Intelligent Design

[drkitten]

I do not understand how it could possibly be one of the major arguments for ID. How is acausality incompatible with ID??

It's not that acausality is incompatible with ID, but that causality is (perceived as being) incompatible with evolution. Specifically, "evolution," which creationists misread as being a theory of albiogenesis, is also misread as stating that the origin of life is an acausal event. Since acausal events do not, under their framework, exist, this shows that "evolution" cannot be correct (proof by contradiction).

 

[Interesting Ian]

It's not that acausality is incompatible with ID, but that causality is (perceived as being) incompatible with evolution. Specifically, "evolution," which creationists misread as being a theory of albiogenesis, is also misread as stating that the origin of life is an acausal event. Since acausal events do not, under their framework, exist, this shows that "evolution" cannot be correct (proof by contradiction).

I personally have no problem with acausal events whatsoever.

Anyway, the original contention was that proponets of ID must also use the following argument for a "God".

a) Everything has a cause.

b) Therefore the entire physical Universe must have a cause.

c) But since nothing physical can cause the Universe (otherwise it would be causing itself), then it must have a non-physical cause.

d) Only minds are non-physical

e) The Universe is so huge and complex that only a very great mind indeed could be sufficient to cause it.

f) Let's call this very great mind God.

I do not see why they must employ such an argument. Explain why they must.

 

[BillHoyt]

The ID proponents are correct in that if the origin of life in the universe requires an intelligent designer, then there must have been an intelligent entity that wasn't "life." Their assumption that such an entity must have been God is less clear-cut, but still defensible within very broad limits. Unfortunately, there's no evidence that the origin of life requires an intelligent designer.

But the ID proposition isn't that the origin of life requires an intelligent designer. The proposition is that the complexity of life forms requires an intelligent designer. The proposition stumbles on any number of grounds, not the least of which is the one mentioned previously in this thread: if complexity implies an intelligent designer, then that designer must also have been designed, and that designer, and that one, ad infinitum The bumper sticker version of the inherent contradiction : God gotta daddy

 

[pupdog]

I think I saw, a few weeks ago, some comment about creationists/IDers getting cold feet about the idea of having their ideas taught as science as this would allow science teachers to encourage their pupils to think critically about creationism and the Bible in general. I can't remember where I saw this, but I kind of like the idea!

This arose with regard to the Dover, PA school board's mandate requiring ID to be taught. The rule was written in such a way as to suggest that the weaknesses of the competing "theories" would be discussed as well as the weaknesses of evolutionary theory. The folks over at Answers in Genesis commented on the situation here --they seemed very concerned that "these teachers will have full license to make their students aware of problems in intelligent design." and that the teachers might teach ID "in a mocking fashion."

For a group that wants to tell others what ought to be included in science classes, they certainly are unclear on the concept of science.

 

[drkitten]

I personally have no problem with acausal events whatsoever.

Most people do; it's one of the big stumbling blocks behind the acceptance of Quantum Theory (first by scientists -- Bohr: "Einstein, don't tell God what to do!", and later by the general public). But the issue of causation, the problem of acausal events, and the ultimate association of "God" with "the only acausal thing" goes way, way, back before that --- I believe that Aquinas is the person usually credited with formalizing the "God as prime cause" argument for the existence and nature of God.

I also don't think that anyone claimed that ID proponents "must" use the argument you straw-manned (is that a word?). On the other hand, they demonstrably do, in part because it's very superficially compelling in part because most people have issues with acausal events. (See Aquinas above).

One thing that may help is to rephrase the nature of ID proponents. Among their many other fallacies is buried a false dichotomy --- either Christian-style creation ex nihilo is true (typically on a time-scale associated with young-Earth Creationism), or else evolution is true. So they cast their task not in terms of "proving ID," but of "disproving evolution." By the law of the excluded middle, if evolution were to be proven impossible, then YEC would thus be correct. (As I said earlier, I don't think anyone on either side of the issue takes seriously the idea of space aliens doing genetic tinkering with proto-apes, or with the idea that Gaea and Ouranos created the world by giving birth to the Titans, etc.) The issue of acausation is simply one among many arguments that they raise against evolution.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Well, I'm just about fried from my stint over at the Yahoo! forum. People keep telling me I'm not discussing the science, and that abiogenesis isn't scientific, while at the same time acting as proponents of ID. It's fairly amazing. They also tell me that I'm not doing the proper interpretation of things, whatever that means.

Bill Hoyt, they certainly do talk about abiogenesis. Because once you've got a designer, why, you can solve all the problems!

Dr. K said:
One thing that may help is to rephrase the nature of ID proponents. Among their many other fallacies is buried a false dichotomy --- either Christian-style creation ex nihilo is true (typically on a time-scale associated with young-Earth Creationism), or else evolution is true.

Well, they really are cleverer than that. They do not talk about Christian-style creation and they aren't YECs. Come on over here and see how the conversation goes. It's very slippery:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/?yguid=59372778

~~ Paul

 

[Art Vandelay]

Huh? Natural processes, almost by definition, are not intelligent.

