-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Intelligent Design???
- Thread starter shunyadragon
- Start date
exchemist
Veteran Member
In my view, this is swamp from which you will never escape.
The systems are far too complex and interactive for it to be possible to assign probabilities to any useful degree, especially when you do not know how strong selective pressures are at any past point in time, and given that we still do not know all the mechanisms by which genetic change occurs.
Behe and Snoke famously tried to model the rate of evolution in a simple system, but found to their chagrin it worked far more quickly than they had anticipated. I quote from the Panda's Thumb commentary on it:
"We all remember a few years ago as Dembski spoke breathlessly about how Behe and Snoke's upcoming 2004 paper "may well be the nail in the coffin [and] the crumbling of the Berlin wall of Darwinian evolution." In fact, that paper ended up as one of the nails in the ID coffin in the Kitzmiller trial, as Behe was forced to admit <http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2005/10/behe_disproves_irreducible_com.php> under oath that their computer simulation had in fact concluded that an irreducibly complex protein binding site could evolve in only 20,000 years even when the parameters of the experiment were purposely rigged to make it as unlikely as possible."
Dembski and Behe are now thoroughly discredited (your link is from 2008 and both people seem to have disappeared from the radar since then) and the whole idea seems to have contracted into a zombie science, kept on life support by the Disco Tute.
Futzing about with probability calculations is no match for scientific observation. But in any case, it is pretty clear from consideration of basic philosophy of science that ID is not science in the first place.
exchemist
Veteran Member
Yes, that is the history of it in a nutshell: a bogus "science", dreamt up by a lawyer (Philip Johnson) as a tool of social engineering by the American religious right.
exchemist
Veteran Member
Ellen, I think the problem may be that you and Altfish are using "evidence" to mean different things. You seem to be using it as a word to express personal conviction, whereas Altfish is using it in the sense of the sort of objective observation acceptable as evidence in support of a scientific hypothesis.
There is no objective evidence of a supernatural agency tinkering with, or suspending, the operation of the normal order in nature (what we sometimes call the "laws of nature"). In fact it is hard to see how there could be.
A religiously inclined person is however quite at liberty to see the working of nature as part of a creator's plan, or to see the fact that there is order in nature in the first place as at least aesthetically suggestive of a creator.
The error comes when, as with ID, people try to force science to provide objective evidence of supernatural tinkering with nature. This doesn't - and cannot - work.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You made a claim. Requiring you to support it .Is only reasonable. It is hardly trying to back you into a corner. Your opinion appears to be false.
I know of only one such proposal, Michael Behe's notion of 'irreducible complexity'. He (unlike Dembski, Meyer and Campbell, all of whom did a Bold Sir Robin) gave evidence at the Dover trial. His three examples of 'irreducible complexity' were the bacterial flagellum, the human blood-clotting cascade and the immune system. Evidence however demonstrated that nothing 'irreducible' was involved in their evolution; each was explained by exaptation (as when an organ, part or function evolved for purpose A is adapted to serve purpose B, eg the process by which bones evolved as part of the mammalian jaw became the bones of the inner ear).
To the best of my knowledge the number of examples of 'irreducible complexity' remains at nil.
Of course, a purported example of 'irreducible complexity' could not be shown to be 'irreducible' in principle anyway, at very best only 'presently unexplained'.
And 'presently unexplained' does not imply that goddunnit, much as this obvious point is ignored by our creo friends.
(Even were something 'irreducible in principle', it would not imply a supernatural agency anyway, the concept of 'supernatural' being incoherent when applied to reality.)
If any other testable hypothesis has been put forward by our creo friends, I'm not aware of it. Nor does the net report creos blowing on handfuls of dust to see if humans result, for example, nor collectives trying to wish or pray new species into existence, though perhaps that's part of covert ops.
PureX
Veteran Member
Existence as we experience it certainly is an expression of 'design', or science would have nothing to study. And the amazing interconnected complexity of this 'design' would certainly indicate intelligence as an aspect of it's source. The problem is that we have so far found no way to ascertain information about this source, since we are a product of the 'design', ourselves. We have no way of stepping 'outside' the design, to determine if or what it's source may be.
The promoters of 'intelligent design' as we now know them are not satisfied with this source being a mystery to us, and so are trying by any means they can think of to convince themselves, and everyone else, that we can determine the nature and existence of this mysterious source. And because their desire is essentially dishonest, so, too, become their methods.
This is unfortunate because it may well be that the mystery serves us better than the false 'answers' that they are promoting. And may perhaps serve us better then the actual answer, were we ever to obtain it.
The promoters of 'intelligent design' as we now know them are not satisfied with this source being a mystery to us, and so are trying by any means they can think of to convince themselves, and everyone else, that we can determine the nature and existence of this mysterious source. And because their desire is essentially dishonest, so, too, become their methods.
This is unfortunate because it may well be that the mystery serves us better than the false 'answers' that they are promoting. And may perhaps serve us better then the actual answer, were we ever to obtain it.
Last edited:
james blunt
Well-Known Member
It wasn't intelligent design ! They are mistaken .
Excellent reference!!!!
sealchan
Well-Known Member
One thing that often goes without discussion is how we humans have an "intentional stance" towards even non-living objects. We see the world and everything in it as so many agents of free will intending the outcomes that occur. Whether that be a natural disaster doing Gods will or a species adaptation solving a survivability problem, we project this intention into things and events where no evidential agent exists.
Intentionality is partially an invention of human perception, a creative over-statement, simplification of the character of causality underlying what is being observed.
Intentionality is partially an invention of human perception, a creative over-statement, simplification of the character of causality underlying what is being observed.
Not sure the meaning of your response. Yes, there may be more than one definition for Intelligent Design, but the topic is basically the Discovery Institute definition right or wrong.
The pantheist view that 'the natural forces as the representation of god which is everything. In this way the progression of life on the earth is a creative force heading towards more complexity.'; would a different view that is similar to atheist views if not actually atheist.
The belief in Theism and Panentheism that there is a God and God Created or in some way originated our physical existence would not be Intelligent Design as proposed by the Discovery Institute. As in the Baha'i Faith, yes God Created our physical existence, but essentially God Created based on the Laws of Nature and natural processes, What we see as the complexity of nature is indeed simply the product of the Laws of Nature This view is in harmony with science, and the Methodological Naturalism is independent of any religious beliefs or claims.
Intelligent Design is very different. It proposes that the necessity of there exists an Intelligent Designer can be demonstrated by scientific methods, and misuses statistics and probability to support this. This is a manipulative and egregious misuse of science and math.
Last edited:
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
A random or statistical model of the universe, is not a very intelligent design, in the sense of common sense, since it falsely assumes anything is possible or anything has odds. This conflicts with Quantum Theory which can easily demonstrate that only certain quantum states are possible. The gaps between quantum states do not have odds, even if the assumption of statistical theory still gives the gaps finite odds.
Statistics is an approximation method. Its assumptions are not a statement of fact, but a set of rule for using the procedure. This distinction has been lost over time. It is sort of become a type of science mythology, where a quantum universe does not exist, and there are odds for everything. The fact that you cannot use statistics to proven intelligent design is a good sign since that would make ID part of science mythology. Intelligent design is more consistent with quantum theory; predetermined states.
A quantum universe, by limiting the options that are possible, in light of the statistical assumption there are odds for everything, means a quantum universe loads the dice, counts the cards, and rigs the slots machines of statistics. There is an underlying set of causes, due to the quantum nature of the universe, that exists beyond the science mythology of statistics. Statistics is an approximation method.
For example, biology, which is heavy into statistics, assumed, that protein folding was subject to randomness caused by thermal vibrations in water as protein pack. Everything is assumed random and has odds.
In the 1950's, it was proven that proteins pack wth exact folds or repeatable probability of 1.0. This was not predicted by the statistical model and even though it is a verified fact, there is still no good statistical explanation for this, almost 60 years later. This science mythology has its own rules for the universe, that are not in touch with reality. It still ignores reality instead of change it assumptions. This mythology is preferred and defended due the needs of mass production in science.
As an analogy, solving equations in calculus can get very tricky as the equations increase in number and get complicated. This complexity limits how many people can solve certain equations. This human limitation bottlenecks mass production.
To assist this, approximation methods have been developed that use iterative techniques and computers to approximate a solution. This technique is much easier to set up and allows more people to participate, beyond only the top math professionals. It is not as exact, as directly solving an equation, but it is close enough, easier, and allows mass production.
Statistic works the same way in the sense of allowing more participants for mass production in science. This is good. But what has happened is the assumptions of this approximation method, are misrepresented as being based on reality. The quantum universe disproves this.
Intelligent Design is not about a Creator who micromanages everything. It is about planning in advance; setting the parameters early, so the universe becomes very self reliant in terms of where it is going. The quantum universe funnels all of creation. An analogy is a fertilized Ovum is already preprogramed to grow into a human. The DNA is set, early, and does not need micromanaging since it builds upon itself in an intelligent deterministic way. It is not random.
The science mythology of random assumes the universe is random, therefore, one would need a Creator who has to micromanage each step, since each step is riddled with random options. This type of Creator does not seem possible, since he should appear everywhere, all the time, even in the lab. But like the clockmaker, the intelligent designer does not have to come home with you, constantly tinkering, since his design is self standing, and does not need him, once it is set into motion.
But ID is a religious ideology.
... or rather, it's a political and legal tactic in furtherance of religious ideology.
The courts recognized the religious nature of ID. This is why Kitzmiller v. Dover ruled that ID is inappropriate for public school science curricula.
I'm not looking to start a fight, but I do get defensive about ID because I know what it is: Creationism hidden in a lab coat in order to sneak it into public schools. I think it's entirely appropriate to call it out for what it is.
Remember that ID isn't just the belief that there was an intelligence behind the history of life; that's just theistic evolution.
ID is something very different: ID is based on the assertion that evolution by natural selection can't explain the history of life, and that the history of life required the intervention of an "intelligent designer" at key points.
... IOW, ID is not only opposed to normal, non-theistic evolution; it's also opposed to any version of theistic evolution where God created life by setting the initial conditions and let it unfold without tweaking along the way.
leroy
Well-Known Member
There are plenty of falsifiable hypothesis surrounding ID, for example Behe (or maybe someone else) concluded that it is improbable but possible to have 2 codependent mutations, 3 codependent mutations almost impossible, perhaps only unicellular organisms can get that lucky, 4 codependent mutations statistically impossible even considering that the earth is billions of years old.
So the argument would be
1 evolution can’t produce more than 4 codependent mutations
2 some systems require more than 4 codependent mutations
Therefore evolution is wrong, (evolution can’t account for the origin the systems)
Some definitions:
Codependent mutation: 2 or more mutations are codependent if each of them is useless by themselves and can only serve a function they all work together.
Evolution: the claim that complex systems where caused by random mutations and natural selection.
I don’t claim that I can prove the argument, but the argument is certainly testable and falsifiable, each of the premises could be tested when our knowledge on DNA improves.
Some details.
Pretend that an organism requires mutations A, B, C and D in order to go from a blind creature in to a creature that can react to light, which would be selectively positive.
If each independent mutation is not beneficial by itself, chances say that genetic drift will eventually filter out this mutation.
The argument would be that even though it possible to have a “neutral mutation A” and then “Neutral mutation B” if the Combination of A and B is still neutral, it would be almost impossible to get C and D,
That is false dichotomy anyway. Absense of design vs. design would be a true dichotomy, but in this case the proponents are begging the question by forgetting the third possible alternative.
Namely, stupid design.
Now we have a huge amount of instances of stupid design, that is definetely not the product of blind mechanisms. So, why forget that possibility?
That is because those people have already God in mind, despite their claim that the designer is left open, and no Christian would consider for a second the possibility of a stupid Jaweh or whatever.
But why not? I mean, a cursory look at the phenotypes, and their build up, on earth shows clear signs that if it was not blind, then it was stupid.
Ciao
- viole
Without getting into whether your reasoning here is sound, which four mutations do you think are codependent and useless without the other three? Please be specific.
None of the above represents a falsified hypothesis in support of Intelligent Design. No research papers have been cited here that would demonstrate a falsifiable hypothesis. Asserting things claimed that Laws of Nature cannot do is arguing the negative, or arguing from ignorance,,and not documented as supported by evidence.
You need to support these assertions with published scientific references that support a hypothesis that may be falsified 'positively' that what you cited cannot occur naturally,
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
I would think a simple gedanken could be helpful here:
If irreducible complexity has been debunked, yes, it is possible for monkeys to type Shakespeare, but statistically unlikely.
Which is more complex, by an order of millions or billions (or trillions) of complexity? A monkey typing Hamlet or DNA, millions of base pairs, fitting to one another in less than a micron, yet touching/overlapping/folding in 3D space, with proteins telling proteins to activate proteins to make proteins?
At what point is complexity irreducible, do you think?