Intelligent design

[paultrr]

This is where I think a line needs to be drawn. IMO, we have no observable evidence from which to form any hypotheses on the origin of life. We have some evidence to support evolution as a model for adaptation, acclimation and at least some speciation. We have no evidence in my opinion to support evolution, creation or intelligent design as an origin of life. For all we know the origin of life as we know it may even predate the alleged big bang from somewhere else in the universe. Both events are beyond our observable event horizon and observations are required to form a hypothesis to fit those observations. I do not think at this time that we have sufficient observable evidence to support any theory or testable hypothesis on the "origin of life" and none of the current speculation should be taught as hard science. At most it should be reserved to philosophers.

 

BTW, can anyone produce any evidence that there was ever a time that nothing existed, no matter, no energy, no anything? How can we hypothesize that there was ever a beginning without this evidence?

 

That last answer depends upon the cosmological model one follows. Each model tends towards a different answer to that question. In the original BB model, yes. In more recent models the answer would be no. In fact, the BB model with inflation actually has no point where energy of some form does not exist. And an honest reading of the original BB model would point out the same. But the popular public interpretation of the original BB model says it can.

 

In short you are right we have no absolute proof either way. That is why I do remain open to debate of the ID type even if my own take on the subject leans more towards self-origin and self-organization. Christians ought to learn something from that passage in Corinthians: We know in part and we see in part. As that matter goes so should us scientists.

[paultrr]

And that right there seems to be the single, most difficult point to get across to non-scientists, that fact that there are things we just don't know. That seems to be the one reason that man continues to resort to mythological explanations for those unanwsered questions of science. What baffles me is why those that resort to this want to call it science when science doesn't have an answer.

 

It is Clay. But the fault actually is not with the general population. We scientists tend to gloss over that fact in many ways in how we present all this. We, especially the athiest out there, act as if we do know everything. The simple truth is we do not and probably never will if some of the current modeling is actually correct. We make a big assumption to get to that self-organization aspect that while based upon knowns is not an absolute proven case. Granted that is not faith in the strict sence of the word. But it is trust in a big unknown at this point in time. Perhaps if anyone has ever noticed you know now why I tend to pounce upon the athiests out here as strongly as a pounce upon the christians. I am not damning either for what they think. What I do damn is the fundamentalistic I am right and you are wrong attitude they both tend to take. Neither approach makes for decent science.

[paultrr]

If I was going to suggest a sane approach to all this it would be that both sides ought to be willing to discuss the subject and willing to learn a bit from the other. If anything both sides might come to understand the other a bit more. God only knows that perhaps us scientists could see an avenue of research we have messed due to blind ignorance. The key is both sides need to admit that neither has the cornor of the market on understanding everything.

[TRoutMac]

I am going to play devil's advocate on this one. Bear in mind I support evolution and am an agnostic. But one thing science has tended to lack at least at present is some finialized reason why evolution would self-organize.

 

Thanks for your response. You have some very good insights in your post and I appreciate someone who is willing to be honest about these problems. You mention we have "tons" of evidence of evolution, but with regard to evolution, the only thing we have "tons" of evidence for is micro-evolution. That is, random variation on a small scale steered by a variety of factors. If you isolate a group of individuals and they reproduce, then their offspring will share the parents' characteristics. But this variation does not breech the boundaries of a certain kind of animal or plant. Finches may have smaller or larger beaks, but they're still finches. They don't evolve into, say, walrusses.

 

What Michael Behe has shown is that natural selection actually prevents macro-evolution. As a supporter of I.D. I have no problem with the concept of natural selection. I just reject entirely the idea that it could change a finch into a walrus. (relax, folks, just insert your species of choise into either slot if you don't like that example… it really makes no difference) And not only is it incapable of turning a finch into a walrus, it actually works in the opposite direction!! We have no hard evidence that macro-evolution has ever happened. All we have are inferences drawn from a particular interpretation of evidence, but that evidence would easily support Intelligent Design if scientists were "allowed" to investigate that particular suspect.