I have seen no such definition.

If you want a complete list of the natural "intelligent" things that we know about, it boils down to humans -- and possibly, depending upon your knowledge of animal psychology, to higher primates and cetaceans.

The complete list of beings with an intelligence that comports with the human conception of intelligence may indeed be so limited. But the ID conception of "intelligence" is so sweeping that every lifeform is included. Remember, ID defines "intelligence" as the ability to create information, and it defines "information" to include genomes. Since genomes are created through the actions of organisms, those organisms, by ID's own definitions, are intelligent. This is what I mean by "begging the question". IDers define "intelligence" in such a way that evolution by defintion requires intelligence, then claim that natural processes cannot be intelligent, and then claim victory.

But if a hypothesized process is too complex to have developed without intelligence, and humans didn't develop it (and it's beyond the capacity of dolphins and chimps), what other choice is there beyond God or some supernatural God-like entity? No one on either side of the ID debate takes the idea of extraterrestrials seriously, and that would still only raise the question of where/how the ET's originated.

I don't see why there's any need to resort to supernatural explanations. And surely the ET hypothesis is more workable than God? But none of that is necessary, because it has not been established that humans are beyond the capacity of dolphins, chimps, et al. To claim that they are would be to beg the question.

The ID proponents are correct in that if the origin of life in the universe requires an intelligent designer, then there must have been an intelligent entity that wasn't "life."

First of all, there's a huge difference between claiming that a particular instance of life is too complex to have developed without intelligence, and claiming that life in general is too complex. Behe can find all the "irreducibly complex" structures he wants; none of that shows that life itself is irreducibly complex. There's always the possibility that the irreducibly complex organisms arose from reducibly complex ones. Secondly, there's still the issue whether life requires a beginning.

 

[Hellbound]

On the whole subject of causality vs acausality:

If one assumes causality must be true, then everything needs a cause (or creator), even the intelligence that supposedly designs us. The argument rests on causality whether they explicitly declare this or not...they assume that intelligence must have a cause, and further assume that this cause must be another intelligence.

Assuming acausality, even for one section, throws the argument away. If you assume one acausal factor, why? No reason can be given why an intelligence that designs humans does not require causual factors yet human intelligence does. One is as justified to claim that human intelligence is acausal, and be done with it. In fact, assuming their worldview, Occam would cut the line at humans, dismissing the addition of another, unnecessary factor in the process until evidence is produced for such. Of course, when causality on the macro scale is tossed out the window, you also toss out pretty much the entirety of human knowledge.

 

[exarch]

Originally posted by new drkitten

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
First they show that something is too complex to have developed without intelligence, then they suddenly jump to claiming that it is too complex to have arisen from natural processes. That's quite a leap. Is there something supernatural about intelligence?

Huh? Natural processes, almost by definition, are not intelligent. If you want a complete list of the natural "intelligent" things that we know about, it boils down to humans -- and possibly, depending upon your knowledge of animal psychology, to higher primates and cetaceans. Beyond that there is,..... um,.... work with me here,.... hypothetical supernatural entities, and equally hypothetical extraterrestrial entities.

Typical homo-centric thinking.

Intelligence could just as well mean any life-form that has the ability to make choices (do I swim left or right?), and as such also has the ability to choose between two potential mates, thus making a decision which set of genes to pass on to the next generation.

Natural selection basically says that anything that doesn't die before procreation is "selected", but sentient life-forms also have the ability to choose unrelated to natural selection. In a way, it's intelligence interfering with natural selection.

That's how I interpreted that statement anyway, and I'm sure that's what Art was getting at.

So to reiterate: intelligence has been influencing evolution, but not in the way the ID-ers and creationists believe ...

 

[BillHoyt]

Bill Hoyt, they certainly do talk about abiogenesis. Because once you've got a designer, why, you can solve all the problems!

Paul,

What I'm trying to convey is that the central ID claim doesn't involve abiogenesis. The central claim revolves around "irreducible complexity." ID anti-abiogenesis arguments are a consequence of this claim, and this necessarily creates a logical contradiction for ID.

If you assert that life is too complex to have risen from simpler objects, then you must conclude there was a complex designer. But, this complex designer also cannot have arisen from simpler objects by the original assertion. That designer, therefore, must also have been designed. It is an infinite regress.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

But maybe the designer isn't irreducibly complex; maybe he evolved! After all, folks like Dembski only claim that certain mechanism are IC, not all of them. Maybe the designer evolved and has no IC mechanisms.

Scenario: The designer is an alien life form that evolved with no IC mechanisms, then designed us with IC mechanisms.

~~ Paul

 

[drkitten]

On the whole subject of causality vs acausality:

If one assumes causality must be true, then everything needs a cause (or creator), even the intelligence that supposedly designs us. The argument rests on causality whether they explicitly declare this or not...they assume that intelligence must have a cause, and further assume that this cause must be another intelligence.

