AiG’s views on the Intelligent Design Movement

Answers in Genesis ^ | 8/30/2002 | Carl Weiland

[Doctor Stochastic]

Dinosaurs don't come with VIN numbers either.

[Nebullis]

Cognitive science

I can't imagine that this is science without materialistic constraints.

[Nebullis]

Your view on Evolution is incorrect. Modern Evolutionary Theory offers no hypothesis for how the first life form evolved from inanimate matter.

It was your suggestion that evolution should have a hypothesis of origins, not mine. Biologists and other scientists do and some hypotheses enjoy more empirical support than others. Evolution theory, by definition, doesn't cover abiogenesis.

[Southack]

"Hmmm... First of all, these archaeologists would immediately see that the "skeletons" were all made of iron and/or aluminum alloys. So to conclude these were originally living things would imply that there was a family of animals that produced iron alloy bones. With an offshoot family that produced aluminum alloy bones!"

But it makes no difference if they were "living" or not (care to give a definition of "living", btw?).

To the alien society exploring our planet in the distant future, whether they noticed layers of cars buried in the depths of the sand or layers of bones, they initially know nothing about either.

They then have to examine the evidence at hand to try to explain how all of the various models of cars came to pass over the years.

Did the cars modify themseles? Did the cars evolve? Did the cars procreate? Does it matter if the cars procreated?

And of course, the correct answer that such a society would eventually uncover is that none of the cars evolved, but the intelligent designers of the cars was instead responsible for their creation.

Likewise, we don't know today whether or not biological species evolved on their own or were created by an intelligent designer, based upon the evidence at hand.

What you are trying to do, however, is to dismiss the possibility of a designer based upon a tautology.

Your tautology is either that "because life evolves, Evolution must be responsible" or "because life procreates, only biological life can evolve".

Yet that is false logic either way. Machines could easily procreate, but that doesn't mean that machines will or won't evolve. Computer viri procreate themselves, but do they evolve or do their designers change them? Could a non-biological software program potentially evolve WITHOUT procreation? Of course.

But just looking at the evidence at hand, one can't say that life evolved on its own without intelligent aid. Nor could one say that cars couldn't evolve on their own due to their lack of procreation or their compositions of metal.

In other words, your premise is flawed, and therefore so is your conclusion.

What one can say is that we have seen in our fossil record a steady track record of progressive speciation, and while this speciation could be due to either unaided luck or intelligent design, the composition of all known life forms' DNA reveal a Base-4 mathematical encryption of genes in each example, and Base-4 math isn't what one would normally associate with random, unaided accidents.

[Nebullis]

For example, it wouldn't be difficult to imagine that if explorers from a future race came to Earth and saw layer after layer of buried automobiles on a dead planet, that said future race might examine the depth that each type of car was buried, carbon dated them, noticed the slight modifications in each model over the years, and conclude erroneously that the cars evolved.

Car designs did evolve. It's extremely difficult to imagine that "explorers from a future race" would view the cars as living organisms. What a silly example!

[Southack]

"It was your suggestion that evolution should have a hypothesis of origins, not mine. Biologists and other scientists do and some hypotheses enjoy more empirical support than others. Evolution theory, by definition, doesn't cover abiogenesis."

You must feel rather clever right now, as you've managed to finally come around and agree with what I stated at the very beginning. Congrats!

I stated that modern Evolution had nothing to say about the very first species of life (i.e. abiogenesis), and I used that statement to show that your claim about ID was rubbish. To wit:

"This is a strong indictment of the ID movement. It is philosophically empty. ... Weiland correctly points out that the IDers have no hypothesis of their own."

Nonsense. One could use that logic to say the very same thing about Evolutionists.

Evolution, for instance, offers no explanation of how the very first species evolved from purely inanimate matter.

But does that really make Evolution "philosophically empty"??

And now you've come full circle to figure out that Evolution really doesn't explain abiogenesis. Again, congrats!

[Southack]

"Car designs did evolve. It's extremely difficult to imagine that "explorers from a future race" would view the cars as living organisms. What a silly example!"

On the contrary, my example reveals your flawed logic.

It doesn't matter if machines are alive or not because machines CAN potentially evolve on their own. Machines can even evolve WITHOUT PROCREATION. Self-modifying software programs exemplify this point, in fact.

Thus, an advanced species coming to study a long-buried Earth-culture would have to examine the cars carefully to determine if those machines modified themselves or were modified by intelligent designers.

If they skipped that step like you did above, then they could easily draw the wrong conclusion (as you've no doubt done).

[Southack]

"If they find some particularly well-preserved specimens, they'll notice that fossil cars seem to contain many parts that are straight, cylindrical, or round. In contrast, living bodies basically have no straight lines, cylinders, or perfect circles at all. (Some parts of the eye are good circles, if you ignore their full 3D shape.)"