 

As to self-organization, you are right on. I think the evolutionist/naturalist side is taking advantage of some ambiguity in the terminology here. Information of the sort found in DNA cannot arise by chance and cannot arise without intelligent direction. DNA is widely regarded as an instruction manual for building and operating a living organism. I've also heard it compared with a software program, and a "blueprint". Now we all know that instruction manuals, software programs and houseplans do not write or draw themselves. It takes highly intelligent people and many hours of hard work to organize these things.

 

We're having a house built right now and yesterday we met with the builder to choose items for the house. They have devised all sorts of forms, checklists, sample notebooks, houseplans to record our choices, the designs of the architect, etc. All that information was assembled, compiled, organized by intelligent agents all acting with purpose. It didn't "self-organize", and to suggest that that volume of information (or even greater volumes) could "self-organize" is absolutely ridiculous, and yet that's precisely what evolutionists would have me believe. Intelligence is required to generate that kind of information. There's no mystery there.

 

So is it really any wonder that people are beginning to "call B.S." on Darwinism? Not at all. Darwinism needs to be challenged. It needs to be forced to "put up or shut up." What appears to be a growing number of people are fed up with having been expected to believe such absurdities.

 

Methodological naturalism is an albatross around the neck of science. It is the modern-day manifestation of the age-old creation myth where the Earth is carried on the back of a turtle. Under that turtle is another turtle… it's "turtles all the way down" so the story goes. That's methodological naturalism. Every answer refers one turtle (the natural phenomenon being explained) to the next turtle, the natural explanation, which then becomes the next natural phenomenon to be explained. From there, it's "turtles all the way down". It's ridiculous, but people around here are convinced that the answer is in there somewhere and to look elsewhere is somehow not science. It boggles the mind.

[paultrr]

Thanks for your response. You have some very good insights in your post and I appreciate someone who is willing to be honest about these problems. You mention we have "tons" of evidence of evolution, but with regard to evolution, the only thing we have "tons" of evidence for is micro-evolution. That is, random variation on a small scale steered by a variety of factors. If you isolate a group of individuals and they reproduce, then their offspring will share the parents' characteristics. But this variation does not breech the boundaries of a certain kind of animal or plant. Finches may have smaller or larger beaks, but they're still finches. They don't evolve into, say, walrusses.

 

What Michael Behe has shown is that natural selection actually prevents macro-evolution. As a supporter of I.D. I have no problem with the concept of natural selection. I just reject entirely the idea that it could change a finch into a walrus. (relax, folks, just insert your species of choise into either slot if you don't like that example… it really makes no difference) And not only is it incapable of turning a finch into a walrus, it actually works in the opposite direction!! We have no hard evidence that macro-evolution has ever happened. All we have are inferences drawn from a particular interpretation of evidence, but that evidence would easily support Intelligent Design if scientists were "allowed" to investigate that particular suspect.

 

As to self-organization, you are right on. I think the evolutionist/naturalist side is taking advantage of some ambiguity in the terminology here. Information of the sort found in DNA cannot arise by chance and cannot arise without intelligent direction. DNA is widely regarded as an instruction manual for building and operating a living organism. I've also heard it compared with a software program, and a "blueprint". Now we all know that instruction manuals, software programs and houseplans do not write or draw themselves. It takes highly intelligent people and many hours of hard work to organize these things.

 

We're having a house built right now and yesterday we met with the builder to choose items for the house. They have devised all sorts of forms, checklists, sample notebooks, houseplans to record our choices, the designs of the architect, etc. All that information was assembled, compiled, organized by intelligent agents all acting with purpose. It didn't "self-organize", and to suggest that that volume of information (or even greater volumes) could "self-organize" is absolutely ridiculous, and yet that's precisely what evolutionists would have me believe. Intelligence is required to generate that kind of information. There's no mystery there.

 

So is it really any wonder that people are beginning to "call B.S." on Darwinism? Not at all. Darwinism needs to be challenged. It needs to be forced to "put up or shut up." What appears to be a growing number of people are fed up with having been expected to believe such absurdities.