Straw man again. The YEC/ID group are very specific about
assuming causality-except-for-God. God is uniquely defined as acausal, and in fact, the first cause of everything else. (This isn't specific to YEC, by the way; as a philosophical tradition, it goes back to the Schoolmen.)

Assuming acausality, even for one section, throws the argument away. If you assume one acausal factor, why?

Because it can be proven (see Aquinas) that a single acausal factor is both necessary and sufficient. "This we call God," as my old philosophy 101 professor put it.

Why assume multiple acausal factors instead, contra Occam?

 

[drkitten]

If you assert that life is too complex to have risen from simpler objects, then you must conclude there was a complex designer. But, this complex designer also cannot have arisen from simpler objects by the original assertion. That designer, therefore, must also have been designed. It is an infinite regress.

Straw man and a fallacy of a false dichotomy. The complex designer did not arise, as He is eternal and has always existed (see Gen. 1:1). As such He was neither designed, nor did he arise from complex objects.

If you're going to refute ID, at least refute it on its merits. Making statements like "all things have a cause" are, to the YEC/ID crowd, as palpably false as saying "Anything millions of people believe must be true" is to the JREF crowd.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Why assume multiple acausal factors instead, contra Occam?

Because the world looks like it was designed by a committee. You know the old joke about mice and elephants? Well, that was no joke, my friend.

 

[drkitten]

[Typical homo-centric thinking.

Intelligence could just as well mean any life-form that has the ability to make choices (do I swim left or right?),

Well, it could, but it doesn't. Ask Behe what he means by "intelligent" design and see if a flatworm qualifies as "intelligent." Again, if you're going to refute ID, do it on its merits and not on a redefinition of terms that the proponents would never agree with.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Many of them focus on abiogenesis, claiming that it is the straw that breaks evolution's back.

Yeah, that would be a great argument against a theory which explains how species are descended from "a few forms or one".

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

(Origin of Species, last paragraph.)

Idiots. Are they blathering about the Big Bang as well? If the debate's meant to be about evolution, ask them to stick to it instead of wriggling.

BTW --- Mojo --- Thanks for the excellent link.

 

[BillHoyt]

Straw man and a fallacy of a false dichotomy. The complex designer did not arise, as He is eternal and has always existed (see Gen. 1:1). As such He was neither designed, nor did he arise from complex objects.

If you're going to refute ID, at least refute it on its merits. Making statements like "all things have a cause" are, to the YEC/ID crowd, as palpably false as saying "Anything millions of people believe must be true" is to the JREF crowd.

Arising ex nihilo is still arising from simplicity. "Always existing" is an article of faith, not a logical proposition. I rather don't care what the YEC/ID crowd thinks, and can't fathom why you would raise this as an issue. The YEC/ID crowd plays at logic as long as it suits and switches to faith when the logic, ultimately, fails.

It is you who are not paying attention to the ID argument and failing to refute it on its merits. They cannot abandon logic for faith so abruptly. They argue that the complexity implies a designer. They must, therefore, aim that same assertion at the designer. There is no logical opportunity there to suddenly make bald assertions about the designer's eternity or lack of a daddy.

 

[fishbob]

The YEC/ID crowd plays at logic as long as it suits and switches to faith when the logic, ultimately, fails.

It is you who are not paying attention to the ID argument and failing to refute it on its merits. They cannot abandon logic for faith so abruptly. They argue that the complexity implies a designer. They must, therefore, aim that same assertion at the designer.

Bill - the ID crowd DOES abandon logic any time they feel like it. See for yourself at national geographic forums

Because this is the tactic that they actually use, this is the tactic that must be addressed. Refuting ID on lack of merit requires persistence and repetition with a periodic dose of logic, but not too much or they start frothing at the mouth and their heads start to spin.

 

[BillHoyt]

Bill - the ID crowd DOES abandon logic any time they feel like it. See for yourself at national geographic forums

Because this is the tactic that they actually use, this is the tactic that must be addressed. Refuting ID on lack of merit requires persistence and repetition with a periodic dose of logic, but not too much or they start frothing at the mouth and their heads start to spin.

fishbob,

I agree. We need to point out this reversion to illogic whenever it occurs. That's both part of critical thinking and the right way to attack the mumbo-jumbo they try to feed the public. While they try to avoid stating their "obvious" God conclusion, what little logic they proffer leads back to God gotta daddy. When they lamely try to claim the designer might be an extraterrestrial, they are simply switching from one infinite regress to another and beg the question.

 

[T'ai Chi]

If you assert that life is too complex to have risen from simpler objects, then you must conclude there was a complex designer. But, this complex designer also cannot have arisen from simpler objects by the original assertion. That designer, therefore, must also have been designed. It is an infinite regress.

The same logic applies to the big bang. There must have been something that caused the big bang, and something that caused that, an so on. It is an infinite regress.