made by humans by intelligent design is any better than stuff made by nature....?

Biologics? Not yet. But we'll get there. Many machines are better than things made by nature; they last longer and have greater capabilities.

There is a driving force behind nature or there is not......how is one argument better than the other?

One argument is supported by experimental data. The other is supported by belief, but not fact.

It sure is doing a lot of something for no good reason........I guess the universe evolved from baby universes that evolved from even smaller pre-universes.....which evolved from nothing....which one day decided it was bored and came into existence. Then over and infinite amount of time it evolved into the universe we know and love today.

I don't know where the universe "came from" - and I'm okay with that. Unlike the religous, to me the answer "I don't know" is acceptable. It simply means work remains to be done. It does *not* mean that the correct answer is to make up a story about it, which is what the Bible's authors did (and many others before them).

[zenwalk]

There's a bottleneck in the history of human genetics isn't there? This eye mistake made it through obviously and has been with us since. Deprived of what was once a wider selection of genetic material to mix with the error perhaps couldn't correct. Hey close enough for government work. It's wild how nature figures it all out.

[Mike Habib]

Biologics? Not yet. But we'll get there. Many machines are better than things made by nature; they last longer and have

Indeed. Interestingly enough, the primary advantages of human-built machines tend to be lack of constraints in materials and compromises. Living systems must be able to perform as "jack of all trades" - performing multiple tasks and various modes of transit, reproduction, or other activities. Living systems also need to self-repair and have a limited array of potential material components. Our machines obviously do not have to abide by these same limitations, and that gives them an advantage.

Even so, the margin of advantage is not nearly so large as it might seem or as we might expect (but it will presumably get there down the road). For example, our machines tend to only have a large performance advantage at large sizes (and can be much larger outright than biological systems) - at small sizes, the mass-specific power outputs are actually surprisingly even, mostly because our ability to supply power in small packages is still very limited. When things are big, human-built machines are king; at small sizes, biological machines still perform better (note that "small" is relative: the largest flying animals, for example, were still very small compared to conventional aircraft. So, in that case 500 lbs might be "small". In other cases, mouse-sized or bacteria-sized might be "small"). That said, the mass-specific power advantages for large machines are not as big, yet, as I would have thought. A tank, for example, is much, much stronger than any land animal - but it's also much, much heavier. Scaled for weight, it only gets a little bit more juice than a biological motor, which surprised the heck out of me when I saw the numbers. Go figure.

Cheers,

--MH

[Ludovicus]

I have an open mind about intelligent design in the sense that I believe in a creator of all that exists. The nature of that creator, however, is much in doubt in my mind.

Having said that, the arguments provided by Mr Black are just laughable. I have read this entire thread and Mr Black comes off as a cartoon character waging battle against educated adults with sharp minds.

Mr Black, you do a disservice to those who believe in intelligent design. Your arguments are hollow, empty, devoid of evidence and are borderline superstition.

Your efforts are so clearly transparent and provide no compelling evidence or insight that would sway an objective observer. I started reading this thread with an open mind, and at the end of it, laughed at your feeble attempts at justifying your BELIEFS.

[mrblack]

The eye is peculiar in that the nerve ganglia and the bipolar cells (connecting nerve cells between the photoreceptors and the ganglia) in the retina are anterior to the photo-receptors (rods and cones). See

http//biology.clc.uc.edu/fankhauser/Labs/Anatomy_&_Physiology/A&P202/Special_Senses/Eye/eye_jpegs/optic_nerve_PC271516_lbd.JPG.

(The eye faces right.) One would think that a better design would place the ganglia and the bipolar cells posterior to the photoreceptors to provide a clearer field of view.

It is conjectured that the mammalian eye evolved from light-sensitive spots on primitive, smallish, lancelet-type chordates, similar to present-day Amphioxus. The story of the evolution of the eye and why the ganglia and photoreceptors are ‘flipped’ is an interesting tale.

