Intelligent Design

[drkitten]

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.

Except that, in their minds, they are not "reverting to illogic," and there's nothing except the ignorance of the evolutionists that suggests that "God gotta daddy." Why should a being that has always existed, and therefore was never created, require a creator? ("Aha!" you say. "But they've already stated that everything has a cause!" No. That's your straw man. They've stated that everything except God has a cause. You're projecting properties of the created world onto the creator, something that they recognize as an illegitimate operation out of the box.)

Now, you could suggest that humanity, like God, is eternal and uncreated. (Now that would be a legitimate extension of creationist "logic.") But no one does, partly because it's flatly and obviously wrong, and partly because it's not part of the theory of evolution. Instead, the TOE states that humanity is not eternal, that it had a beginning, but that the beginning was not by an act of special creation on the part of a divinity. In other words, both you and the ID proponents are in agreement that humanity is a "caused" event --- but disagree over what caused it. On the other hand, you and the ID proponents disagree fundamentally over whether God Himself had a cause. Their point of view is not illogical, but merely based on a different set of assumptions. Showing a contradiction of God's properties within your set of assumption saying nothing except that you don't understand theirs.

And, yes, "God always existed" is an article of faith. In logic, those are usually called "postulates," and are a fundamental part of any system of logical reasoning. If you can't work within their set of postulates, then I submit that you're not refuting them on their merits. In which case, the best thing you can do is to pipe down and try to understand what their postulates actually are, instead of merrily burning straw men in front of them and wondering why it doesn't work.

 

[BillHoyt]

Except that, in their minds, they are not "reverting to illogic," and there's nothing except the ignorance of the evolutionists that suggests that "God gotta daddy." Why should a being that has always existed, and therefore was never created, require a creator? ("Aha!" you say. "But they've already stated that everything has a cause!" No. That's your straw man. They've stated that everything except God has a cause. You're projecting properties of the created world onto the creator, something that they recognize as an illegitimate operation out of the box.)

Rubbish. If they wish to begin with such a faith proposition, then let them do so and be done with it. But that is not what they are doing. They present themselves as scientific and logical. They begin the argument from evidence. This is the argument by design and, as corrupted and mixed up as their version of "evidence" may be, it begins with the evidence. After this big lie, then they pull the wool over the audience's eyes by reversion to the faith proposition.

They pose as scientists and pose as offering a scientific alternative. They pose as the more logical and objective theory. This is posturing, pure and simple. Moreover, it is posturing on our turf, sir. We are not required to enter their twisted "how many angels can dance on the head of complexity" world. It is they who are poseurs on our rational, logical and evidence-based turf. When they begin with the complexity argument, they must follow it through.

You seem to be ill-aquainted with their arguments. You certainly have conspicuously missed the fact that the principal ID proponents do not invoke God. They are very cagey with that. They simply suggest a "designer." The ID fellow-travellers invoke God. Read what they write. They have only two ways to go. In one, the designer is some extraterrestrial, fully subject to the same logical rules they assert. He's gotta daddy. In the other, there is no logic they proffer that suggests God ain't gotta daddy. The focus is on "complexity," pure and simple. And again, this complex God gotta daddy.

Instead, the TOE states that humanity is not eternal, that it had a beginning, but that the beginning was not by an act of special creation on the part of a divinity.

What TOE, you poseur? You seem wholly ignorant of the fact that the TOE is a scientific holy grail quest, rather than a theory that can be critiqued. But perhaps I should just stop here, having once again caught you ignorantly posing. TOE, my donkey.

 

[drkitten]

What TOE, you poseur? You seem wholly ignorant of the fact that the TOE is a scientific holy grail quest, rather than a theory that can be critiqued. But perhaps I should just stop here, having once again caught you ignorantly posing. TOE, my donkey.

I am unsurprised, but saddened, that you consider the Theory Of Evolution to be a holy grail that is beyond critique. In that case, I can definitely not recommend a number of critical works on the Theory of Evolution, starting with the complete works of Stephen J. Gould and Richard Dawkins.

You're one of the worst proponents of "scientism," as opposed to "science" that this board sees.

 

[BillHoyt]

I am unsurprised, but saddened, that you consider the Theory Of Evolution to be a holy grail that is beyond critique. In that case, I can definitely not recommend a number of critical works on the Theory of Evolution, starting with the complete works of Stephen J. Gould and Richard Dawkins.

You're one of the worst proponents of "scientism," as opposed to "science" that this board sees.

TOE, sir, refers to the "Theory of Everything." That would be physics, sir, not biology. When speaking of evolution, speak of evolution. When speaking of the theory of evolution, speak of the theory of evolution.

The theory of evolution is a generalized view of how any species evolves into another. It concerns the general mechanism of speciation. It is not about humans.