 

Methodological naturalism is an albatross around the neck of science. It is the modern-day manifestation of the age-old creation myth where the Earth is carried on the back of a turtle. Under that turtle is another turtle… it's "turtles all the way down" so the story goes. That's methodological naturalism. Every answer refers one turtle (the natural phenomenon being explained) to the next turtle, the natural explanation, which then becomes the next natural phenomenon to be explained. From there, it's "turtles all the way down". It's ridiculous, but people around here are convinced that the answer is in there somewhere and to look elsewhere is somehow not science. It boggles the mind.

 

Actually we do have some modern day examples of what is termed species changes. These took place under normal, outside of the lab, conditions. The offspring from these can breed with themselves even though they stem from a common ancestor and are unable to bread with that parent line at all. The trait changes where brought about, if memory serves me, due to drastic environmental changes in that region. Part of that later problem stems from how evolution is generally viewed as saying things work. In the early days of Darwinism there was as much junk science being floated by people as the truth. I've noticed that most people tend to state what evolution says or they think it teaches with little actual look at what it really teaches. For an evolutionary change that is drastic enough to jump say to a new species a lot of factors have to come into play. It is not automatic. What we tend to find more automatic is small changes within a spoecies, what most call micro-evolution or mutational changes in the gene sequence. These are the common forms out there. But under certain drastic conditions of which many different events can come into play one can get the big changes you speak of even during modern day times.

 

Secondly, it is not an actual tennant of evolution that everything out there has to spring from one common ancestor. The general view, when one drops back to that unknown age when life first sprang forth is that several single cell organisms all arose at the same time. Carry that thought forward and one does not have to have cats turning into dogs, so to speak. Nor does that tend to say our humanline decended exactly from the same parent type that say a chimp stems from. It could have been a close related species is all that is involved when you boil it down. We do share traits in common with the rest of the apes. But our exact line may have always been different from say a Baboon or a chimp. What we do share in common is a simular past with close ties genetic wise. But small differences made us what we are and chimps what they are today. I admit we do not know all those differences and why we share more with the rest of the apes than any other species in general. We do not even know what exactly was our original parent stock and how much it did vary from the rest.

 

We also cannot tell you say what original simple cell organism that line stems from outside of the fact that its line lead to a mamallian line that we come from. There is basically nothing left in the fossel evidence from the initial start of life period untill one encounters that sudden spurt of different lifeforms. The real place the whole ID camp debate belongs on is that unknown period of time. It is there where speculation from one party is nearly as good as speculation from another because no one really knows. The missing link everyone talks about was probably some localized changed species and finding the exact one is like looking for a needle in a haystack. Not every last organism that ever existed is preserved in the first place. Yes, we hope its out there. But hope is not always reality folks.

 

What I mentioned before is something every IDer out there has really messed the boat on. We have absolutely no solid evidence of how one makes that jump from the building blocks of life to life. We have not been able to duplicate that in a lab. What we do have is simply put a hunch(speculation) based upon everything else we have discovered. But when anyone makes an assumption that assumption could be wrong as much as it could be right without hard evidence to weigh in with. What we have is a noticed pattern and nothing more. So we assume that pattern should hold there by logic. But the old saying about computers holds here too. Garbage in and you get garbage out. That pattern may simply be a natural effect once life gets started and have nothing to do with that initial starting point of life itself. The two do not have to be related. We just assume it is because we have no other evidence to go upon.

 

What needs to be redone is how one explains how evolution works. It also needs to be stipulated more about where and why we make such assumptions. No scientific theory out there is an absolute law. All theory is only as good as the evidence that backs it up. If there is a lack of evidence on any one point of a theory then that theory remains limited in how far one can prove that theory out. An example is we have tons of evidence in support of General Relativity today. But we also know that relativity and quantum theory do not make for the best bed fellows. At the quantum level Einstein's nice little picture from GR breaks down. Where it breaks down we have this wide open area that could eventually change our whole understanding of the universe. That is where all that modern debate about is C actually constant got started from. None of them have suggested that Einstein was outright wrong. What they have suggested is that perhaps we only have part of the picture that's colored by our time and place in this universe. The same could hold for say a special creation event where life got started which once started what we term evolution would take over. All the evidence we could study there would suggest that evolution by natural causes is all there is when the reality might be different. My problem with the Biblical ones out there is according to their own Bible nature displays even his Godhood which is not what we find as far as evidence goes. Not to suggest aliens did it. But the little evidence out there possibly suggesting a designer does not in itself suggest the type of Creator spoken of in the Bible. It would more suggest either a lab experiment with a lot of order built into it and perhaps predetermined outcomes or something closer to Einstein's deists ideas. I am not saying the designer did not watch what transpired. But he or she or them certainly did not become involved enough to leave things beyond ourselves.

