Arguing Against Intelligent Design

[Galapagos]

Wow, I first thought poster BioChemist was playing Devil's Advocate as an exercise for the rest of the forum. Guess not.

I was wondering about his repeated use of the word "dogma" in this post and elsewhere. Natural Selection is not a dogma, because as in every other science if enough evidence is presented, the theory will be amended or replaced.

Dogma usually applies to religion; like the dogma that drives Christian theists to constantly espouse ID pseudoscience garbage and try to surreptitiously inch it into serious scientific discussion.

Just wanted to clear that up.

[Eclogite]

Natural Selection is not a dogma, because as in every other science if enough evidence is presented, the theory will be amended or replaced.

Dogma usually applies to religion; .....

This is true as far as it goes, but it does not go the whole way. There are some scientists and many more non-scientists who believe in evolution not because of the evidence you refer to, but because that's what they've been told; that's the flavour of the month; they just believe it; they haven't considered any alternatives. The list is longer and contains absolutely nothing of substance or of science. That is very decidedly dogma.

In different words, Natural Selection is not a dogma within science, but it is a dogma in the minds of some scientists and in some sections of the non-science community.

 

I suspect - and I ask him to comment on this - that Biochemist is seeking to talk of a non-dogmatic Intelligent Design. Of late I have begun to speak of Intelligent Design (the code words for creationism) and intelligent design (hypotheses that admit the possibility of teleology within the universe at large and life in particular). My perception is that in, rightly, rejecting Intelligent Design as unscientific, we are in danger of closing the door on some intriguing possibilities.

 

I raise these points, not to derail the thread, but to determine more accurately just where Biochemist is standing. If he is on a teleological plank that is not inherently and necessarily creationist, then perhaps this discussion should be in another thread.

[Thunderbird]

It seems to me that the name speaks for itself - Intelligent Design.

 

Part of the problem you appear to be having, Bio, is that you seem to be arguing a position which is not consistent with the name of this theory. You have stated that "some ID folks," including yourself, are not insinuating that a supernatural something is responsible, but that it can't be precluded. I don't know, this just sounds a bit slithery to me. It's like you're choosing to be noncommittal about any intelligent designer being associated with an Intelligent Design Theory.

 

ID is commonly understood to imply that a creator is responsible for the design and creation of all the complex and diverse life on this planet, and it must be so because there are inconsistent and undefined elements of Darwinian evolution. The argument is that the compositions of living structures are too complex to have developed naturally without design assitance. This is Creationism. There's really no need to mince words about it. It's understood.

 

 

 

 

 

I think you may be misrepresent Bio’ position and confusing the religious view point with what is a an open ended field of possibilities. Some organizing princables are presently beyound the realm of scientific modeling. There may still exsist inherent universal properties that in there totality are creative and possibly be defined as a cognitve function.

 

I believe anyone that thinks science has disproved the existence of a God or Gods controlling creation is just as confused as someone that believes the Bible disproves evolution. Science is not in the business of proving a creator or disproving a creator. Ether assumption is not taking into account the vastness of the unknown , with the meager informations on origins and mechanisms of life and more so consciousness itself.

 

This is in no way saying that ID is in actually a theory. It is however one paradigm of thought that is not discountable to a personal or group philosophy as long as the intention is not to set up a competition between religion and science, they do not belong in the same arena.

 

I do personally intuit in a collective intelligence, but this is immeasurable and unquantifiable, therefore cannot be rendered into a scientific model or a religious view point.

 

 

I do understand this however.

To use religion or science as a limiter of our awareness is both scientifically irrational and cheats the optimality of thought.

 

 

In studying the universe I find that it is much more complex than I can ever imagine which leads me periodically to states of wonder and awe.

[REASON]

I think you may be misrepresent Bio’ position and confusing the religious view point with what is a an open ended field of possibilities. Some organizing princables are presently beyound the realm of scientific modeling. There may still exsist inherent universal properties that in there totality are creative and possibly be defined as a cognitve function.

 

Actually, you are misrepresenting what I was saying. I recommend you go back and read my post in it's entirety. I note that you neglected to include my final paragraph when quoting me above. My intention is to suggest that Bio should distinguish his argument from Intelligent Design if he does not want to his argument conflated with those who infer a creator or god as the intelligent designer. This is because the common understanding of ID is to point to complexity as evidence of an intelligent designer. Who else could they be referring to other than God?

