Skip to comments.The End of Intelligent Design?
Posted on 02/09/2010 3:15:53 PM PST by cornelis
click here to read article
If it was directed by God -- or anyone -- it wasn't random.
All ID does is say that certain observed natural events perfectly match the markers by which we know objects are designed.
It just doesn't rebut an Old Earth (or Evolution) either.
No dog in the fight :-)
Good post :-)
ID does not posit that and to say the design is incompetent is making a theological -- and very, very silly -- claim.
This is a theological assumption, not a scientific one, and I agree, it is a rather silly one.
The assumption of science is that physical laws are both necessary and sufficient to explain physical phenomena.
The entire hypothesis of ID is that the physical laws of reality are NOT sufficient to explain the physical phenomena of the development of life on Earth; thus they posit that the “designer” had to directly intervene.
No. ID claims that things that are designed have distinct characteristics and if these characteristics are contained in an object the inference of design should be made.
Life has these characteristics hence it should be inferred life is designed.
Neither the designer nor the means of design are not addressed. There is no supernatural involved.
You, however, seem to be claiming that the laws of physics are sufficient for the development of life. Can you show how life occurred using the laws of physics?
If you can't, how is accepting this not a statement of faith and how is demanding the claim not be questioned not the imposition of a theological dogma?
“I have a faith in Jesus Christ, and that was my point.”
Amen, brother, and that’s what matters.
That is not a theological assumption, it is the only basis upon which science can perform or advance.
If everything that developed according to natural laws is designed, wouldn't everything in the universe have these distinct characteristics?
What wouldn't have these distinct characteristics of being designed?
What in this universe are you saying was NOT designed by God?
1. Actually, it's not. If you want an example as to why your understanding if flawed think of thermodynamics
2. What "law of reality" says life can't be designed?
There is no “law of reality” that life cannot be designed, but there can be no scientific theory that makes an appeal to that which is beyond physical reality. Science doesn't work that way. Systems of knowledge that relied upon things other than physical laws to describe physical reality have not been nearly as productive or as useful as science.
So what in this universe are you saying was not designed by God? Are some things “more” designed by God than others?
So where does energy come from?
So what about thermodynamics do you think physical reality is insufficient to explain?
Why are you avoiding my question about the “marks” of design?
If there are marks that indicate if something was designed, what in this universe designed by God would NOT have these marks? Are some things “more” designed than others?
Now, you are asking what isn't designed. That's a philosophical question, not a scientific one.
To state that DNA has the characteristics of design is not a philosophical question. It is a practical observation of nature.
Can you see the difference?
I will grant that saying everything is designed is far more useful -- it's the foundation of science in fact -- than assuming everything is by chance which is the paradigm that anti-IDist in effect advocate.
Classic science assumes design and attempts to find what the design is.
Energy detected in the physical universe comes from physical means. Have you ever detected or measured energy that derived from non-physical means?
No you have not.
If you say detecting design is a scientific question, then how could detecting things NOT designed not also be a scientific question by your flawed criteria?
Do you think that DNA is “more designed” or has more “characteristics of design” than other things in the universe? Are those other things any less designed by God?
Science, classic or otherwise, describes physical causes that are necessary and sufficient to explain physical phenomena. Nowhere in the history of science has the supposition of non physical causes led to anything of any productive use.
Interconnectedness, interdependence, and the overall beauty of Creation point to a designer.
But some things are "more designed than others," in the sense that their existence can't be explained by purely natural causes --those things which are irreducibly complex.
Design can also be proved negatively. For example, it is impossible for scientists to create and build a machine that can meet the specifications of a human being. Ask an engineer if it would be possible to design a machine to the following specifications:
1) The machine must be molecular in size, to start. Over a period of 15 years, the machine must "grow itself" to weigh over 100 lbs.
2) The machine must "run" on organic materials, such as vegetation, meats, water and sunlight.
3) The machine must be able to move bi-pedally over any terrrain.
4) The machine must be able to move through water.
5) The machine must be able to "see," "hear," "taste," "touch," and "smell," and be able to differentiate between objects (i.e., apprehend things).