 

The Christians say the Bible is the message he left for us. My problem there is manyfold because human's have their finger print on that book more than anyone else. There simply is no message encoded into nature out there about that designer we could study that says "Hey, guys I'm the one who created you." for example. What us scientists want is not a sign at all. What we want is that handwritting on the wall that says Here I am. We work on logic alone. Anything that is not logical we dismiss. Faith is not logical and never will be. To quote the Bible, Faith is the substance of things HOPED for. Hope is not always logical. If I am standing under a building that collapses I can hope I will survive till hell freezes over. The chances are I will not in spite of all that hope. That's logic speaking on that last part. I know that deep down inside via logic. But inspite of that logic it is human nature to still hope and that is where faith enters in. It leaps beyond logic and hopes for something there is no evidence for. But such is not what we scientists deal with. We deal with logic alone.

 

Its there that the ID camp tends to fail in their presentation. If they could divorce the religion based assumptions and find some strong evidence that we are wrong then we will listen. We'd be glad to listen then. All we ask is you guys follow some simple rules. You say we are wrong that everything started on its own. Then run every test possible under varying conditions and show that the building blocks of matter cannot turn living on their own. But you better be ready for us to run those same tests and try different approaches. Perhaps you guys could get better funding out of all those religious groups than we can out of the government for such tests. I'd also suggest that IDers who do hold scientific jobs work for a bit side by side regular evolutionists for a bit studying the same things. You might get a surprize or two from that.

[C1ay]

All we have are inferences drawn from a particular interpretation of evidence, but that evidence would easily support Intelligent Design if scientists were "allowed" to investigate that particular suspect.

Scientists are allowed to investigate that vein all they want. Isn't Behe a biological scientist? That doesn't mean it should be taught in school as an origin of life any more than evolution or biblical creation. We do not have enough evidence to support any hypothesis at this time on the origin of life so the correct answer to our children is that we don't know.

 

This does not mean evolution should be left out of school science class though. There is plenty of observable evidence to support it as a mechanism of adaptation, acclimation and mutation into new species and this should be taught. As long as evolution is not taught as the origin of life it is valid subject matter.

[C1ay]

That last answer depends upon the cosmological model one follows. Each model tends towards a different answer to that question. In the original BB model, yes. In more recent models the answer would be no. In fact, the BB model with inflation actually has no point where energy of some form does not exist. And an honest reading of the original BB model would point out the same. But the popular public interpretation of the original BB model says it can.

 

In short you are right we have no absolute proof either way. That is why I do remain open to debate of the ID type even if my own take on the subject leans more towards self-origin and self-organization. Christians ought to learn something from that passage in Corinthians: We know in part and we see in part. As that matter goes so should us scientists.

But there is that darn law of thermodynamics which can't be a law at all if either energy or matter can be either created or destroyed. Is it really just a theory or is it a law? IMO, based on the observable evidence we have, it is in fact a law but that would imply to me that matter and energy have always existed. That doesn't necessarily mean there wasn't a big bang, just that maybe it followed a big crunch of some kind. But then again, this vein is drifting off topic.

[Erasmus00]

But there is that darn law of thermodynamics which can't be a law at all if either energy or matter can be either created or destroyed. Is it really just a theory or is it a law? IMO, based on the observable evidence we have, it is in fact a law but that would imply to me that matter and energy have always existed. That doesn't necessarily mean there wasn't a big bang, just that maybe it followed a big crunch of some kind. But then again, this vein is drifting off topic.

 

But conservation of energy follows from the laws of physics being symmetrical in time. Near a special point in time (i.e. the begining) we don't expect the laws of physics to obey time symmetry, so there should be no reason to expect energy to be conserved. So, if time had a begining, energy wouldn't be conserved at that moment.

-Will

[TRoutMac]

Scientists are allowed to investigate that vein all they want. Isn't Behe a biological scientist?

 

Well, he's biological, and he's a scientist. So, I guess the answer is "yes". But seriously, he's a Professor of Biochemistry in the Department of Biological Sciences, Lehigh University.

 

This does not mean evolution should be left out of school science class though. There is plenty of observable evidence to support it as a mechanism of adaptation, acclimation and mutation into new species and this should be taught. As long as evolution is not taught as the origin of life it is valid subject matter.

 

First of all, again we have to distinguish between macro and micro-evolution. Plenty of hard evidence for micro, big goose-egg for macro. So, I'm with you if it's limited to micro-evolution. Secondly, my high school biology teachers attempted to teach me that evolution DID answer the origin of life question. You are correct that it does no such thing. My point is that by and large, it appears it is sold to students as an origin of life answer, and since I.D. is excluded, it's taught as the only answer.

 

And since everyone's so concerned about not teaching religious ideas in public schools, macro-evolution should be off-limits since as it is taught, it makes a religious statement. Namely, that the Bible is wrong and you shouldn't believe it.

[C1ay]

Secondly, my high school biology teachers attempted to teach me that evolution DID answer the origin of life question. You are correct that it does no such thing. My point is that by and large, it appears it is sold to students as an origin of life answer, and since I.D. is excluded, it's taught as the only answer.

That just means the teachers are not teaching what we know the theory of evolution to be true for, that the teachers are implying that in means something that it really doesn't. The fix for this is not to introduce another untestable hypothesis as an alternative, it is the teachers that need to be fixed.

 

That really brings up another point that is further off topic in this thread. I don't think many of the high school teachers actually have degrees in the field of study that they teach. Because of the never ending shortage of qualified teachers you end up with teachers teaching subjects that they themselves don't have a firm grasp of. This leads to teachers making mistakes like teaching that evolution means something that it doesn't. Again, that is not a fault of the theory, just a fault of the instruction.

[paultrr]

Scientists are allowed to investigate that vein all they want. Isn't Behe a biological scientist? That doesn't mean it should be taught in school as an origin of life any more than evolution or biblical creation. We do not have enough evidence to support any hypothesis at this time on the origin of life so the correct answer to our children is that we don't know.

 

This does not mean evolution should be left out of school science class though. There is plenty of observable evidence to support it as a mechanism of adaptation, acclimation and mutation into new species and this should be taught. As long as evolution is not taught as the origin of life it is valid subject matter.

 

If we wanted to be fair what should be done is both sides be presented and the good and bad points of both pointed out. The problem is ID has a suggested solution to our own gaps that is minus any scientific evidence to back it up. So how does one present a solution with absolutely no evidence? You present it as simply an alternative theory to evolution or as here is what a lot of religious people think happened. You are not teaching it as science then. But you are giving equal time. We used to do simular in some military classes, sort of open discussion and nothing more.

[C1ay]

If we wanted to be fair what should be done is both sides be presented and the good and bad points of both pointed out. The problem is ID has a suggested solution to our own gaps that is minus any scientific evidence to back it up. So how does one present a solution with absolutely no evidence? You present it as simply an alternative theory to evolution or as here is what a lot of religious people think happened. You are not teaching it as science then. But you are giving equal time. We used to do simular in some military classes, sort of open discussion and nothing more.

And if you are not teaching it as science you should not be doing it in science class. This type of philosophical speculation belongs in philosophy class. At the same time, evolution should not be taught as something ity isn't in science class. Speculation that it is more than we currently have evidence for belongs in philosophy as well.

[Boerseun]

If we wanted to be fair what should be done is both sides be presented and the good and bad points of both pointed out. The problem is ID has a suggested solution to our own gaps that is minus any scientific evidence to back it up. So how does one present a solution with absolutely no evidence? You present it as simply an alternative theory to evolution or as here is what a lot of religious people think happened. You are not teaching it as science then. But you are giving equal time. We used to do simular in some military classes, sort of open discussion and nothing more.

Another problem with this approach, is that you'd have to give equal credence to every other non-scientifical Creation theory/myth out there as well, if you want to be consistent.

 

In my opinion, an individual is allowed to make up his or her own mind, but only after having studied both science and whatever the alternative might be.

 

The solution here is to read and study - widely, often, and objectively.

 

A politician does not have the right to force my child to become an ignorant superstitious fool, using my tax money in the process. Don't fix what's not broken, and don't criticize a theory without going to the effort of studying it in-depth, first.

[TRoutMac]

If we wanted to be fair what should be done is both sides be presented and the good and bad points of both pointed out. The problem is ID has a suggested solution to our own gaps that is minus any scientific evidence to back it up. So how does one present a solution with absolutely no evidence? You present it as simply an alternative theory to evolution or as here is what a lot of religious people think happened. You are not teaching it as science then. But you are giving equal time. We used to do simular in some military classes, sort of open discussion and nothing more.

 

If we wanted to be "fair", we would stop making claims and insinuations that I.D. has "absolutely no evidence". You've gotta face facts here, folks…

 

If I.D. has "no evidence" and is "unscientific" and is "untestable" as so many of you seem so convinced, then if some archaeologist somewhere is exploring a previously unknown remote island and finds an artifact with symbols carved into it, then he has no basis whatsoever to claim that any intelligence has ever visited that island. That is the logical consequence of these ridiculous claims. That archaeologist then would have to come up with some natural process that created the artifact and would not be allowed to explore the possibility that an intelligence crafted the artifact. That's where you're at, folks.

 

And if I.D. has "no evidence" and is "unscientific" and is "untestable", then the scientists at SETI who are listening day in and day out for a message from another intelligence in the universe need to look elsewhere for work, because according to you all, they are quacks, not scientists. According to you all, the scientists at SETI have no reasonable means by which to detect information that is from an intelligent source. None whatsoever. So they're just wasting their time down there listening through the telescopes. That's you guys. That's where you're at. That's the logical conclusion to what you're all saying.

 

Something more foolish than this I can scarcely imagine.

 

Of course, you all realize perfectly well that the archaeologist does have a very reasonable basis for which to claim that intelligence has visited his island, and of course, whether you believe there's intelligence elsewhere in the universe or not, the scientists at SETI actually do have a reliable 'test' to discover if a message they receive originated from an intelligence.

 

So, understand, it is not me who is lacking in intellectual consistency here. It's you all. And frankly, you oughtta be a little embarassed.

[TRoutMac]

A politician does not have the right to force my child to become an ignorant superstitious fool, using my tax money in the process.

 

I agree completely. Let's throw evolution out!!

[questor]

if the possibility of intelligent design cannot be discussed in schools as a alternative to

evolution, how can Darwinian theory be discussed as fact? Darwinism discusses the MACRO level of life and ignores the MICRO level. the real answer does not lie in the ''finished'' specimens such as human beings or salamanders, but in the genetic material and sub-atomic particle areas which produce the large masses of cells that we call by species names. the real interest should be directed toward the fundamental processes which create different species, for instance, what assemblage of proteins, amino

acids, vitamins, minerals,etc.cause an elephant as opposed to an ant? is the life process at the same sub-atomic level in both species? does the same electrical wiring create motion or instinct in both species? this is where the real answers to intelligent design lie, and we do not at this time have the technology to delve into these depths. the genetic code is a blueprint with information. how does this information work? again, we have to eventually look to sub-atomic activity to find the answers.

[TRoutMac]

if the possibility of intelligent design cannot be discussed in schools as a alternative to evolution, how can Darwinian theory be discussed as fact? Darwinism discusses the MACRO level of life and ignores the MICRO level…the genetic code is a blueprint with information. how does this information work?

 

Well, it appears we have a pretty good idea (even if it's not totally complete yet) of HOW DNA works. But we do not know who devised the Universal Genetic Code. We know that even the simplest 'codes' are products of intelligence. The Universal Genetic Code appears to be one of the most complex codes ever discovered.

 

Too bad it was all just an accident. (note sarcasm)