Intelligent Design The Scientific Alternative to Evolution

THE NATIONAL CATHOLIC BIOETHICS QUARTERLY ^ | AUTUMN 2003 | William S. Harris and John H. Calvert

[rob777]

Sooner or later everyone asks the question, “Where do we come from?” The answer carries profound, life-molding implications. Until this question is answered we cannot solve another fundamental question that is key to ethics, religion, and the meaning of life (if any): “Are we here for a purpose?” There are two possible answers: the universe and life and its diversity—natural phenomena—are the product of 1) a combination of only natural laws and chance (the “naturalistic hypothesis)”; or 2) a combination of law, chance, and design—the activity of a mind or some form of intelligence that has the power to manipulate matter and energy (the “design hypothesis”). The latter produces purpose, the former does not.

The naturalistic hypothesis is supported by theories of chemical evolution (with respect to the origin of the universe and of life) and by Darwinian evolution (with respect to the origin of the diversity of life). The design hypothesis is supported by the purposeful characteristics of exceedingly complex natural systems that are frequently described as “fine tuned.” Each hypothesis is densely laden with philosophical and religious baggage, and clear thinking is required in order to separate the

science from the philosophy, the evidence from the implications, and reality from imagination.

...

[js1138]

I don't believe ID requires irreducible complexity, but that it would definitively prove ID.

It wouldn't prove anything except that we don't know the full history of everything.

But we already know that we don't know everything. Scientists would be unemployed if we did.

[r9etb]

See my #174 to see if that meets your criteria.

[js1138]

...the presence of the human insulin gene sequence in an otherwise unremarkable bacterial DNA supports the hypothesis that a designer was involved in this case.

The presence of an anomalous gene in any organism would certainly stir up a lot of research. You must realize, however, that there are many ways in which genomes are modified under natural conditions. Bacterial conjugation and viral insertion are among them.

A pervasive set of anomalies across all living things would definitely call common descent into question. So-called code skipping is not a particularly difficult problem. It's a consequence of not knowing the exact history of every species.

[r9etb]

You asked for a test to support the hypothesis. I provided it. You propose an alternate hypothesis. You could try to test it, too. The question is: which is the more likely scenario?

[js1138]

That is the test, which is more likely. I ask you to provide an example of a phenomenon studied by science in which the supernatural explanation has provided the better explanation.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Is God trying to kill us?

She's punishing you for misusing your medicines.

[r9etb]

That is the test, which is more likely.

Well, yes -- but given that we're talking about the insertion of a very specific human gene, the likelihood of it being there due to "bacterial conjugation [or] viral insertion" is rather tiny.

I ask you to provide an example of a phenomenon studied by science in which the supernatural explanation has provided the better explanation.

Why are we suddenly talking about supernatural explanations? You've shifted the goalposts.

[js1138]

ID assumes a designer other than natural selection. There is no naturalistic reason to make such an assumption. No deficiency has been pointed out in the current mainstream precedures and methods of science.

If it isn't the spaghetti monster, what is it?

[edsheppa]

You're misrepresenting this argument by overstating its claims.

No I am not. The language was yours. If your argument was overstated, look at your own post for the fault. I would suggest writing what you mean in future.

QED. There's your test. And I suspect that you were already well aware of the details.

Thanks for at least giving it a shot. Maybe we can come back to what "normal" means, whether your deductions were reasonable and other issues later. For now let's concentrate on the fundamental flaw.

What is the essential difference between design and non-design? It is that design is intended. I knock a glass off the shelf. Water and glass shards are all over the floor. Was that designed or not? It depends on whether or not I intended the result. Was I angry or simply careless?

So, where in your procedure do you test that the purported designer intended to produce this human insulin producing bacterium?

[r9etb]

ID assumes a designer other than natural selection.

True.

There is no naturalistic reason to make such an assumption.

False. We know that it can happen, because we make it happen. The "design" hypothesis is therefore known to be valid.

No deficiency has been pointed out in the current mainstream precedures and methods of science.

False also. We know that there are a lot of biological phenomena that have come about due to intelligent action (by humans). By claiming that the design hypothesis is "unscientific," you're basically surrendering any claim to being able to correctly explain those phenomena. That is a serious deficiency for a discipline that purports to be able to explain how biological phenomena came about.

None of this excuses a person who proposes a "design" hypothesis from the normal standards of scientific verification. But the fact is that one probably can propose the necessary tests (we did so above, for example).

The real issue is that "science" seems to be staunchly opposed to admitting "design" hypotheses to be proposed in the first place. And that, sir, is bad science.

[r9etb]

No I am not. The language was yours. If your argument was overstated, look at your own post for the fault. I would suggest writing what you mean in future.

Huffiness on your part is not a logical refutation. If you don't understand my point, please say so.

So, where in your procedure do you test that the purported designer intended to produce this human insulin producing bacterium?

There is no logical requirement to provide a motive in order to make the "design" inference. For example, you do not need to know the motives of the designer to recognize that the following was designed:

(FWIW, its the Farlin BF-114-1 Lightning Ear Cleaner.)

Likewise, the presence of a perfectly duplicated and very specific human insulin gene within a bacterial genome is easily explained by intelligent action. We could even write down the specific steps by which it could be done. (And as an added bonus we'd be correct.) If we then go on to find the same human insulin gene in yeast (which you can), then you'd be even more likely to accept the design hypothesis.

A scientist who persists in arguing against design would be required to show that his "naturalistic processes" hypothesis is a better explanation. Good luck with that.

[edsheppa]

There is no logical requirement to provide a motive in order to make the "design" inference.

Thank you for perfectly illustrating my point. Where I have used the word intention, you have substituted the word motive even though you are attempting a rebuttal to my post. We are then left with the question, is your apparent sophistry by design or not? Should I rebuke you for typical creationist underhandedness or mildly correct your careless mistake?

Don't bother replying, I know which it is. You have accused me of overstating your argument (even though I used your own words), of huffily not understanding your argument (even though it was very clear) and now misrepresenting my argument. Three strikes and you're out is my policy.

[r9etb]

Where I have used the word intention, you have substituted the word motive even though you are attempting a rebuttal to my post.

All right, Mr. Webster, let's rephrase: There is no logical requirement to define what the designer intended to produce in order to make the design inference.

The fact remains that what the designer "intended to produce" is not required for us to be able to infer "design." For example, you probably had no trouble inferring "design" a mere picture, and if it were possible you'd have an even easier time making that inference were you to be able to get your hands on it. All that, even though you probably had no Earthly idea that the designer "intended to produce" an ear cleaner.

We are then left with the question, is your apparent sophistry by design or not?

Chalk it up to my silliness in thinking that you'd understand that by "motive" I intended to convey the same meaning as "what the designer intended to produce."

Should I rebuke you for typical creationist underhandedness or mildly correct your careless mistake?

Alas, the rebuke goes your way, for being so unwilling (or unable) to address the points in question, that you're reduced to hyperventilating about alternate wording.

[Heartlander]

A scientist who persists in arguing against design would be required to show that his "naturalistic processes" hypothesis is a better explanation. Good luck with that.

Well, we have an interesting allegoric creation story from science that states a Blind Watchmaker accidentally created a universe that contains a Blind Gamekeeper (who likes to be called ‘natural selection’ ) and killed accidentally so that we may live ; )

Watch out because the Blind Gamekeeper can kill you with his ‘noodly appendage’ if you don’t believe this story… I’m just kidding, he is actually; blind, deaf, and very stupid… but hey, that’s science.

[js1138]

You have fallen back to a position that leaves mainstream science doing what it does anyway. Every scientist dreams of finding anomalous data that requires a new paradigm.

The difference between science and ID is that science immediately begins searching for a natural explanation.

[general_re]

We know that it can happen, because we make it happen. The "design" hypothesis is therefore known to be valid.

To assume that this informs us at all about non-human designers does not even remotely follow, however. Sure, we can spot things that humans have designed reasonably reliably, but we also have lots of experience with human-designed things. It's not some innate ability we have, spotting man-made things - it's a learned skill, gained by experience with man-made artifacts, and subsequently drawing inferences based on that experience.

That being said, where's your baseline for non-human designers? Where's your collection of known products of non-human designers, from which you can draw inferences about unknown artifacts? Hate to say it, but the answer is: you don't have one, and hence it's of a wholly different nature than spotting signs of human designers.

[Heartlander]

The difference between science and ID is that science immediately begins searching for a natural explanation.

So human consciousness and morality ‘must be’ due to ‘only’ natural explanations?

The time has come to take seriously the fact that we humans are modified monkeys, not the favored Creation of a Benevolent God on the Sixth Day. In particular, we must recognize our biological past in trying to understand our interactions with others. We must think again especially about our so-called “ethical principles.” The question is not whether biology—specifically, our evolution—is connected with ethics, but how. As evolutionists, we see that no [ethical] justification of the traditional kind is possible. Morality, or more strictly our belief in morality, is merely an adaptation put in place to further our reproductive ends. Hence the basis of ethics does not lie in God’s will.... In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate. It is without external grounding. Like Macbeth’s dagger, it serves a powerful purpose without existing in substance.

Ethics is illusory inasmuch as it persuades us that it has an objective reference. This is the crux of the biological position. Once it is grasped, everything falls into place.
Michael Ruse and E. O. Wilson, “The Evolution of Ethics,” in Religion and the Natural Sciences: The Range of Engagement, ed. J. E. Hutchingson (Orlando, Fl.: Harcourt and Brace, 1991).

[js1138]

So human consciousness and morality ‘must be’ due to ‘only’ natural explanations?

Science cannot prescribe what is right and wrong, but it can certainly study how and why people behave as they do, just as it can study weather and climate, with similar limitations on success.

[r9etb]

The difference between science and ID is that science immediately begins searching for a natural explanation.

Oh? In that case, it seems that science would in many cases be front-loaded for getting the wrong answer (e.g., if we attempted to use science to explain how some human-caused phenomenon came about).

On the other hand, a scientist who is open to the possibility of ID would have a better chance of finding the right answer (somebody did it).

What you're bringing up is not an issue of scientific methods, but rather scientific assumptions. In this particular example, the scientific assumption you've stated would be wrong.

[js1138]

Assumptions can always be wrong. This is built int science in the process of self-correction. Perhaps you can cite an example of a phenomenon studied by science where the assumptionm of natural cause has been unproductive.