Intelligent Design

[Interesting Ian]

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.

They might have meant everything physical has a cause. But God is not physical (and neither are we).

 

[Elind]

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.



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.

There are plenty of people here http://www.icr.org/ who also claim science degrees, for example. If that was all it took to end an argument this forum, and Jref, would be closed by now.

As to what begs the question; there is plenty of serious consideration of that if you follow even just the popular science literature these days. The fact that "we" don't have all the answers certainly doesn't mean that you can claim to, particularly since you don't even seem to search for them.

 

[T'ai Chi]

There are plenty of people here http://www.icr.org/ who also claim science degrees, for example. If that was all it took to end an argument this forum, and Jref, would be closed by now.

Well that is certainly true, but I'm not pushing a creationist argument, nor am I trying to end arguments, so your comparison is false. BillHoyt said that I am trying to paint science as scientism, which is also false.

Meanwhile, because Hoyt is talking about science, I'd like to know what his background in science is. Here, unfortunately, he is silent for once.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Since Ian's not "physical", then I'm sure he won't mind me bashing him on the head...

I on the other hand am physical, completely. I am proud of all that has evolved before me to end at this physical body. It's amazingly complex, yet similar to all other life forms on the planet.

Nothing could simply design this complexity. It has to be built on and evolve over millions of years. Then it has to retain some diversity in case our environment changes drastically. We have so many advantages. Being able to eat meat and vegetation. Being warm blooded. Having this big brain.

Yet a simpler bug also has advantages. A cockroach is amazingly good at surviving anything that is thrown its way.

So it matters not really what the design is, but how it holds up to living on this physical planet.

On the ID idiocy, - What have we seen that is actually made and not born that can reproduce and evolve or mutate depending on its make up and exterior circumstances?

It's just plain rubbish to think it is that simple.

 

[Mojo]

Yet a simpler bug also has advantages. A cockroach is amazingly good at surviving anything that is thrown its way.

Well, the cockroach has had just as much time to evolve to fit its environment as you have.

 

[-=Vagrant=-]

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

Dembski is using the ancient argument from ignorance. But he goes on to great lenghts in his books to appear as if he's not using that argument.

 

[Elind]

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

I have a question:

When looking at some of this ID literature I am remonded of books from some time ago touting the Bermuda Triangle, "Chariots of the Gods" and so on. They throw in as much material as they can find, or make up, or quote from similar publications, and when they draw their conclusions, it is almost impossible, or at least impractical, to compose a coherent and rational rebuttal, simply because the argument is not rational and coherent.

I think there is a name for that type of situation or method of arguing, but I can't think of it. What say you?

PS. This is a serious question

 

[Mojo]

I have a question:

When looking at some of this ID literature I am remonded of books from some time ago touting the Bermuda Triangle, "Chariots of the Gods" and so on. They throw in as much material as they can find, or make up, or quote from similar publications, and when they draw their conclusions, it is almost impossible, or at least impractical, to compose a coherent and rational rebuttal, simply because the argument is not rational and coherent.

I think there is a name for that type of situation or method of arguing, but I can't think of it. What say you?

PS. This is a serious question

Could it be the 3 "B"s: "BS Baffles Brains"?

 

[Elind]

Could it be the 3 "B"s: "BS Baffles Brains"?

No, I don't think so, but thanks for trying

 

[Art Vandelay]

I think there is a name for that type of situation or method of arguing, but I can't think of it. What say you?
[/B]

That sounds similar to that "shotgun" strategy, in which one presents so many arguments that there isn't time to refute them all.

 

[Mojo]

No, I don't think so, but thanks for trying

PS: It wasn't an entirely serious answer. Sorry.

I think the "shotgun" thing is more likely to be the one you're after.

Edited for speeling...and punctuat!on

 

[Elind]

PS: It wasn't an entirely serious answer. Sorry.

I think the "shotgun" thing is more likely to be the one you're after.

Edited for speeling...and punctuat!on

I was hoping for a bigger word

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Elind said:
I think there is a name for that type of situation or method of arguing, but I can't think of it. What say you?

Bafflegab?

I have to say that Dembski's No Free Lunch is one of the most opaque books I have ever read. And after slogging through the damn thing, I still didn't get a completely worked example of a biological mechanism that is irreducibly complex.

Some of you may get a chuckle out of this, the author none other than William Dembski:

http://acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/idprospects.htm

~~ Paul

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Well, the cockroach has had just as much time to evolve to fit its environment as you have.

Actuallly, I think it has had more time It's an example of something that works well in its present form and behaviour, so doesn't need to change much. The cockroach also reproduces faster than we do, and its young is not as "demanding". If they do face some challenge they have a chance to overcome it. In their present form they can survive some extreme circumstance without having to evolve from its many species already present.

it is wise to remember that insects out-number us in every respect. They have spent far longer than our few million years adapting to a variety of habitats, can survive in extreme conditions where we would find it difficult, and are more likely to survive any planetary catastrophe which may lay waiting unknown in the future. It can only help humankind's survival prospects to study and learn as much as possible about all life-forms irrespective of our relationship with them; friends or foes, we share the planet with them!

www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/articles/nitemr2.html

The many different successful forms on this planet are mindboggling. When looking at structures from cockroaches to kangaroos, one must admire what comes of the dna sequences within. Not only that, but what works for one plant or animal and their current circumstances wouldn't work for another. Can you see humans with pouches? Mind, the Australian continent is fascinating, having separated from the rest of the world when the mammals were primarily marsupials. Then you see what happened when placentals were introduced to the continent...and you can see why there aren't many marsupials around the rest of the planet.

Okay, now I'm babbling. I just find biology is one of my favorite topics to go on about.

 

[Elind]

Bafflegab?

I have to say that Dembski's No Free Lunch is one of the most opaque books I have ever read. And after slogging through the damn thing, I still didn't get a completely worked example of a biological mechanism that is irreducibly complex.

Some of you may get a chuckle out of this, the author none other than William Dembski:

http://acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/idprospects.htm

~~ Paul

I read most of that, actually the last half got a bit wearisome, but the good news is that the answer to my earlier question popped into place.

It's not bafflegab unfortunately, it's obfuscation.


I particularly like Dembski's comment;

"I'm mainly a theoretician, so I'm not in a position to lay out a detailed set of research problems for intelligent design."

Coupled with the rest of the text, and coming from one of the originators of ID, it is clear that they have a vision of a "science" that they want to promote, but they have little proof of its truth and the amazing thing is that he admits as much, with a perfectly straight face (or so I imagine), and continues without any hesitation to discuss how they should go about finding and presenting the evidence that they need!!

The really amazing thing is that this is obviously not a stupid man.

One also gets a hint of some internal frictions:

"Bruce Gordon assessed......Design theory has had considerable difficulty gaining a hearing in academic contexts, as evidenced most recently by the Polanyi Center affair at Baylor University. One of the principle reasons for this resistance and controversy is not far to seek: design-theoretic research has been hijacked as part of a larger cultural and political movement. In particular, the theory has been prematurely drawn into discussions of public science education where it has no business making an appearance without broad recognition from the scientific community that it is making a worthwhile contribution to our understanding of the natural world. (Research News, January 2001, p. 9)"

But Dembski blithely continues:

"The kernel of truth is that ID needs to succeed as a scientific enterprise to succeed as a cultural and political enterprise (in other words, the instrumental good of intelligent design cannot be achieved at the expense of its intrinsic good [Elind: Is this a rephrase of ..The ends justify the means?] ). But this is quite different from requiring that intelligent design attain a certain level of maturity and acceptance in the scientific world before it may be regarded as a bonafide intellectual project and legitimately influence public opinion."