Why do you think it matters as to whether something is (or was) alive or not in order to determine if it self-evolved?

Do you think that software and machines are incapable of self-evolution?

[Southack]

"The evolution of designed things is characterized by pervasive meme transfer between unrelated lineages, as new designs & inventions get adopted by unrelated companies."

That's true up to a point, however, we don't know enough about whatever "intelligent designers'" environment exists/existed to know if there is a parallel between multiple designers along the lines of the "unrelated companies" that you cite above.

But where you are correct is that intelligent design seems to be related to meme or idea transfer.

And we see that in spades in biological life.

All life uses the same Base-4 mathematical coding in their DNA. All life codes DNA in subroutines known as genes. Numerous life forms share the same genetic subroutines of code, too. For instance we see the re-use of various body parts, scaled for organism size, on countless species.

Idea transfer? Meme transfer? Life displays it at every turn.

[Nebullis]

And now you've come full circle to figure out that Evolution really doesn't explain abiogenesis.

I think you are missing the point of Weiland's criticism. The design movement is philosophically empty because it has no alternative to offer in place of the evolution theory it attacks.

[Nebullis]

Machines can even evolve WITHOUT PROCREATION. Self-modifying software programs exemplify this point, in fact.

Self-modifying software goes through cycles of replication. It's all modeled after real life. But there's no reason to think that the fictitious future culture would discover anything other than reality as it was. Car designs evolved, but not by themselves. When machines are made to evolve by themselves, there will be evidence around to that effect.

[Southack]

"I think you are missing the point of Weiland's criticism. The design movement is philosophically empty because it has no alternative to offer in place of the evolution theory it attacks."

Just because (a) designer/designers was/were not specified by ID hardly leaves it philosophically empty anymore than Evolutionary Theory's failure to specify how the first life form evolved from inanimate matter makes it philosophically empty.

[Southack]

"But there's no reason to think that the fictitious future culture would discover anything other than reality as it was. Car designs evolved, but not by themselves. When machines are made to evolve by themselves, there will be evidence around to that effect."

And here we are. Man is already starting programs to create pigs that grow useful human organs. Soon we'll be directly modifying our own DNA. In the meantime we augment breasts, add hair, replace eyes, change the shape of eyes to improve our eyesight, etc. We write software programs that self-procreate and self-modify themselves, too.

But the interesting fact about all of the evidence at hand is that we only see the creation of new forms of life - from other life. Pigs don't grow human organs due to some freak accident, after all, but rather through the intervention of Man, an intelligent designer (by some standards, at least).

Thus, Evolutionists are left to insist that we will one day find other evidence that supports their theory and refutes what evidence science has on hand today for the creation of new forms of life.

[f.Christian]

Do you believe in Creation or science fiction---evolution?

Given an infinite and eternal complex of universes extending outwards in all directions, in all dimensions (as is only natural if we assume an infinite and all powerful God), it follows that all possible possibilities are not only probable, but certain. To an infinite degree.

51 posted on 8/31/02 1:56 PM Pacific by Vast Buffalo Wing Conspiracy [

[jennyp]

To the alien society exploring our planet in the distant future, whether they noticed layers of cars buried in the depths of the sand or layers of bones, they initially know nothing about either.

Whoa, now they're alien archaeologists? Well then, they wouldn't have much within their own experience to compare the car skeletons with. We, OTOH, know what the skeletons of existing animals look like, and the similarity of fossil skeletons to existing animals was one of the things that sent Darwin off on his evolutionary thinking.

Wasn't there a cambrian or precambrian species that scientists couldn't make head or tail of until recently, because they were looking at the fossil upside down? So many precambrian & cambrian fossils don't look anything like anything that's alive today, so it's hard to even get started towards a good understanding of what happened back then.

So if they're alien archaeologists instead of humans from the far future, I'd agree with you: They would have a harder time figuring out if the fossil cars were organisms or artifacts.

[Southack]

"So if they're alien archaeologists instead of humans from the far future, I'd agree with you: They would have a harder time figuring out if the fossil cars were organisms or artifacts."

Of course. And then one would presume that they would carry their research further than merely determining organism/artifact - by looking into whether or not the machines/species self-evolved or were advanced via intelligent designers.

Of course, we know the answer to that question already today, at least for cars...

[jennyp]

They then have to examine the evidence at hand to try to explain how all of the various models of cars came to pass over the years.

Did the cars modify themseles? Did the cars evolve? Did the cars procreate? Does it matter if the cars procreated?

And of course, the correct answer that such a society would eventually uncover is that none of the cars evolved, but the intelligent designers of the cars was instead responsible for their creation.

Likewise, we don't know today whether or not biological species evolved on their own or were created by an intelligent designer, based upon the evidence at hand.

What you are trying to do, however, is to dismiss the possibility of a designer based upon a tautology.

Your tautology is either that "because life evolves, Evolution must be responsible" or "because life procreates, only biological life can evolve".

Yet that is false logic either way. Machines could easily procreate, but that doesn't mean that machines will or won't evolve. Computer viri procreate themselves, but do they evolve or do their designers change them? Could a non-biological software program potentially evolve WITHOUT procreation? Of course.

But just looking at the evidence at hand, one can't say that life evolved on its own without intelligent aid. Nor could one say that cars couldn't evolve on their own due to their lack of procreation or their compositions of metal.

In other words, your premise is flawed, and therefore so is your conclusion.

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say, but it seems like, well, I'm not sure.

Let's review what I assume is your purpose for the analogy: In looking at fossils we conclude that they represented living animals that evolved. You think this is an invalid conclusion, because non-living objects that we know were designed also changed thru time. Hence the fossil car analogy.

There are a few problems with that:

1. In order to make any sense of fossils, we have to have something that's familiar to us to grab onto. The main difference between cars & animals is that the animals are living beings & the cars are not. Which is why the fact that the skeletons were all made of iron or aluminum alloys should be significant to the archaeologists.
2. If they knew a-priori which features were diagnostic of which car company made each car (ex.: knowing what a car logo was for), they could sort the fossils into families which would correlate with the actual history of car companies. But they would also find that new components, shapes, etc. often jumped from company to company. So not knowing a-priori which characteristics definitely mark a car as coming from one maker vs. another, it should be very difficult to construct cladistic trees because of the rampant meme transfer.
3. Living things don't seem to produce the kind of shapes we regularly find in designed artifacts. The car skeletons would be rife with straight or circular or cylindrical things. Also, in most cases living things are all slightly different from every other member of its species. Cars are all made up of major subassemblies that are identical. Also living things change their size & to some extent their shape as they age. Cars don't.
4. We know of no living thing that does not come from another living thing pretty much like itself. We know of no living thing that gets manufactured by a factory.

Yes, I am assuming that in the physical world only living things reproduce themselves, and only living things undergo evolution via random mutation & natural selection. Designed artifacts are designed & constructed externally by living beings, and "evolve" via non-Darwinian means that would leave a different pattern than the living beings would.

I don't think you can give me any real examples of living physical beings that come into existence by being constructed (as opposed to being grown from similar beings), nor could you give me an example of a designed physical artifact that wasn't constructed by someone/something else.

p.s. It's late, so I can't guarantee this made any sense. :-)

[Southack]

"Let's review what I assume is your purpose for the analogy: In looking at fossils we conclude that they represented living animals that evolved. You think this is an invalid conclusion, because non-living objects that we know were designed also changed thru time. Hence the fossil car analogy."

No, that's not where I'm coming from.

Sure, when we look at fossils we conclude that they represent former living organisms. Please, I'm not trying to dispute that fact.

But what I disupute is that whether or not the object in question is an organism or an artifact has any relevence to either evolution or intelligent design.

To wit: computer software (which is arguably not alive - although that could be the subject of its own debate) can be shown to self-evolve. I've personally written assembly language routines that modify their own code, for instance. Likewise, it isn't inconceivable that a complex machine could self-evolve.

So a future society looking at our collapsed system would find our cars as well as our formerly organic fossils, and they'd ask themselves how it all came to be. Did the objects in question self-evolve randomly/naturally or was an intelligent designer involved.

The jury is still out on what they would conclude for the formerly organic fossils, but it's pretty clear that they would eventually figure out that our cars advanced over time due to the involvement of intelligent designers (i.e. Man).

[Southack]

"Yes, I am assuming that in the physical world only living things reproduce themselves, and only living things undergo evolution via random mutation & natural selection. "

I think that's a very flawed assumption.

We know for a fact that non-organic software programs can replicate/reproduce themselves. A computer virus not only reproduces itself, but spreads. It can even be tracked and destroyed by yet other non-organic systems such as anti-virus programs and firewalls.

Why wouldn't natural selection apply to non-organic entities? What part of the Theory of Evolution depends exclusively on the organic/inorganic status of the entity in question? In other words, why would it matter?

Consider that a random error in copying/replication could easily mutate a software program. How is that different from the organic world?

[Nebullis]

Thus, Evolutionists are left to insist that we will one day find other evidence that supports their theory and refutes what evidence science has on hand today for the creation of new forms of life.

You are forgetting that even in Darwin's day, there was more than the fossil record to go on. Evolution theory was not formed in isolation of the fact that life reproduces other life by various methods.