Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

“Design without Intelligence”

William Dembski
November 7, 2005
Evolution, Intelligent Design
1
Categories
Evolution
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Visit http://www.mutationengineer.homechoice.co.uk and you will see how a simple molecule could dramatically accelerate evolution in a way which might allow design without intelligence.

Comments
Re: jmcd in post #26: "As to whether there is a larger purpose for us that the natural world does not suggest??? Well that is something that science cannot touch...there is not a purpose that we are capable of detecting. It does not mean that there is no purpose." Yet many Darwinists say that evolution by RM+NS is purposeless. Why would they do that? "An inference however is not science." By what absurd, self-serving definition? When one infers that an asteroid crash killed off the dinosaurs based on the evidence, it's not science? Inferences are used all the time in science. "The problem with id is that it implies a supernatural creation at some point and such an idea is beyond the bounds of science...For one thing there is no reason for scientists to think that a supernatural creation was ever necessary. More importantly, such an idea is inherantly unscientific." What about the big bang? Everything in nature came from nothing. How does that happen without reference to something beyond nature? "we all must eventually pick our own truths" Ah, yes, Pilatean relativism ("What is truth?") If you reject absolute truth, you have no basis to believe anything. How does one perform the calculations needed for science? 2 + 2 = 5, anyone?jay
November 9, 2005
November
11
Nov
9
09
2005
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT
testerschoice, I’ll try again. In 22, you say “I have presented *evidence* on not only the…” I am willing to concede that a brain, gross and cellular, did cause and correlate with a particular thought, which we shall name “evidence,” or “evidence thought 61-B.” However, I do not believe any further conclusion can be drawn from this since there is no discrete “you” to do the drawing of it. Also, conclusions typically involve “proposition thoughts” and “inference thoughts.” For most of us, this is not a problem but in your case, there is no discrete concluder available to assemble them in preparation for judgment. They are bio-chemical events referring each only to itself. However, if there is any further relevance in this item, perhaps you could tell me what it is and how “you” arrived at it.pmob1
November 9, 2005
November
11
Nov
9
09
2005
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT
It was only a matter of time before someone came up with “ultra-smart enzymes” to replace the fusty old “plain vanilla smart” regulatory enzymes. Why not “smart bosons” and “smart fermions,” “systematic quarks.” On the macro scale, neo-pagans “sense” the “wise force” of the Earth-Mother. It all begs the question. Where did the information come from? Of Dawkins and mutationengineer we may note, they flee from bio-matter as fast as ever they can. Darwinism is literally disappearing into a series of computer simulations. It’s the first comp-tech paradigm suicide.pmob1
November 9, 2005
November
11
Nov
9
09
2005
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT
jmcd, "If you could show me a mammal from 500 millionm years ago or a human from60 million years ET would be in some serious trouble." Do you mean that the theory of universal common ancestry would be dismissed as false, or that scientists would have to revise how they think it happened? Dave T.taciturnus
November 9, 2005
November
11
Nov
9
09
2005
03:35 AM
3
03
35
AM
PDT
There's still the problem of the sudden appearance of millions of novel body plans, seemingly out of nowhere, during the Cambrian period. And the fact that there was insufficient time for NS + UM to do it's thing. Plus the fact that NS + UM has not been demonstrated to be able to produce beneficial mutations which would lead to said body plans, etc... etc...Bombadill
November 8, 2005
November
11
Nov
8
08
2005
07:29 PM
7
07
29
PM
PDT
if the mechanism isnt NS its automatically labeled "supernatural"?? im not sure how that logic works. they are intermediates by nature of the definition of the process. species will gradually mutate their dna and change over time...which allows newer, more advanced (more able to survive) species which will came later. thus, intermediates.jboze3131
November 8, 2005
November
11
Nov
8
08
2005
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT
"The point is evolution is not a process of improvement but a mechanism to allow life to survive on an ever changing world." ---------- that statement makes no sense. life will survive better as it gets more complex as it improves its ability to survive. which, in itself, is circular reason...but thats definitely the claim of ET. complexity clearly equals better ability to reproduce- which is the sole purpose of life according to ET. to survive, aka to reproduce. those which are more complex reporoduce more, survive longer, etc.jboze3131