I'm one of the best proponents of science, sir. You join nitwits like jzs (aka T'ai Chi/ etc.) in trying to paint science as scientism. You might learn the difference after learning a bit of science. I won't hold my breath, however, expecting disingenuous poseurs to come around.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

It has been suggested that I would be enlightened if I read this article by Stephen C. Meyer, titled "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories":

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177

Comments welcome.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

It is certainly the case that IDers, when speaking officially, do not bring up the identity of the designer. In fact, they get rather annoyed when I use the terms god or miracle. They object to calling the designer supernatural, yet also object when I ask about the identity of the naturalistic designer. If the identity of the designer is "there," they are not going there.

~~ Paul

 

[Elind]

It has been suggested that I would be enlightened if I read this article by Stephen C. Meyer, titled "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories":

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177

Comments welcome.

~~ Paul

Could this be what is called a snow job, as in avalanche of speculation?

I would however be interested to hear your summary if it can add anything to the many many refutations of ID that we have already seen.

 

[BillHoyt]

It is certainly the case that IDers, when speaking officially, do not bring up the identity of the designer. In fact, they get rather annoyed when I use the terms god or miracle. They object to calling the designer supernatural, yet also object when I ask about the identity of the naturalistic designer. If the identity of the designer is "there," they are not going there.

~~ Paul

By failing to identify the creator as supernatural, they beg the question, "who created him?" He (or She or It) unquestionably must be subject to our universe's basic logic. ID so construed answers nothing. It stolidly asserts that life on earth could not be so complex unless it was designed, then, equally stolidly, asserts a natural designer that somehow manages to violate the first assertion. The only escape hatch is reversion to faith, permitting them to declare "God" and simultaneously declare God not subject to the first assertion.

Its turtles all the way down.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I love this Phil Skell guy! He is a retired biologist who asserts that the working lab biologist does not rely on evolutionary theory in his/her daily work.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/message/10520

~~ Paul

 

[Art Vandelay]

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.

ID claims that the genome is information, and that everything that creates information is intelligent. It therefore follows from ID definitions that asserting that a flatworm is not intelligent presupposes that evolution is false. If Behe claims that flatworms are not intelligent, he is either refuting an ID definition or simply begging the question.

You are starting to sound like a ID shill. You are using the very fact that ID is not even self-consistent as a defense for ID. Yes, one part of ID says that flatworms are not intelligent. Another says that they are. And instead of recognizing the difficulty presented by holding both beliefs, you present the former as a defense against arguments based on the latter.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

It seems clear that at least Dembski's work presupposes that evolution is false. First he rules out that the irreducibly complex mechanism could have arisen by any possible naturalistic means, then he caclulates the probability that it could have happened by chance.

Note that he can't know all possible naturalistic means. Also note that his method of calculating the chance probability is absurd.

~~ Paul

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

It has been suggested that I would be enlightened if I read this article by Stephen C. Meyer, titled "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories":

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vi...nd=view&id=2177

Comments welcome.

"Information, in Shannon's theory, is thus imparted as some options are excluded and others are actualized. The greater the number of options excluded, the greater the amount of information conveyed."

"In classical Shannon information theory, the amount of information in a system is also inversely related to the probability of the arrangement of constituents in a system or the characters along a communication channel (Shannon 1948). The more improbable (or complex) the arrangement, the more Shannon information, or information-carrying capacity, a string or system possesses."
-------------
Unless I'm mistaken, this is precisely the bastard offspring born of the erroneous merging of Shannon and Kolmogorov-Chaitin information theory spoken about here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb01.html


-------------
"The ease with which information theory applies to molecular biology has created confusion about the type of information that DNA and proteins possess."
-------------
I think a more accurate way to phrase this is:

"The ease with which information theory may be subltly misapplied to molecular biology provides much opportunity for ID proponents to create confusion."


------------
"Neo-Darwinists in particular have assumed that the origination of biological form could be explained by recourse to processes of genetic variation and mutation alone (Levinton 1988:485). Yet if one understands organismal form as resulting from constraints on the possible arrangements of matter at many levels in the biological hierarchy--from genes and proteins to cell types and tissues to organs and body plans--then clearly biological organisms exhibit many levels of information-rich structure."
-------------
In other words: "Which came first, the message, or the decoder?"

In other other words: "If you don't know everything, you don't know anything."

 

[T'ai Chi]

I'm one of the best proponents of science, sir. You join nitwits like jzs (aka T'ai Chi/ etc.) in trying to paint science as scientism. You might learn the difference after learning a bit of science.

Considering I have two degrees in science, your belief that I am trying to paint science as scientism is a little absurd. Now, about your knowledge in science again? What is it exactly? Do share.

By failing to identify the creator as supernatural, they beg the question, "who created him?"

And, as I've mentioned, those who assert the Big Bang started it all run into the same problem; the question begs itself, what started it? If you assert that that question is non-sensical since there was no time before the Big Bang, then fine, those who believe in God could say a similar thing.