 

This has yet to be explained by those who keep talking about inherent intelligence in the morphology of life, yet fail to offer a theory as to the source of the presumed intelligence while simultaneously denying a god connection. To me, this is walking a very fine line between a natural understanding of life origins and evolutionary processes, and ID as expressed by those pointing to god.

 

I've asked you a similar question, knowing that you as well say you don't ascribe a creator, only to listen to you regress into a defensive tirade about why you feel like you're being picked on and unfairly associated with creationists. Well, my point is to suggest that maybe your arguments should be more clearly differentiated from ID so that they can then be discussed without misrepresentation.

 

I believe anyone that thinks science has disproved the existence of a God or Gods controlling creation is just as confused as someone that believes the Bible disproves evolution. Science is not in the business of proving a creator or disproving a creator. Ether assumption is not taking into account the vastness of the unknown , with the meager informations on origins and mechanisms of life and more so consciousness itself.

 

I certainly did not imply this. I identify myself as agnostic. Gods cannot be proven or disproven in my estimation. I certainly agree with your statement that, "Science is not in the business of proving a creator or disproving a creator." But I can tell you, there are plenty of religious folk out there that are convinced science is trying to disprove god, and are actively trying to undermine science as a result. Thus we have the concept of Intelligent Design.

 

 

This is in no way saying that ID is in actually a theory. It is however one paradigm of thought that is not discountable to a personal or group philosophy as long as the intention is not to set up a competition between religion and science, they do not belong in the same arena.

 

I agree. ID proponents do not. They believe that the merits of their arguments are perfectly scientific and belong in the science classroom. That's what they're pushing for. If they're seriously scientific, they should be pushing for recognition within the scientific community. But first they're going to have to come up with something better than, "it's just too complicated to be natural."

 

 

I do personally intuit in a collective intelligence, but this is immeasurable and unquantifiable, therefore cannot be rendered into a scientific model or a religious view point.

 

This is an important acknowledgement on your part. Can you even speculate on the nature of this "collective intelligence?"

 

 

I do understand this however.

To use religion or science as a limiter of our awareness is both scientifically irrational and cheats the optimality of thought.

 

I generally agree with this statement except to say that I believe religion is a limiter of our awareness because it seeks to dictate perception and control belief. One is often threatened if they do not comply. Science is a method used to understand nature, and that understanding is amenable to a new and more complete understanding.

 

 

In studying the universe I find that it is much more complex than I can ever imagine which leads me periodically to states of wonder and awe.

 

Agreed.

 

 

 

If the intention of this thread is to be Arguing Against Intelligent Design, than I would rather do that than discuss ideas that are intended to be distinct from ID's intended position that a supernatural creator is by default the designer. I feel that any theories that are intended to provide alternative explanations to what some might consider weak arguments in the standard Darwinian evolutionary model, but are not intended to point to an all powerful creator, should be distinguished from ID and discussed in another thread.

 

Just one man's opinion.

[Galapagos]

I suspect - and I ask him to comment on this - that Biochemist is seeking to talk of a non-dogmatic Intelligent Design. Of late I have begun to speak of Intelligent Design (the code words for creationism) and intelligent design (hypotheses that admit the possibility of teleology within the universe at large and life in particular). My perception is that in, rightly, rejecting Intelligent Design as unscientific, we are in danger of closing the door on some intriguing possibilities.

 

I raise these points, not to derail the thread, but to determine more accurately just where Biochemist is standing. If he is on a teleological plank that is not inherently and necessarily creationist, then perhaps this discussion should be in another thread.

I agree, if this is actually a discussion about teleology and not an exercise in "god of the gaps" theology, then I'm quite interested. I have some questions and am also interested in the responses the discussion may elicit in certain of Hypography members. A new thread may extricate these ideas from their current theological context and prove to be quite fruitful.