November 8, 2005
November
11
Nov
8
08
2005
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT
jbose3131 There are species between the chimp/human node and our current species. You can call them intermediate if you want but that word is charged with the afore mentioned problem. If id does not imply supernatural creation at some stage then how does it propose species change? That is the question that I have not seen answered.jmcd
November 8, 2005
November
11
Nov
8
08
2005
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT
jboze3131 "we have fossil finds that show more complex creatures in earlier layers than the less complex in the later layers" "often times the less complex featured hominids are later in the record than the more complex featured forms earlier in the record" These quotes demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of ET. It is not a progression from simple to complex. ET is blind to complexity. That is what is meant when evolution is labled as goaless, purposeless. Scientists are trying to combat the notion that evolution has a drive towards complexity and therefore presumably us. There is not a problem with less complex species arriving later. Suppose species A becomes permenantly seperated into two distinctly different ecosystems. This creates species A and species B. Say the environmernt species B is particularly harsh and rewuires greater cognitive abilities to survive. Species B will overtime become more intelligent and consequenlty more complicated. Back in the homeland species A has had to change little. For some time lowered ocean levels allow it to travel to what had formerly been an island with a very similar ecosystem. At some point this land bridge is once again swallowed by the ocean. After thousands of years the island remnant of species A begins to decrease in stature just like every other species on thew island and eventually forms species C. C has not had to change its ways since the time it was an A and has therefore not become anymore complex. Species B will be older then species C but B will be more complex due to environmental demands. The point is evolution is not a process of improvement but a mechanism to allow life to survive on an ever changing world.jmcd
November 8, 2005
November
11
Nov
8
08
2005
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT
okay, so now youre changing your story to say that there is no such thing as an intermediate? youre the same guy who keeps attacking ID, yet you continue to claim ID is an appeal to a supernatural designer. let me get this straight then. youre saying there truly are no intermediates between the purely hpothetical ancestor of chimps and humans. correct? you cant have it both ways.jboze3131
November 8, 2005
November
11
Nov
8
08
2005
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT
jboze3131 I know that Neanderthalscoexisted with us. I also know that there is no such thing as an "intermediate species." It is a term invented by creationists and fails to recognize how and why new species form. Species form through geographic isolation, change in resource availaility, or any other change in environment that necessitates a physical change within a species. A new species is a new species. It is not an intermediate between an old species and a species that may exist sometime in the future.jmcd
November 8, 2005
November
11
Nov
8
08
2005
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT
thesun- that is precisely why they cannot have possibly been intermediates. you cant be an intermediate of something that is around the very same time you are. we know of nothing to dispute ET with the fossil record? we have numerous fossil finds that continue to demand a change in the record, the timeline, etc. we have fossil finds that show more complex creatures in earlier layers than the less complex in the later layers. we have, as gould said, a "lack of clear order and progress through time among marine invertebrate faunas"- which surely disputes ET in this regard. Many have mentioned the fact that there seem to be no precursors to apes in general, especially chimps...and the human line is changed every few yrs with new finds that must be crammed into the preconceived story, often times the less complex featured hominids are later in the record than the more complex featured forms earlier in the record- the opposite of what ET would have in the record. examples are abundant of items that seem to make the fossil record hard to use. youre now talking about how fossils are rare, because theres a lack of evidence of true transitionals. its a nice move- if the evidence doesnt exist, theres no way to claim its not true.jboze3131
November 8, 2005
November
11
Nov
8
08
2005
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT
The most common factor in making unreasonable assumptions about the fossil record is that people fail to realize just how rare fossils are. An animal has to die under some very specific conditions to be fossilized. Most species will not leave a single fossil. You can ignore the coherency ET offers but the fact remains that we know of nothing that can dispute it.jmcd