 

[Mojo]

...a number of critical works on the Theory of Evolution, starting with the complete works of Stephen J. Gould and Richard Dawkins.

Dawkins and Gould's work is not critical of "the Theory of Evolution," because there is no single "Theory of Evolution." They have slightly different theories. They disagree about exactly how evolution may proceed, rather than if it happens. Anyone who claims that either of these authors is anti-evolution either hasn't read any their books or didn't understand any of them (or is lying, of course).

 

[69dodge]

Originally posted by jzs
And, as I've mentioned, those who assert the Big Bang started it all run into the same problem; the question begs itself, what started it? If you assert that that question is non-sensical since there was no time before the Big Bang, then fine, those who believe in God could say a similar thing.

Yes, but why believe in God?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Yes, but why believe in God?

I'm not the person to ask since I don't believe in God, nor know of which God you are referring to.

The point is that saying that a creator exists begs the question of who created the creator is analogus to saying that the Big Bang begs the question of what caused the Big Bang. The fact that there is more evidence for the Big Bang doesn't change that analogy.

 

[69dodge]

Those who already believe in god can say god created the complexity of life. But I'd wonder why they already believe in god.

Proposing the existence of god, as an answer to the question of how the complexity of life arose, is rather unsatisfying, because it raises the same sort of question that it's supposed to be answering. Instead of wondering how arose the complexity of life, we're left wondering how arose the complexity of a god who could create life. This does not seem to me to be much of an improvement, unless there is some other, independent, evidence of the existence of this god.

If I found Paley's watch on the seashore, I would certainly conclude that a person designed it, but I already know that people exist and that some of them are watchmakers. It would be quite difficult to imagine, for the sake of the thought experiment, that I didn't know people existed, because I myself am a person. So that famous analogy is really not a very good one at all.

 

[Elind]

Those who already believe in god can say god created the complexity of life. But I'd wonder why they already believe in god.

Proposing the existence of god, as an answer to the question of how the complexity of life arose, is rather unsatisfying, because it raises the same sort of question that it's supposed to be answering. Instead of wondering how arose the complexity of life, we're left wondering how arose the complexity of a god who could create life. This does not seem to me to be much of an improvement, unless there is some other, independent, evidence of the existence of this god.

If I found Paley's watch on the seashore, I would certainly conclude that a person designed it, but I already know that people exist and that some of them are watchmakers. It would be quite difficult to imagine, for the sake of the thought experiment, that I didn't know people existed, because I myself am a person. So that famous analogy is really not a very good one at all.

Personally, and forgive me for simplifying a very fundamental issue, I believe there are two reasons for believing in a god (or many).

The first is lazyness. That's how one was brought up, but one never questions the issue.

The second is that some people are mentally very predisposed to metaphysical emotions that lead them to god beliefs. A kind of mental state that finds form and reason in religious teachings and rituals in particular (perhaps a form of compulsive behaviour?), and there has been some research recently that seems to indicate that.

Put the two together and it's like being born again.

 

[Art Vandelay]

[Board hiccup]

 

[Art Vandelay]

The point is that saying that a creator exists begs the question of who created the creator is analogus to saying that the Big Bang begs the question of what caused the Big Bang.

But the argument isn't "saying that a creator exists begs the question of who created the creator"; it's "saying that a creator must exist because everything must have a creator begs the question of who created the creator". Furthermore, the Big Bang is not presented as a final answer to the question as existence, so leaving the issue of its cause unaddressed is not a problem.

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.

I can state from personal experience that there are YEC/IDers who flatly state that everything has a cause, and introduce the "except for God" weaselling only once one has shown their argument to be the ridiculous rationalization it is. So don't try to paint this as some kind of strawman based on some overgeneralization of what the "YEC/ID crowd" is like. The trouble with these people is that there's really no way to come up with a counterargument to ID because there's simply no consistent ID position. Any argument against a particular ID position has the weakness that there is no guarantee that the next IDer you meet will hold that position.

The YEC/ID group are very specific about
assuming causality-except-for-God.

As I have said, that is not true. After all, to claim causality-except-for-God would require admitting that ID is really about "proving" God, and ID is all about trying to convince people that God exists at the very same time they are trying to convince everyone that this is not about God.

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?

I haven't seen anything resemblimg a logical argument showing a single acausal factor to be necessary. And this is not what we call God; to claim that the word "God" refers merely to a single acausal factor is quite dishonest. Finally, you're implying that Occam somehow supports a God of the gaps argument. Should we attribute all unexplained events to a single Cause of All Unexplained Events because looking for separate causes violates Occam?

[I am unsurprised, but saddened, that you consider the Theory Of Evolution to be a holy grail that is beyond critique.

As has been said, TOE usually refers to Theory of Everything. Since this theory has not actually been finished yet, criticism of it would be quite impossible. It is not an issue of being "beyond" critique, but of simply not being available for critique.