6) The machine must replicate itself. 7) The machine must be able to form logical propositions.
8) The machine must be able to learn, and to pass this learning on to other similar machines. 9) The machine must be self-healing. I could go on and on. The point is that it is simply impossible to design and build such a machine, given all the resources in the world and the world's greatest scientists. The idea is laughable, given the current state of the natural sciences.
Look at Asimo. As someone with a degree in mechanical engineering, I can tell you that Asimo is a very impressive machine, but an absolute joke, when compared to the human musculo-skeletal system --an absolute joke. Just look at it in a medical encyclopedia, and tell me how scientists could create anything remotely similar.
Now, if the greatest scientists could not create anything remotely as complex as a "human machine," how could blind material forces?
Are blind material forces and chance greater designers than the most intelligent scientists? Chance is a better designer than intelligence? The notion is absurd.
ID theory would have precluded the promotion of now-discredited "scientific" theories, arising from evolutionary theory, such as "the useless appendix," "the leftover (spinal) tail," etc.
There are two phenomena.
I suggest you read Prov 16:33 and then come back and tell me how you came to the opinion that “random” means “not directed by God”.
All things are directed by God.
All things are designed by God.
Some things are not “more” designed by God than others just because they are complex. It is an either or proposition. Either something is designed or “just happened”.
If you truly believe in God and the Bible, then what in this universe are you willing to say “just happened” rather than being part of God's plan?
I don't know if you meant that but what you said was that energy comes from physical means. That would be a violation of the "laws of reality".
Do you know what the First Law of Thermodynamics is?
If you say detecting design is a scientific question, then how could detecting things NOT designed
You mean things that occur by chance or necessity?
bump for later read
It depends on what you mean by "directed by God." Does God directly determine every coin flip? Or does every coin flip ultimately fit into God's providential plan? I believe the latter. I assume that you do to. I think we're attaching different meanings to the same words.
Some things are not more designed by God than others just because they are complex.
How can things of greater or lesser complexity be of an equivalent order of design? Is a 747 "more designed" than a cardboard box? Neither one is difficult for God to design, but that is a separate issue, and doesn't contradict the fact that both things are of greater and lesser design.
It is an either or proposition. Either something is designed or just happened.
There are countless proximate, natural, causes which govern the motion of a cloud of gas, before the motion of a cloud of gas can be traced all the way back to the Big Bang, and then its ultimate cause --God. There are, in comparison, far fewer proximate causes leading up to the creation of human beings --zero, to be preciese. Ultimately, both human beings and clouds of gas are "designed," but in ordinary language, a cloud of gas is something that "just happens," as opposed to human beings, which we more easily see as designed.
If you truly believe in God and the Bible, then what in this universe are you willing to say just happened rather than being part of God's plan?
Everything falls under God's providence. The fact that human beings exhibit a higher order of design than a cloud of gas doesn't contradict the idea of God's providential plan.
“the dice are cast into the lap, but every result is from the Lord”
So in your formulation, complex = more designed?
Is a snowflake “more designed” than a drop of water?
Or did it “just happen”?
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google ·
· The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·
As usual with evolutionists, the author creates an “ID straw man”, and then sets out to show why it is wrong. He completely misstates the ID case, and misconstrues what is contended. Maybe he should do a little more reading of the current ID literature.
So is evolution. You cannot reproduce a single instance of positive evolution. It is not going on. Evolutionists are as dependent upon faith as the ID'ers.
ID was never meant to be scientific in the first place. It has always been nothing more than a political tactic to get creationism into the public schools, and this was even admitted candidly by its founders at the Discovery Institute before they realized that their paper trail could be broadcast over the Web.
ID is the “wedge” tactic of a particular sectarian view that is hostile to naturalistic explanations for anything. It has, in this way, far more in common with Islam than traditional Christian thought, as it rejects naturalism completely.
Darwinism provides exactly zero answers when it comes to biogenesis and has its own problems even post-genesis. I see no reason that IDers, Creationists, or anyone else should suffer the mockery of the same fools who tried to feed us the unscientific lie of Anthropomorphic Global Warming.
You obviously have not read very much about ID.
Actually... I have read vast amounts on ID. Sadly, it has contained precious little science... at least from the ID side.
As to Creationism in general, I have personally debated Duane Gish, Walter T. Brown, and the late A.E. Wilder-Smith. So I’m not a novice here my any stretch.
That's bullshit, you can't just write Michael Behe and some of the other ID proponents off. They HAVE accomplished an understanding of things which could not plausibly evolve and the reasons for that.
Further, there is the strong probability that by thus relegating evolution and evoloserism to the garbage heap of pseudoscience history which is their rightful place, ID proponents might in fact thus be acting to prevent another world war of some sort and/or some of the other societal grief which was brought about by the concept that a man should view his neighbor as a meat byproduct of entirely random events, i.e. by Darwinism and the various forms of social evolutionism.
All of that more than justifies the effort which has been spent on ID, and anybody who can't see that is basically blind.
An intelligent person would have learned something from the experience...
You might want to read this and then update your talking points.
Simple answer: They can't. Evolution is no longer being defended by anybody with brains or talent, basically just by academic dead wood.
Please cite one of Behes papers supporting Intelligent Design that has been published in a creditable peer-reviewed journal.
I’m not a theist, so of course do not buy any creationist ideas, but cannot buy any current evolutionist hypotheses, either.
But Id, is absurd. If any engineer in any business in history produced such a bad design he would have been instantly fired.
Peer reviewed journals are basically a closed system. I mean, we’ve all just seen that in the case of “Global Warming(TM), haven’t we? What’s the difference??
Again with the straw man, is that all that you have?
I guess when the facts are not on your side, or you have a question you cannot answer you got to go with it.
"For most professors, the surest route to scholarly fame (and some fortune) is to publish in the distinguished academic journals of their field. Not books, or treatises, for these are rare indeed, but short, densely packed articles of a dozen pages or so.
"The successful professor's resume will be littered with citations of short, scholarly articles, their value rising with the prestige of the journal. These studious articles are the coin of the realm in the academic world. They are the professor's ticker to promotion, higher salary, generous research grants, lower teaching loads, and even more opulent office space.
"...These are supposed to be scholarly pieces, at the cutting edge of new knowledge.
"But now I must confess something. Many years ago when I read these articles regularly as part of my academic training and during my early years as a professor, I was bothered by the fact that I often failed to find the point of these articles, even after wading through the web of jargon, mathematical equations, and turgid English. Perhaps when I get older and wiser I will appreciate them more, I thought. Well, I am now fifty-five years old, and the significance of most academic writing continues to elude me."
"In recent years, I have conducted an informal survey. Whenever the opportunity presents itself, I ask scholars about their academic journal reading habits. For example, I recently asked a colleague, a man with a solid reputation as a scholar, what he considered to be the most important academic journal in his field of study. An economist, he immediately replied "The American Economic Review".
"Let me ask you a question", I said. "Take, say, all of the issues of the last five years. What is your favorite article?"
"...Sure enough, he answered like all the rest. There was a silence of a few seconds, and then he cleared his throat a bit and, looking somewhat guilty and embarassed, said "Well, I haven't been reading it much lately." When pressed, he admitted that he could not name a single article which he had read during the last five years which he found memorable. In fact, he probably had not read any articles, but was loath to admit it.
"...There are exceptions of course, a handful of men and women in every field who do read these articles and try to comprehend any glimmers of meaning or significance they might contain. But, as a general rule, nobody reads the articles in academic journals anymore.
"...There is a mystery here. For while these academic publications pile up, largely unread, on the shelves of university libraries, their importance to a professor's career continues unabated. Scarcely anyone questions these proofs of erudition on a resume.
"...One reason why these research articles are automatically accepted as significant and important is that they have survived the criticism of "peer review" before being published.
"...Some of the manuscript reviews are done 'blind', with the author's name stripped off, while others are not and the reviwer knows exactly whom he or she is evaluating. Given what is at stake in peer reviewing... it would not be unreasonable to worry a little about corruption sneaking in.
"But these questions are not explored. The fact that some fields of study are small enough that the intellectuals involved in them are all known to eachother, or that friends review friends, or that reviewers repay those who reviewed their own writings favorably in the past -- all these potential problems are ignored...
That of course simply describes the "peer review" system which normal academia is based on. Grandiose flim-flams and scams like "global warming" or evolution amount to the same methods with intent to scam the whole world and not just academia.
Still whacking at that same old straw man I see.
Lets see the creation/i.d. scientist cant play by the scientific rules the rest of the world follows so they just decide to change the rules .I get it.
When your research cant stand up to peer-review, then it is not valid research.
So is evolution. You cannot reproduce a single instance of positive evolution. It is not going on. Evolutionists are as dependent upon faith as the ID'ers.............
In fact the evos have diligently tried to produce positive lasting mutations for many decades using the extremely fast reproducing fruit fly. They subject fruit flies to every conceivable thing they can think of to make it produce positive, lasting mutations without any success. Fruit flies have had in the years of experimentation on them many more generations than man has ever suppose to have had on earth. No matter what they do in the end they still have fruit flies, and fruit flies without positive, lasting mutations. In their valiant effort to prove the merits of macro evolution they have gone a long way to disprove it.
Please don’t consider your post a waste of time as it is the first that has inspired me to comment here.
Regarding Darwin and evolution. Darwin (and Wallace) developed their ideas based on detailed observations. They developed their theories in a period when Uniformitarianism was the orthodoxy of science. Under this idea, viewing evolution as a long slow process of gradual changes where statistically, the more fit would be more likely to reproduce made sense.
However, anyone who has been following Sunken Civ’s ping list Catastrophism, or was already aware of this, knows that the evolutionary world has also been influenced by a number of very severe world wide catastrophes. An argument was made that Darwin himself was concerned about the “Cambrian Explosion” when new life forms became numerous and widespread. We now know that there was probably a major extraterrestrial crash on earth that preceeded the “Explosion”. Other major boloids may have caused the great Permian extinction which destroyed about 97% of all species. It took millions of years for the earth to recover from that one, but then the dinosaurs had their great 150 million year flowering. Until the great Yucatan boloid crashed and made their continued life impossible 65 million years ago. We now know that a number of great and lesser events caused the dying off of creatures that were probably quite fit, but were unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. After each of these events there has been a great movement and diversification of the survivors.
Relatively recently, 74,000 years ago, the megavolcano Toba in Indonesia exploded leaving a crater 18 miles by 65 miles in diameter. Scientists now are inclined to believe that this event reduced the human population to no more than 5 or 10,000 individuals. Certainly fitness helped those who were not killed in the first terrible years to survive. However, we do not know how many people more fit were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Unfortunately, the scientific work on boloid effects and megavolcanoes is relatively new, and as each science is specialized and isolated, it takes time for new learning in one are to permeat and influence the thinking and hypothosese of another.
Meanwhile, fascinating work is being done in the field of evolutionary developmental biology, evo devo for short. Here they show that the genetics of development is amazingly conservative (in the sense of conserving). For example the segments of an earthworm, of an insect, and the spine of a human all have the same genetic roots. Thus rather than having to totally reinvent the wheel, evolution springboards from preexisting genetic material as new variations are mutated. Thus the amount of time it takes to develop new creatures should be much shorter than if everything had to be developed from scratch. I encourage anyone who wants to know more about this exciting young field to read: Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo, by Sean B. Carroll, 2005.
“Neither the designer nor the means of design are [not?] addressed. There is no supernatural involved.”
However, the Republican appointed Judge in the Dover case did come to the conclusion that ID was being used as a stalking horse for religion, thus the decision to refuse ID equal standing with science. Furthermore, the religiously oriented people who pushed the case made fools of themselves by lying on the stand. Something which seriously annoyed the Judge. It was also shown that previous creationist literature had been basically rewritten by replacing the more religious wording with ID.
You mean the political hack whose main claim to fame before being appointed a federal district judge was heading the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board and banning Bad Frog Beer because he didn't like the label?
You mean the wise jurist who let the ACLU write his decision almost word for word?
David Souter was Republican appointed too. I guess you must think he's a great judge since he was on the Supreme Court and all.
Can you give me more information about the ACLU writing his decision?