November 8, 2005
November
11
Nov
8
08
2005
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT
> umm. i hate to break it to ya, but no one considers neanderthals intermediates, considering we know that they lived at the same time as modern humans. that isnt why they are not considered intermediaries, they are not intermeds because they went extinct. No offspring, nothing to evolve into. simple.theSun
November 8, 2005
November
11
Nov
8
08
2005
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT
you keep saying supernatural creation which is NOT what ID is.jboze3131
November 8, 2005
November
11
Nov
8
08
2005
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT
In the historical regard I would have to say that it appears, based on what we know, that there is indeed common ancestry. Can I or anyone else ever prove this? No. Do I have ANY reason to believe in supernatural creation? No. So I am left with a theory that at least fits the facts even if it cannot be proven, or I choose to believe pure, groundless supposition.jmcd
November 8, 2005
November
11
Nov
8
08
2005
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT
umm. i hate to break it to ya, but no one considers neanderthals intermediates, considering we know that they lived at the same time as modern humans.jboze3131
November 8, 2005
November
11
Nov
8
08
2005
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT
jboze3131 Are you denying the existence of homo erectus, Neanderthals, and every other "intermediate" species?jmcd
November 8, 2005
November
11
Nov
8
08
2005
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT
tacitutrns If you could show me a mammal from 500 millionm years ago or a human from60 million years ET would be in some serious trouble.jmcd
November 8, 2005
November
11
Nov
8
08
2005
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT
jmcd- youre doing exactly what i explained the problem was. youre writing the narrative then stuffing the fossils into the story. whale evolution and horse evolution are bad examples- even some whale experts dont agree that your version of the record is what truly happened. as for ape to man. we dont have a gentle change from ape to man and the missing link is still missing. we have a few fossils that too many want to demand are human or part human, as opposed to merely chimp. another example of wanting to fit the evidence into the preconceived story. the only theory that might fit with the record is PE. no one can reasonably claim that there were small changes in the record. the record is full of forms coming into appearance out of nowhere without any links to the past. which is why gould and others even came up with PE, but the problem with this version of bioevo is that it can fit ANY fossil into the theory and claim its correct. you just simply claim that we cant see the intermediates because the changes were massive and quick and left no trace! sounds like an argument from ignorance to me.jboze3131
November 8, 2005
November
11
Nov
8
08
2005
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT
"ps. I am still waiting to find out how ID figures out who the designer is and how the designer created? " proving that you, as well, have no idea what ID is.jboze3131
November 8, 2005
November
11
Nov
8
08
2005
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT
jmcd, Is there any conceivable fossil that might be found that would lead you to conclude that the fact of common descent is false?taciturnus
November 8, 2005
November
11
Nov
8
08
2005
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT
jmcd, Evolution isn't merely a model of how the universe works like Newton's theories or relativity. Models can be "kind of" true and approximately accurate. Evolution, as an historical science, makes factual statements about history that are either true or false. Either man and apes have a common ancestor or they do not. If they do, evolution is true. If they do not, evolution is false. The small scale changes you mention with respect to resistance of microbes are uncontroversial and are genuinely scientific. But the theory of evolution isn't really about them. It's about extrapolating way beyond them, and back in time, to the assertion that all life descended from simpler forms of life. Scientific models may be approximately accurate... history is either true or false. Dave T.taciturnus
November 8, 2005
November
11
Nov
8
08
2005
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT
jboze3131 The progression of species according to the fossil record in no way violates ET. Et for instance predicted that whales are a product of a mammalian species returning to the sea and the fossil record has recently provided excellent evidence for this. The changes in the horse family as evidenced by the fossil record have occurred according to what ET would predict. The changes in primates are also inline with Darwin's predictions. There is nothing in the fossil record that disputes ET. I have read some creationist misinterpretations of fossils that I will be happy to illuminate for you if you throw any of those my way.jmcd