[Thunderbird]

Actually, you are misrepresenting what I was saying. I recommend you go back and read my post in it's entirety. I note that you neglected to include my final paragraph when quoting me above. My intention is to suggest that Bio should distinguish his argument from Intelligent Design if he does not want to his argument conflated with those who infer a creator or god as the intelligent designer. This is because the common understanding of ID is to point to complexity as evidence of an intelligent designer. Who else could they be referring to other than God?

 

This has yet to be explained by those who keep talking about inherent intelligence in the morphology of life, yet fail to offer a theory as to the source of the presumed intelligence while simultaneously denying a god connection. To me, this is walking a very fine line between a natural understanding of life origins and evolutionary processes, and ID as expressed by those pointing to god.

 

I've asked you a similar question, knowing that you as well say you don't ascribe a creator, only to listen to you regress into a defensive tirade about why you feel like you're being picked on and unfairly associated with creationists. Well, my point is to suggest that maybe your arguments should be more clearly differentiated from ID so that they can then be discussed without misrepresentation.

 

I would if I could figure out how my veiw of evolution has any similarity to ID. I put that back on you. what are you reffering to?

 

 

 

My veiw has been given on several occasions. Is there ample evidence that life was been around on the earth over billions of years, first as single celled autonomous units, then as complex multi-cellular animals? Undeniably yes.

 

Do Darwinian models address the fact that life changes in time to adapt to environmental conditions, and competitive challenges with other life forms? Yes, best we have So far. Are we still expanding our knowledge using this model. Yes, Its a tried and true model for understanding adaptation, and has proven further by the modern science of hereditary genetics.

 

Do Darwinian models address the origins of life from the inorganic to the autonomous autopoetic self replicating systems of the first livening cell? No.

 

 

 

Darwinian selection did not play an essential role in the origin of life

"Eigen's approach is certainly of great interest. Darwinian selection for faithful self-reproduction is certainly important in an environment with a limited capacity. But we tend to believe that this is not the only aspect involved in prebiotic evolution. ... At this stage life, or "prelife," probably was so diluted that Darwinian selection did not play the essential role it did in later stages.." (Prigogine, Ilya [Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1977, former Professor of Professor of Chemistry and Theoretical Physics, University of Brussels] & Stengers I., "Order out of Chaos: Man's New Dialogue with Nature," [1984], Flamingo: London, 1990, reprint, p.191).

 

 

Do Darwinian models address the origins of the archtypal forms of the phyla of the early Cambrian? Maybe, maybe not.

 

There are still many problems yet to be solved scientifically. My intuitive sense looking at this particular problem, of the origins of the first cell, is that these stages are related , in that they are both the same type of autopoeitic functioning's systems inside the first single cells, followed by the second autopoeitic cyclical systems stage represented in the internal biological cycles inside animal biology. A clear distinction exist here between these two epochs of life. The appearance of the animal life is also the beginning sexual reproduction signaling a major change to a birth and death cycle.

 

 

These are clear transitional stages that are not explained very well with Darwinian models. The underlying organizing principles that govern these transitional stages are however being addressed by theoretical models of emergence, chaos, non-linear equations and systems theory.

[Essay]

I agree, if this is actually a discussion about teleology and not an exercise in "god of the gaps" theology, then I'm quite interested. I have some questions and am also interested in the responses the discussion may elicit in certain of Hypography members. A new thread may extricate these ideas from their current theological context and prove to be quite fruitful.

My apologies of this is too off topic (or if i've missed some posts).

That Ben Stein ad just BUGS me, but I haven't seen much discussion (as of a few days ago), so if this should be on a different thread too... feel free....

 

 

I wrote a little review of "Expelled" to follow up on a post (elsewhere) advocating a more conciliatory attitude towards religious folks. The original post suggested that we all experience the world similarly, but use different worldviews and languages to express our understanding of "reality." I was advocating that we learn to loosely "translate;" but avoid the details of exact definitions (realizing that the devil is in the details).

To all Atheists: - Science a GoGo's Discussion Forums

 

Ben Stein's, Expelled, is a perfect example of this problem of translation. He's whipping up a frenzy by playing up these semantic failings.

 

Speaking of scientists, Ben says,

"Rather than God's Handiwork, they see the universe as the product of random particle collisions and chemical reactions...."

 

[...but based on this "translation" idea....]

 

God's handiwork, or Laws of physics; what's the difference?

God's plan, or Laws of evolution; what's the difference?

Ben refers to,

"The product of a Higher Intelligence,"

but couldn't that be defined as the product of the Physical Constants; what's the difference?

 

I can't believe that Ben uses the tactic of addressing "Darwinism."

To call anything in science an -ism, just furthers the polarization of definitions.

The idea that things descend with modification is not a good basis for any *ism-type "belief system."

It's just a good framework for understanding how variation arises.

 

Ben asks "what's the difference" with science, that 'freedom of speech" is not tolerated well.

Hey Ben, can I come to your church and speak freely, and be tolerated well?

Context and purpose, Ben, is the difference!

 

Furthering the "perfect example," this has all arisen because of scientists' "self-righteous" over-reaction to some article that talked about Intell. Design.

 

Science deals with 'what' and 'how' of what is here; not with the 'why' or from 'where' it came, ultimately.

Science doesn't address with this topic of origins and motives; isn't that for teleology, to ask 'why'' or 'who', not how?

Why should scientists care if someone wants to attribute a purpose to the universe?

 

I understand why science, as Ben says, "fears," these philosophical ideas.

Surely, it is a slippery slope to easily wind up dealing with a certain "Intelligence" with a particular "Design.":evil:

That certainly is something to be feared, but scientists should have faith in the strength of their discipline (and disciples); that the slope can be navigated, with care, empathy, and tactics (diplomacy).

B)

 

...now probably both sides of the debate hate me. :bwa:

~

[REASON]

I would if I could figure out how my veiw of evolution has any similarity to ID. I put that back on you. what are you reffering to?

 

Yes. You are correct that you have not, in any post I can remember, suggested that your understanding of complexity in morphology is in any way connected to Intelligent Design. And you have vehamently denied that your understanding is pointing to any notion or form of creationism.

 

You have referred to an admittedly undefined "collective intelligence" and to an inherent drive to complexity, and some of your assertions have been labeled as teleological, but I conceed no other similarity to ID in your position.

 

Bio, on the other hand, has referenced ID and the concepts of irreducible complexity as having merit, but than backpedals from the God connection. I don't feel ID, as promoted in society today, can be separated from the god connection. So I was suggesting a distinction should be made to clarify his position, and maintain the continuity of this particular thread.

[HydrogenBond]

Life is different from inanimate matter in that it is able to gain energy potential. If we burn a seedling and a mature tree, the mature tree has more energy that it has gained over time. The inception of life on earth created something that was designed to go contrary to the lowering of energy found within all the inanimate matter on the earth, at that time. Before life, things might gain energy, but they also lower back to lowest energy. With life it keeps gaining energy.

 

This precludes a random event for the formation of life. That random event would not only have to get the basic molecules together, but do it in a way to go in the opposite direction of the thermodynamics of inanimate matter. In other words, even if we could light the fuse of life, nature would try reverse it back to lowest energy, which back to the old drawing board. Logically, there would need to be a lot of random prototypes, due to thermodynamics reversing many of these back to lower energy, until one got over the hump.

 

As an analogy, one can build a sand castle. But if the children are around wanting to knock it down, one may have to rebuild many times. That means that one in a zillion event may have to happen a bunch of times at a bunch of stages to make up for the abortions that the conservation of energy will keep creating. This makes a random event unlikely. A logical approach would make more sense, something designed to keep trying. So even if a million prototypes were needed, it can make a million and one.

[Essay]

That random event would not only have to get the basic molecules together, but do it in a way to go in the opposite direction of the thermodynamics of inanimate matter. In other words, even if we could light the fuse of life, nature would try reverse it back to lowest energy....

 

Because Life is so good at increasing Entropy, I'd think it'd be impossible to stop, thermodynamically.

 

Life is just Nature's Best Way of Turning Light into Heat.

:eek_big:

[Biochemist]

Regardless of when the gene expresses itself in a majority of the population - the gene itself came about via mutation. By definition and stipulation: if the first life form of common descent didn't have this gene (and it didn't come from little green men) then it was mutation. Mutation being the appearance of something new by change from what was before.

This is the point where I fundamentally disagree. I am suggesting that the majority of genomic changes are not mutations at all. If you are suggesting that all changes are mutations, then that would mean that all otherwise "normal" children are mutants.

If you allow the gene to arrive by natural process then your theory is at odds with and not part of ID.

I don't think this is true either. This is why I was asking for a definition of ID. If no one can define either "mutation" or ID, then I am not sure what we are arguing. Let me take a stab at both:

 

1) Mutation: A change in genetic code driven by stimuli external to the cell (e.g., UV light, toxins, etc) that is not predisposed toward any particular genetic outcome.

 

Implication 1: Any genomic change driven by an internallly specified process is not a mutation.

Implication 2: Most genomic changes are not mutations (obviously)

Implication 3: If we "assume" that unexpected genomic changes are "mutations" when they were pre-specified in the parent species, we have accidentally postulated away design implications, not proved their non-existence.

 

2) Intelligent Design: a subtheory of evolution that contends that many intra cellular biochemical structures are complex enough that they are not reasonably explained by mutative processes.

 

Implication: The design for complex structures daughter species was already specified in the parent species. Phenotypic expression (or even speciation) in these cases did not occur through a series of mutations that were advantaged in their environment, and hence "selected".

[Biochemist]

Logically you must stipulate (to advocate both positions) something like the subject of common descent had genetic coding for future species.

This is exctly what I am suggesting.

[Biochemist]

It seems to me that the name speaks for itself - Intelligent Design.

Apparently, it it not intuitive if two brilliant folks like you and me can't agree on what it means.

You have stated that "some ID folks," including yourself, are not insinuating that a supernatural something is responsible, but that it can't be precluded. ...ID is commonly understood to imply that a creator is responsible for the design and creation of all the complex and diverse life on this planet

I don't think we should spend a lot of time on what is "commonly understood". You will probably readily accept that our decent from apes is the "commonly understood" view of Darwinianism. I think that "commonly understood" is commonly an oxymoron.

Your argument (something other than serial mutation) should be clearly disassociated from Intelligent Design if you do not want to continue to be wrongly associated with those who intend on making the god connection.

Why? I am clearly allowing for a creator as a solution, just not requiring it. If you would (for a moment) stipulate that the hypothesis mas merit, and try to create a falsifiable prediction to support my position, what would you pick? How would you build evidence to support that genomic change was not mutative?

[Thunderbird]

This is exctly what I am suggesting.

 

I think this scenario is possible. but Do you think the code could have been present in the autonomous cell before the Cambrian and the phyla arouse separately, from a common primordial genetic soup.

[Biochemist]

I wonder how fast the people who promote ID would back pedal if main stream science were to embrace ID and say we have irrefutable evidense that an alien society was responsible for the rise and course of life on Earth?

I assume you know that there are members of this forum that believe this is true. They (the "interventionists") have posted several times.

[Biochemist]

Wow, I first thought poster BioChemist was playing Devil's Advocate as an exercise for the rest of the forum. Guess not.

Glad I got your attention.

I was wondering about his repeated use of the word "dogma" in this post and elsewhere. Natural Selection is not a dogma, because as in every other science if enough evidence is presented, the theory will be amended or replaced.

Dogma usually applies to religion...

I did not mean to imply anything negative about the use of "dogma". If you were old enough, (you might be a young whippersnapper) you might recall that the phrase "standard dogma" was used regularly to refer to the original DNA replication framework proposed by Watson and Crick. "Dogma" in this sense is not negative, it is just a reference to the reigining theory. We tend to use phrases like "standard model" in quantum physics; it is the same idea. It is just shorthand for the prevailing opinion.

[Biochemist]

I suspect - and I ask him to comment on this - that Biochemist is seeking to talk of a non-dogmatic Intelligent Design....I raise these points, not to derail the thread, but to determine more accurately just where Biochemist is standing. If he is on a teleological plank that is not inherently and necessarily creationist, then perhaps this discussion should be in another thread.

I am (sort of following up on my previous post) not suggesting the design source. In that sense, the design "author" need not be specified to be a design proponent. Aliens are allowed within the scope of possibilities within the scientific method.

 

The key element is that I think (not believe, think) that the evidence in support of mutative speciation is weak, and it gets very little discussion because it gets "dirtied" by the association with creationism. Well, stop it. Look at the underlying data and face the issues.