And so to the tune of "It's a Long Way from Tipperary" comes the biology student's ditty:

It's a long way, from Amphioxus,
⠀⠀⠀⠀It's a long way, to us.
It's a long, hard way from Amphioxus,
⠀⠀⠀⠀To the meanest human cuss.

Good-bye fins and gill-slits,
⠀⠀⠀⠀Hello teeth and hair.
It'a a long, hard slog from Amphioxus,
⠀⠀⠀⠀But we came, from there.

I still remember the words after all those years. I dedicate the tune to Mr. Black.

You do kind of remind me of Amphioxus :-)....I appreciate the tune. But I see the eye as a rather complex design.

Darwin himself commented that:

“To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree” (1859, “On the origin of species”).

[mrblack]

There's a bottleneck in the history of human genetics isn't there? This eye mistake made it through obviously and has been with us since. Deprived of what was once a wider selection of genetic material to mix with the error perhaps couldn't correct. Hey close enough for government work. It's wild how nature figures it all out.

The eye mistake. I love it.... Yeah whoever designed the eye didn't know what He was doing.

[mrblack]

I have an open mind about intelligent design in the sense that I believe in a creator of all that exists. The nature of that creator, however, is much in doubt in my mind.

Having said that, the arguments provided by Mr Black are just laughable. I have read this entire thread and Mr Black comes off as a cartoon character waging battle against educated adults with sharp minds.

Mr Black, you do a disservice to those who believe in intelligent design. Your arguments are hollow, empty, devoid of evidence and are borderline superstition.

Your efforts are so clearly transparent and provide no compelling evidence or insight that would sway an objective observer. I started reading this thread with an open mind, and at the end of it, laughed at your feeble attempts at justifying your BELIEFS.

Well after reading your other posts I wonder how much of your opinion has to do with your way left leaning political views (and my conservative religious ones) and how much have to do with your views of science (which you don't dare to even attempt to provide). And if you believe in some form of ID as you say, why not jump in and attempt to support it instead of hacking away at me personally? I've seen you personally attack other conservatives in similar ways, and your obsesive posts about Sarah Palin are also indicative of this same trend. Could it be that thats all you have? I suspect thats it.

[mrblack]

Originally Posted by MIKEHABIB

Ah, the information addition issue. To be honest, this is one of the few issues in these sorts of debates that I just can't fathom the origin of: because it is so silly as to be absurd.

Lets start from the top:

your 'doctor' is uninformed

The doctor in question is Lee M. Spetner who is a biophysicist, author, and critic of so-called Neo-Darwinism. He received his Ph.D in physics from MIT in 1950. He was with the Applied Physics Laboratory of Johns Hopkins University from 1951 to 1970. He spent the academic year 1962-63 on a fellowship in the Department of Biophysics at Johns Hopkins University. During that time he became interested in evolution, which has been his focus of study ever since. Spetner is the author of "Not By Chance! Shattering The Modern Theory of Evolution."

Again his quote:

The reason why macroevolution is controversial and remains theoretical is that there is no known way for entirely new genetic information to be added to a genome. Darwinists have been hoping that genetic mutation would provide a mechanism, but so far that has not been the case. As Dr. Spetner again explains, “I really do not believe that the neo-Darwinian model can account for large scale evolution [i.e. macroevolution]. What they really can’t account for is the buildup of information. …And not only is it improbable on the mathematical level, that is theoretically, but experimentally one has not found a single mutation that one can point at that actually adds information. In fact, every beneficial mutation that I have seen reduces the information, it loses information.”

More can be seen here:

http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner1.asp

I especially liked:

I have shown in my book that such extrapolations are ill founded because breeding experiments, such as those giving wheat greater protein content or vegetables greater size, result from mutations that disable repressor genes. The conclusions jumped to were false because they were based on data that could not be extrapolated to long sequences. One cannot gain information from a long sequence of steps that all lose information. As I noted in my book, that would be like the merchant who lost a little money on each sale, but thought he could make it up on volume.