And then clearly states that he is coming from a predefined position, that requires not facts, but strategy, to be achieved:

"Intelligent design's legitimacy as an intellectual project hinges on two facts that are independent of its state of development. First, evolutionary biology has been so hugely unsuccessful as a scientific theory in accounting for the origin of life and the emergence of biological complexity that it does not deserve a monopoly regardless what state of formation ID has reached."

However all this is dated from two years ago, or more and as far as I'm aware the marketing of ID continues unabated. What I'm not sure of is to what extent they have compiled the Catalog of Fundamental Facts that Dembski calls for, but I suspect not, simply because the fundamental facts that they have presented piecemeal have all been shot down piecemeal. A true catalog would probably be suicide if it were ever completed because it would then become a bible that could be refuted as a whole.

PS. Paul; next time you post an obfuscationist tract like this, it would be nice if you saved us some time and headache with a précis.

 

[a_unique_person]

After reading a few of the posts, I think you are just wasting your time. They don't believe in creationism because of any facts or logic, but because their faith tells them to. If any doubts are created, they will scuttle back to their biblical inspiration and support groups for a recharge.

Also, in case you didn't notice it, Darwinism is on it's last legs.

 

[fishbob]

After reading a few of the posts, I think you are just wasting your time.

Even though large tracts of mid-America and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the ID stupidity and all the odious apparatus of Creationist rule, we shall not flag or fail.

We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in Kansas, we shall fight in Ohio and Texas, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the media, we shall defend our intelligence, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight in the classrooms, we shall fight on the discussion fora, we shall fight in the newpapers and in the rest of the media, we shall fight in the elections; we shall never surrender.

Blatently Stolen from Winston Churchill

 

[BillHoyt]

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.

Thank you, Art. It looks like T'ai still needs reading lessons. Either that, or lessons in not straw-manning arguments.

 

[BillHoyt]

Also, in case you didn't notice it, Darwinism is on it's last legs.

Do tell.

 

[Hellbound]

Do tell.

I think he's getting to the point that Darwinism is being replaced by newer theories of evolution, such as Punctuated Equilibria. The theory has changed quite a bit since Darwin's initial formulation.

In any case, back to kitten's statements. Kitten, I was explicitly talking about the IDers proposing an acasual intelligent creator. That is the logical flaw. Why should their proposed creator be acasual, when they rely on causality for the initial part of the argument? THe IDers argument starts from a aspecific baseline, I think we can agree on that (and I'm talking about the logical argument they represent, not the reasons and psychology behind it): IDers propose that many natural forms are too complex to have been designed without an external intelligence. This is an argument based on causality...they argue that complex forms must have had an intelligence cause, therefore there must be an intelligence behind them. Yet, the illogic comes in when they then argue that the compelx intelligence that would act as this cause does not require a cause. The argument looks like this:

If A, then B (postulate).
A (statement 1).
B (conclusion).

In the argument, A is "intelligent and/or complex forms." B is "intelligent designer." THe problem comes in because B is, by definition, a subset of A. Any intelligence (in the human sense, or the sense implied by IDers) is complex. Therefore, we can substitute in B for a int he previous statement, and we get:

If B, then B (postulate).
B (statement 1).
B (statement 2).

So basically, the argument boils down to "there's an intelligent designer if there's an intellgient designer." Because of the postualte they use to "prove" intelligent design, they cannot use the arguemnt for an acasual intelligence without nullifying their argument and, basically, making it the same argument as asserting a diety. They use causality to require a designer, then refuse to apply that same argument to the designer they require. They may mean God when they say designer, but that does not follow from the logic they use. One could just as easily posit computer intelligence or extra-terrestrials. There is no requirement that their designer be acausal, and that does not follow logically from their argument. By asserting that their designer can be intelligent and acasual, they violate the postulate they use to calim that humanity must have a designer. This is not logic.

That is what I was getting at before. I understand the IDer argument, both as they believe and as they put forth. I am attacking the argument they put forth, not their faith-based belief in an acasual diety-figure. I can show the flaw in their reasoning from the postulate they put forth.