November 8, 2005
November
11
Nov
8
08
2005
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT
Jboze, "thats not what ID says at all. " Then please, tell us what ID says. ps. I am still waiting to find out how ID figures out who the designer is and how the designer created?testerschoice
November 8, 2005
November
11
Nov
8
08
2005
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT
jboze3131 Then by all means please enlighten as to what id says and how that could make predictionsjmcd
November 8, 2005
November
11
Nov
8
08
2005
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT
how on earth does bioevo fit with the fossil record? maybe PE sort of fits with it, but PE is so jumbled, it could fit ANY data- theyd just claim that stasis was the rule for this period and this group of animals, and leave it at that. as for your comments on ID, i realize why you say that it isnt science. you dont understand the theory. "I do not see how believing that God or whatever designer you choose created life forms supernaturally allows you to predict anything." thats not what ID says at all.jboze3131
November 8, 2005
November
11
Nov
8
08
2005
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT
tacitutrns "Can we pick the truth that evolution is false and ID true?" You can believe whatever you want. You would, however, be hard pressed to show that ID provides a more accurate framework for understanding nature and that it is capable of making material predictions about nature. Evolutionary theory does not represent an absolute truth about how nature works. It does do an excellent job of describing everything we know about life's progression on Earth. For evolution to be abandoned altogether a theory would have to emerge that predicted everything that evolution has done successfully thus far and explain much of the questions that still remain. Again, it must also be able to make material predictions about nature. I do not see how believing that God or whatever designer you choose created life forms supernaturally allows you to predict anything. On the other hand evolutionary theory has allowed us to understand a tremendous amount about how diseases build resistance to our cures and has suggested novel ways of combating new diseases. It fits the fossil record, all geologic evidence, and the geographic dispertion of species. I have not yet seen how ID does any of that. There are elements that are in ET's purview that it cannot adequately explain, and it is therefore certainly in need of refinement. I see no reason to scrap the theory altogether though, especially with no viable alternative.jmcd
November 8, 2005
November
11
Nov
8
08
2005
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT
dodgingcars There are different realms of truth we are talking about. Religion and philosophy search for universal truths about the nature of universe, creation or whatever you want to call it. Science searches for provisional truths that explain certain obsereved phenomena. Every "truth" science discovers has to be provisional because science does not consider knowledge to be absolute. Newton's laws are provisional truths that accurately describe many situations. We all now recognize that the universe is much more complicated then he had the ability to imagine in his time. Einstein did not call Newton a liar but did generate a theory that accounted for a much larger degree of complexity in the unuiverse. Einstein did not however come closer to any absolute truth. That does not, in any way, make science subjective. It is all based on evidence and an objective reasoning that combines the evidence into a coherent narrative. A scientific theory's value is based on its ability to accurately explain nature/the physical world. A theory provides a framework to understand a certain realm of nature that is testable and provides a platform for future conjectures-tests-theories. In essence Newton was not wrong. He just didn't get the full picture. Almost certainly Einstein didn't either. That does not make the discoveries they made an illusion. The fact that we are able to do this should be proof enough of that.jmcd
November 8, 2005
November
11
Nov
8
08
2005
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT
the Sun That is a definite problem. Many people, especially physicists, would take issue with my reasoning. It is called the Anthropic Principle. They would say that of course our universe has the necessary conditions to allow for our existence because we are here to talk about it. Chance is completely irrelevant. It still strikes me as amazing though that if gravity were just a little bit stronger or a little bit weaker the universe would have never had the opportunity to develop complex arrangements of matter. From that fact on there are just so many must haves for life as we understand it to exist that our existence seems to be beyond the realm of probability in my mind. This, to me anyway, indicates some sort of purpose or at least intent.jmcd
November 8, 2005
November
11
Nov
8
08
2005
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply