A short quiz on Intelligent Design for both advocates and opponents of ID

_{Vincent Torley

August 11, 2011

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

1. On a scale of 0 (diehard disbeliever) to 10 (firm believer), how would you rate your level of belief in Intelligent Design? (Minimal Definition of Intelligent Design: The idea that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and not by an undirected process.)

Update: When I say “certain features”, I mean, “certain generic features of the universe-as-a-whole (e.g. constants of Nature) and of living things in general (e.g. the specified complexity of DNA”. When I say “an undirected process” I mean a process lacking long-range foresight.

2. What do you regard as the best argument for Intelligent Design?

3. What do you regard as the best argument against Intelligent Design?

4. I’d like you to think about the arguments for Intelligent Design. Obviously they’re not perfect. Exactly where do you think these arguments need the most work, to make them more effective?

5. Now I’d like you to think about the arguments against Intelligent Design. Obviously they could be improved. Exactly where do you think these arguments need the most work, to make them more effective?

6. (a) If you’re an ID advocate or supporter, what do you think is the least bad of the various alternatives that have been proposed to Intelligent Design, as explanations for the specified complexity found in living things and in the laws of the cosmos? (e.g. The multiverse [restricted or unrestricted?]; Platonism; the laws of the cosmos hold necessarily, and they necessarily favor life; pure chance; time is an illusion, so CSI doesn’t increase over time.)

(b) If you’re an ID opponent or skeptic, can you name some explanations for life and the cosmos that you would regard as even more irrational than Intelligent Design? (e.g. Everything popped into existence out of absolutely nothing; the future created the past; every logically possible world exists out there somewhere; I am the only being in the cosmos and the external world is an illusion requiring no explanation; only minds are real, so the physical universe is an illusion requiring no explanation.)

Some guidelines for answers:

Please try to keep your answers brief – no more than 200 words per question. Less than 50 would be ideal.

Anonymous responses are perfectly fine, and participants’ privacy will be fully respected.

I’m afraid I don’t have any prizes to offer. I’d just like to hear what people think.

If you have any further questions, or if you are unable to respond to the quiz online, then please feel free to email me. See my Web page.

Comments

I guess that you've given up trying to defend your position, so I'm not going to bother checking here any more.TomS_{August 22, 2011
August
08
Aug
22
22
2011
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

vjtorley August 13,2011 at 3:35 pm #57 wrote: Proof that the constants of Nature or the basic structure of DNA are less than ideal for life might therefore constitute evidence a Design hypothesis. But plenty of things that everybody agrees are designed are less than ideal, so I don't think that being less-than-ideal is a sign of non-designedness. A car which is poorly designed for the person who buys it and drives it may be well-designed for the manufacturer, because it may cost more to make another car without generating more sales. A broken watch or one which is just poorly manufactured can still be seen to be designed. Bad poetry is still designed. In fact, sometimes bad poetry is deliberately written for humor. As far as life is concerned, a feature which is better for its possessor may be worse for its prey (or its predators, or its environment). A living thing which is ideal in the sense of being long-lived and producing many offspring would overwhelm its environment in the long run.TomS_{August 17, 2011
August
08
Aug
17
17
2011
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT}

Perhaps the discussion is operating on too abstract a level. So I'm going to propose an example of something which, if it were the case, would be evidence against purposeful design: By way of setting up the example, observe the nested hierarchy of features of various living things which is known as the "tree of life". The conventional explanation for this is that it is a result of common descent with modification. I don't know of any suggestion for an alternative explanation. If there is not common descent, then the tree of life is just a chance event of no significance. So I propose the following as possible evidence against design: If there is not common descent, then the tree of life is something which is not purposefully designed.TomS_{August 16, 2011
August
08
Aug
16
16
2011
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT}

vjtorley August 13, 2011 at 3:35 pm Proof that the constants of Nature or the basic structure of DNA are less than ideal for life might therefore constitute evidence a Design hypothesis. I presume that you mean "evidence against a Design hypothesis". Although one could make a case that the existence of life in spite of less than ideal conditions would be evidence for a Design. I'll try to move the discussion forward by making that presumption, for the point of discussion has been what would count as evidence against a design hypothesis. And you have introduced a new undefined term, "ideal". It seems to me that being able to determine what is ideal or less than ideal would be dependent upon our knowledge of purposes, and thus "ideal" is only meaningful if we assume teleology. I can't quite understand you if you are saying that there is something "ideal" about the world of life as we know it. After all, the vast majority of space is extremely hostile to life as we know it, as you surely are aware. As far as I can tell, the question has only slightly shifted, from what would be an example of something not designed, to what would be an example of something less than ideal for life.TomS_{August 14, 2011
August
08
Aug
14
14
2011
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT}

Here's a comment from Ed Brayton, over at http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2011/08/answering_the_id_quiz.php . Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of Michigan Citizens for Science and co-founder of The Panda's Thumb. Here are his responses, followed by my comments. Vincent Torley at Uncommon Descent offers a short quiz about intelligent design, so let's answer it. 1. On a scale of 0 (diehard disbeliever) to 10 (firm believer), how would you rate your level of belief in Intelligent Design? (Minimal Definition of Intelligent Design: The idea that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and not by an undirected process.) Ed Brayton: That's not a "minimal" definition of intelligent design, it's a deceptive definition. Substitute "God" for "an intelligent cause" and it would be accurate. And the answer is 0. [vjtorley responds: It is the right of the Intelligent Design movement to define the meaning of Intelligent Design, and that's how we define it. The fact that we count Hindus, Deists, agnostics and Raelians among our members speaks for itself. How would Ed Brayton like it if ID proponents arrogated to themselves the right to define neo-Darwinian evolution?] ---------- 2. What do you regard as the best argument for Intelligent Design? Ed Brayton: There are none. The central premise of ID is a logical fallacy that requires misrepresenting the evidence in order to reach a predetermined conclusion. [vjtorley responds: And that premise is...?] ---------- 3. What do you regard as the best argument against Intelligent Design? Ed Brayton: See above. Every ID argument is just a newly gussied-up version of the same old creationist tropes that have been disproved many times over. [vjtorley responds: Point out to me the flaw in Dr. Douglas Axe's research, then. Show me a non-foresighted process that can generate a protein, and attach supporting calculations. Numbers, please!] ---------- 4. I'd like you to think about the arguments for Intelligent Design. Obviously they're not perfect. Exactly where do you think these arguments need the most work, to make them more effective? Ed Brayton: This is a bit like asking what you could do to make Celine Dion less annoying. If she didn't exist, she'd be less annoying. Same for ID -- the only answer is to drop those bad arguments and accept reality. [vjtorley responds: See above. And your remark about Celine Dion was uncalled for.] ---------- 5. Now I'd like you to think about the arguments against Intelligent Design. Obviously they could be improved. Exactly where do you think these arguments need the most work, to make them more effective? Ed Brayton: They don't need to be improved, they are supported by reality. ---------- 6. (a) If you're an ID advocate or supporter, what do you think is the least bad of the various alternatives that have been proposed to Intelligent Design, as explanations for the specified complexity found in living things and in the laws of the cosmos? (e.g. The multiverse [restricted or unrestricted?]; Platonism; the laws of the cosmos hold necessarily, and they necessarily favor life; pure chance; time is an illusion, so CSI doesn't increase over time.) That's quite a straw man he's constructed there. [vjtorley responds: I take it you're a supporter, then? Seriously, I suggested those alternatives because they're not as easily refutable as textbook "explanations" of the origin of life.] ---------- (b) If you're an ID opponent or skeptic, can you name some explanations for life and the cosmos that you would regard as even more irrational than Intelligent Design? (e.g. Everything popped into existence out of absolutely nothing; the future created the past; every logically possible world exists out there somewhere; I am the only being in the cosmos and the external world is an illusion requiring no explanation; only minds are real, so the physical universe is an illusion requiring no explanation.) I'd say those are all about equally irrational. [vjtorley responds: Not even Professor Richard Dawkins goes that far. He's prepared to at least consider the possibility of Deism.]vjtorley_{August 14, 2011
August
08
Aug
14
14
2011
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT}

1. 10 2. I really like cosmological fine-tuning, because I like very large numbers. I also like that there is no mathematical model for "natural selection" (it is such a nebulous concept, existing in whatever form is most convenient at the time, that I doubt it can have a mathematical model or that it even meets the criteria of science). Mutations not producing new genetic information (where did information come from in the first place then?) and life not being able to self-assemble (abiogenesis) are also good ones. 3. Suboptimality (the designer either does not no how to, cannot, or will not design an optimal world for what reason(s)?). Actually, this is not an argument against ID, just certain assumptions about the nature of the designer. That said I can't think of any counter arguments I think are good. 4. Perform A LOT MORE experiments, which necessarily entails mainstream science opening up to the possibility of ID. I would also like to see more atheist/agnostic ID proponents, or even just more non-Christian ID proponents (or at least Christians who don't quote the Bible as scientific evidence). 5. Stop with the snarky cheap shots like talking about ID versus "real" science or claming that it is religion or the "overwhelming evidence" for RM+NS that is genuine evidence but nowhere near "overwhelming", nor is it "fact" or demonstrated as well as gravity. Either rebut ID on purely scientific grounds or admit you don't like it for religious reasons and that's why you attack ID proponents. Demonstrating that life can self-assemble, or at least that all the proteins needed for life can self-assemble. Demonstrating that random processes can produce completely new information, not just delete or rearrange pre-existing information in a genome. 6. (a) I don't think there are any acceptable alternatives that are purely materialistic. I suppose if I had to choose I would say that the alternative I see as best is that the future act as a teleological attractor to the past, guiding the evolution of forms in the past to a predetermined future (I've read this somewhere).UrbanMysticDee_{August 13, 2011
August
08
Aug
13
13
2011
08:17 PM
8
08
17
PM
PDT}

Dr. Torley speaking of meiosis, it is funny that he does not find any wonder in the fact that meiosis works at all, but finds himself competent enough to use a theological argument that meiosis 'must have' evolved because God certainly would not allow it to operate with such a failure rate. Dr. Torley is he a theologian or a scientist? Perhaps he would care to actually show us exactly how meiosis evolved instead of playing the Theologian telling God how, and when, He should and should not act within nature???: The machinery for recombination is part of the chromosome structure Excerpt: "The more we learn about meiosis, the more mysterious it becomes", says Franz Klein from the Department for Chromosome Biology of the University of Vienna. "It is surprising that maternal and paternal chromosomes find each other at all. Because at the time of interaction all chromosomes have generated a sister and are tightly connected with her like a Siamese twin. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-08-machinery-recombination-chromosome.html ,,,Instead of griping that he could of done it better that God, why does he not just go ahead and do it better??? ============== Refuting The Myth Of 'Bad Design' vs. Intelligent Design - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIzdieauxZg In fact, it has been pointed out, by many people besides Dr. Craig, that the whole neo-Darwinian argument is, at its core beneath all the rhetoric, a theological argument: On the Vastness of the Universe Excerpt: Darwin’s objection to design inferences were theological. And in addition, Darwin overlooked many theological considerations in order to focus on the one. His one consideration was his assumption about what a god would or wouldn’t do. The considerations he overlooked are too numerous to mention here, but here’s a few:,,, https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/on-the-vastness-of-the-universe/#comment-362918 Here is a peer-reviewed paper which points out the fact that the primary arguments for Darwinian evolution turn out to be theological arguments at their core, not scientific arguments: Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin's Use of Theology in the Origin of Species - May 2011 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.html From Philosopher to Science Writer: The Dissemination of Evolutionary Thought - May 2011 Excerpt: The powerful theory of evolution hangs on this framework of thought that mandates naturalism. The science is weak but the metaphysics are strong. This is the key to understanding evolutionary thought. The weak arguments are scientific and the strong arguments, though filled with empirical observation and scientific jargon, are metaphysical. The stronger the argument, the more theological or philosophical. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/05/from-philosopher-to-science-writer.html ======================== Perhaps he would care to show us how ANY molecular machine came about: Astonishing Molecular Machines – Drew Berry - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/6861283 Dna Molecular Biology Visualizations - Wrapping And DNA Replication - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8NHcQesYl8 Getting a tighter grip on cell division - November 2010 The molecular machinery that shepherds and literally pulls the chromosomes apart consists of paired microtubules radiating from opposite poles of the dividing cell and an enormous, but precise, molecular complex called a kinetochore. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-tighter-cell-division.html Dividing Cells 'Feel' Their Way Out Of Warp "What we found is an exquisitely tuned mechanosensory system that keeps the cells shipshape so they can divide properly," - Douglas N. Robinson, Ph.D. Molecular machines - notes: https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfMzlkNjYydmRkZw&hl=en_USbornagain77_{August 13, 2011
August
08
Aug
13
13
2011
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT}

Dr. Torley speaking of meiosis, it is funny that he (The Doc) does not find any wonder in the fact that meiosis works at all, but finds himself competent enough to use a theological argument that meiosis 'must have' evolved because God certainly would not allow it to operate with such a failure rate. Dr. Torley is he a theologian or a scientist? Perhaps he would care to actually show us exactly how meiosis evolved instead of playing the Theologian telling God how, and when, He should and should not act within nature???: The machinery for recombination is part of the chromosome structure Excerpt: "The more we learn about meiosis, the more mysterious it becomes", says Franz Klein from the Department for Chromosome Biology of the University of Vienna. "It is surprising that maternal and paternal chromosomes find each other at all. Because at the time of interaction all chromosomes have generated a sister and are tightly connected with her like a Siamese twin. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-08-machinery-recombination-chromosome.html ,,,Instead of griping that he could of done it better that God, why does he not just go ahead and do it better??? ============== Refuting The Myth Of 'Bad Design' vs. Intelligent Design - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIzdieauxZg In fact, it has been pointed out, by many people besides Dr. Craig, that the whole neo-Darwinian argument is, at its core beneath all the rhetoric, a theological argument: On the Vastness of the Universe Excerpt: Darwin’s objection to design inferences were theological. And in addition, Darwin overlooked many theological considerations in order to focus on the one. His one consideration was his assumption about what a god would or wouldn’t do. The considerations he overlooked are too numerous to mention here, but here’s a few:,,, https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/on-the-vastness-of-the-universe/#comment-362918 Here is a peer-reviewed paper which points out the fact that the primary arguments for Darwinian evolution turn out to be theological arguments at their core, not scientific arguments: Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin's Use of Theology in the Origin of Species - May 2011 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.html From Philosopher to Science Writer: The Dissemination of Evolutionary Thought - May 2011 Excerpt: The powerful theory of evolution hangs on this framework of thought that mandates naturalism. The science is weak but the metaphysics are strong. This is the key to understanding evolutionary thought. The weak arguments are scientific and the strong arguments, though filled with empirical observation and scientific jargon, are metaphysical. The stronger the argument, the more theological or philosophical. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/05/from-philosopher-to-science-writer.html ======================== Perhaps he would care to show us how ANY molecular machine came about: Astonishing Molecular Machines – Drew Berry - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/6861283 Dna Molecular Biology Visualizations - Wrapping And DNA Replication - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8NHcQesYl8 Getting a tighter grip on cell division - November 2010 The molecular machinery that shepherds and literally pulls the chromosomes apart consists of paired microtubules radiating from opposite poles of the dividing cell and an enormous, but precise, molecular complex called a kinetochore. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-tighter-cell-division.html Dividing Cells 'Feel' Their Way Out Of Warp "What we found is an exquisitely tuned mechanosensory system that keeps the cells shipshape so they can divide properly," - Douglas N. Robinson, Ph.D. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090910142402.htm Molecular machines - notes: https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfMzlkNjYydmRkZw&hl=en_USbornagain77_{August 13, 2011
August
08
Aug
13
13
2011
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT}

Here's a response by a biologist at a State University. Since he was kind enough to give his full details, I've listed his name: Dr. Stephen W. Schaeffer, of Pennsylvania State University. ------ 1. On a scale of 0 (diehard disbeliever) to 10 (firm believer), how would you rate your level of belief in Intelligent Design? (Minimal Definition of Intelligent Design: The idea that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and not by an undirected process.) Update: When I say “certain features”, I mean, “certain generic features of the universe-as-a-whole (e.g. constants of Nature) and of living things in general (e.g. the specified complexity of DNA”. When I say “an undirected process” I mean a process lacking long-range foresight. Dr. Stephen W. Schaeffer: Science is based on evidence not belief. One can say that you believe the evidence for ID is strong or weak, but as soon as you state that you believe in anything, you are no longer doing science. On a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 means that you are not convinced by the evidence for ID and 10 means that you are convinced by the evidence for ID, I am a 0. ------ 2. What do you regard as the best argument for Intelligent Design? Dr. Stephen W. Schaeffer: None of the evidence convinces me that ID is a better explanation for biological life on this planet than the evolutionary process. ------ 3. What do you regard as the best argument against Intelligent Design? Dr. Stephen W. Schaeffer: Common descent as inferred from DNA sequences and gene order data from chromosomes in the genome. These data show a genealogical hierarchy of organisms on this planet. ------ 4. I’d like you to think about the arguments for Intelligent Design. Obviously they’re not perfect. Exactly where do you think these arguments need the most work, to make them more effective? Dr. Stephen W. Schaeffer: ID proponents suggest that the molecular mechanisms of the cell such as the motors that move chromosomes during meiosis are irreducibly complex and look like they are designed. I once argued on the Uncommon Descent blog, that these cellular motors are not a perfect design because they fail fairly frequently. Fifteen percent of all human conceptions end up as spontaneous abortions and result from imperfect segregation of chromosomes during meiosis (S ANKARANARAYANAN, K . , 1979. The role of non-disjunction in aneuploidy in man: An overview. Mutation Research 61: 1-28.). I argued that this system was not well designed given the failure rate associated with meiosis. ID proponents made the argument that no one said that the designer was perfect. Once one starts trying to decide if the designer is perfect or imperfect, there is no way to critically evaluate ID because an imperfect designer could explain anything. ------ 5. Now I’d like you to think about the arguments against Intelligent Design. Obviously they could be improved. Exactly where do you think these arguments need the most work, to make them more effective? Dr. Stephen W. Schaeffer: Work in evolutionary biology can falsify irreducible complexity by showing how a complex system can be assembled by individual steps. This has been done in the study of flight evolution. ------ 6. (a) If you’re an ID advocate or supporter, what do you think is the least bad of the various alternatives that have been proposed to Intelligent Design, as explanations for the specified complexity found in living things and in the laws of the cosmos? (e.g. The multiverse [restricted or unrestricted?]; Platonism; the laws of the cosmos hold necessarily, and they necessarily favor life; pure chance; time is an illusion, so CSI doesn’t increase over time.) (b) If you’re an ID opponent or skeptic, can you name some explanations for life and the cosmos that you would regard as even more irrational than Intelligent Design? (e.g. Everything popped into existence out of absolutely nothing; the future created the past; every logically possible world exists out there somewhere; I am the only being in the cosmos and the external world is an illusion requiring no explanation; only minds are real, so the physical universe is an illusion requiring no explanation.) Dr. Stephen W. Schaeffer: I restrict my work to questions that can be critically evaluated with experiments or analysis of DNA data where we retroactively test what explanations are and are not consistent with extant data. This is a similar approach used by geologists and astronomers. Sincerely, Stephen W. Schaeffer ------ [vjtorley responds: I'd like to thank Dr. Schaeffer for being kind enough to respond to my questionnaire. He makes a valid point about my use of the term "belief", which is unpopular among scientists. He prefers the locution "be convinced by the evidence for X". That's fair enough, although I'd like to point out that the word "conviction" (the noun corresponding to the verb "convince") sounds a bit unscientific too. I was mystified by Dr. Schaeffer's citing the evidence for common descent as evidence against ID. Quite a few ID proponents - including Dr. Michael Behe - accept both. I was most intrigued by Dr. Schaeffer's point that cellular motors that move chromosomes during meiosis are not a perfect design because they fail fairly frequently. I'd just like to ask him: can he suggest a better design? If he can, well and good. If he can't, then how can he call the current design imperfect? Dr. Schaeffer argues that an imperfect designer could explain anything. Not so fast. What I'd ask is: what kind of mistakes does the imperfect designer make? Do they fit the pattern we'd expect for someone of limited intelligence? (For example: difficult design problems are solved poorly; easy problems are solved well.) I'd also like to point out that there are things that an imperfect designer is capable of producing, which non-foresighted processes are not. Once again, I'd like to thank Dr. Schaeffer for taking the time to respond to my survey.]vjtorley_{August 13, 2011
August
08
Aug
13
13
2011
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT}

Neil Rickert: Thank you for your comment. I think you are confusing foresight (which relates to the execution of steps for the sake of realizing a long-range end) with foreknowledge (which embraces all future events). I believe that only God has the latter. TomS: OK, I see where you are coming from. In the abstract, it is true that an intelligent being could design any kind of entity. However, the point of the fine-tuning argument is that the universe was designed to permit the possibility of life. And if DNA was designed, then it was designed to permit the proliferation of life-forms on Earth. So I'm taking those as the presumed objectives of the Designer. Proof that the constants of Nature or the basic structure of DNA are less than ideal for life might therefore constitute evidence a Design hypothesis. I hope that answers your question.vjtorley_{August 13, 2011
August
08
Aug
13
13
2011
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT}

vjtorley #49: Question #3, which is what I was using as an example, is about possible evidence against intelligent design. Your response is to bring up a different subject.TomS_{August 13, 2011
August
08
Aug
13
13
2011
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT}

1: 10 2: Inference to best explanation, based on [im-]probability (Demski) 3: It's not science in the currently understood meaning of the word, that is, it's not empirical science. (same applies even better to Darwinism). Even if scientists found "designed by God" written on each cell, that would contribute nothing to experimental science; except an incentive to decipher God's design, giving up blind reliance on "undirected evolution". ID is philosophy of science, or science in the classical sense that philosophy is science: orderly knowledge of things by their causes, or something like that. 4: Clarify the term "science"; clarify that Behe's irreducible complexity is a particular case of Dembski's (and in my opinion comes very close to a God of the gaps); clarify that ID does not depend on whether we know/don't know, will discover or not, a step-by-step explanation of the evolution: a full step-by-step explanation does not eliminate the inference to design: we know how a computer works, but that does not mean it's not designed; find a way of rejuvenating Phil Johnson! 5: The same as 4. It cuts both ways. 6: There is an infinite (to the infinite power) number of universes, hence everything that is not absurd must happen. I even like that, philosophically/theologically, except that it would destroy the foundations of science and perhaps even reason itself, or at least its usefulness.Morris_{August 13, 2011
August
08
Aug
13
13
2011
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT}

1. On a scale of 0 (diehard disbeliever) to 10 (firm believer), how would you rate your level of belief in Intelligent Design? I'd say 0. Way back when I was first introduced to the idea I was around an 8, but that dropped as I researched it. 2. What do you regard as the best argument for Intelligent Design? I only hear arguments AGAINST evolution rather than FOR intelligent design. Even then, upon further research the arguments turn out to be based on a misunderstanding or bad logic. I guess IC? But even then it's a faulty argument. 3. What do you regard as the best argument against Intelligent Design? See above. 4. I’d like you to think about the arguments for Intelligent Design. The would need to provide a better explanation than alternatives, not just say "you can't explain it, therefore ID" which is what most boil down to. 5. Now I’d like you to think about the arguments against Intelligent Design. I don't see any problems. Certainly some individuals are better at explaining scientific concepts than others, though. 6(b) If you’re an ID opponent or skeptic, can you name some explanations for life and the cosmos that you would regard as even more irrational than Intelligent Design? I'm sure I can. The more unfounded things I suggest together the more irrational it is. A generic designer where none is needed or evidenced is irrational, but a specific one (still without evidence) is even less rational. A specific one WITH a pet unicorn is worse. A specific one with a pet unicorn and a magic banjo is even more irrational. And so on.sodhner_{August 13, 2011
August
08
Aug
13
13
2011
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT}

Foresight exists. At least in the sense in which people usually use the word. People, for example, and some animals, are capable of simulating the results of alternative actions and feeding back the simulated outcomes as weightings on the selection. It's a neat trick and saves on carnage. RM+NS does without, and lives with the carnage. But both work pretty well.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 13, 2011
August
08
Aug
13
13
2011
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT}

vjtorley: “Even if there’s nothing that couldn’t have been designed by an intelligent being, the point is that there are still entities that an unintelligent being is incapable of producing, because it lacks foresight.” Neil Rickert: “As best I can tell, everything lacks foresight. You have just declared that intelligence does not exist. ” You (and all the “nice” people) will take this wrong … and frankly, I don’t give a damn … but are you an idiot? Are you really incapable of understanding a fairly simple English sentence?Ilion_{August 13, 2011
August
08
Aug
13
13
2011
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

Even if there’s nothing that couldn’t have been designed by an intelligent being, the point is that there are still entities that an unintelligent being is incapable of producing, because it lacks foresight.
As best I can tell, everything lacks foresight. You have just declared that intelligence does not exist. One should distinguish between genuine foresight (which does not exist, as best I can tell), and the use of observed statistical trends.Neil Rickert_{August 13, 2011
August
08
Aug
13
13
2011
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT}

TomS (#44, 45, 46) Thank you for your post. You ask:
What would evidence against an intelligent cause look like? What sort of thing could an intelligent cause not be responsible for?
Even if there's nothing that couldn't have been designed by an intelligent being, the point is that there are still entities that an unintelligent being is incapable of producing, because it lacks foresight. If we can find something in Nature that requires foresight to make, then that is evidence for the existence of an Intelligent Designer.vjtorley_{August 13, 2011
August
08
Aug
13
13
2011
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT}

Here's another response from a skeptic whom I'll call T.H.: I have a number of issues which I will address while answering, but one jumps to mind immediately -- this is not a quiz. A quiz is designed to test your knowledge of a subject. This is a survey. It's asking your opinion. I am sure the poster will take the results and turn it into some sort of marketing message in support of ID. After all posting it on Uncommon Descent already shows their prejudice. [vjtorley responds: This is a rather pedantic quibble. OK, maybe I should have said "questionnaire" rather than "quiz". And no, I am not planning on using this survey for marketing. I simply wanted to get people's opinions.] Well here goes: 1. On a scale of 0 (diehard disbeliever) to 10 (firm believer), how would you rate your level of belief in Intelligent Design? (Minimal Definition of Intelligent Design: The idea that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and not by an undirected process.) T.H.: I dislike that definition, diehard supporters have stated time and time again that the designer is the Christian God, so wording it this way perpetuates the constant marketing efforts to disassociate ID from its religious underpinnings. But I will be happy to answer: 0. Second answer: 'What, no negative numbers allowed?' ------------ 2. What do you regard as the best argument for Intelligent Design? T.H.: There aren't any. All arguments for ID are unsupported philosophy, wishful thinking, and/or conjecture. There is no evidence, no one seems to be working on providing any evidence. Your own little 'quiz' is another example of marketing instead of substance. ------------ 3. What do you regard as the best argument against Intelligent Design? T.H.: Anything that has some actual evidence, like real Science, Biology, Evolution, Astronomy, Cosmology, Geology, Paleontology, Physics, Chemistry, to name a few. The next best argument against ID are the ID publications and public presentations themselves. Self-published (Discovery Institute Press), religious imprint of publishers, like HarperOne, and publications in the popular press offer the argument that you already know you have no substance. The constant appearance of ID proponents giving presentations at religious locations, religious schools, and sponsored by ministries also add to the picture that not only is ID religious, but you are trying to hide it and doing a poor job. Another argument against ID is the unwillingness of ID to follow even the most basic scientific methodology. You declare it a scientific theory and demand space at the science lectern. This unwillingness also shows the paucity of your own position more clearly than anything I say. ------------ 4. I’d like you to think about the arguments for Intelligent Design. Obviously they’re not perfect. Exactly where do you think these arguments need the most work, to make them more effective? T.H.: Stop marketing and go to the Lab. If you want ID to be taken seriously as anything more than conjecture and wishful thinking, YOU need to provide the evidenciary support for it. Don't whine that other folks aren't agreeing with your philosophies, get off your ass and do the actual scientific work, follow scientific methodologies. It is the ONLY way you will belong anywhere other than the Fiction section of the library, right next to the Tarot Cards, Astrology, and Feng Shui books. ------------ 5. Now I’d like you to think about the arguments against Intelligent Design. Obviously they could be improved. Exactly where do you think these arguments need the most work, to make them more effective? T.H. These arguments against ID do not do any work specific toward ID to make them more effective. These argument continue exploring the world around us and we learn more and more on a daily basis. Learning more about the world shows us how bereft ID is from anything resembling support. It must be galling to be a sideshow instead of a mainstream effort of scientific research. ------------ 6. (a) If you’re an ID advocate or supporter, what do you think is the least bad of the various alternatives that have been proposed to Intelligent Design, as explanations for the specified complexity found in living things and in the laws of the cosmos? (e.g. The multiverse [restricted or unrestricted?]; Platonism; the laws of the cosmos hold necessarily, and they necessarily favor life; pure chance; time is an illusion, so CSI doesn’t increase over time.) T.H.: None, it's all garbage. ( I know, I shouldn't have answered this one, but it's irresistible!) (b) If you’re an ID opponent or skeptic, can you name some explanations for life and the cosmos that you would regard as even more irrational than Intelligent Design? (e.g. Everything popped into existence out of absolutely nothing; the future created the past; every logically possible world exists out there somewhere; I am the only being in the cosmos and the external world is an illusion requiring no explanation; only minds are real, so the physical universe is an illusion requiring no explanation.) T.H.: No, ID is irrational, along with other pseudo-scientific explanations. It's not possible to compare these different explanation on any scale of irrationality. See what I mean, a survey, not a quiz. I do plan on posting my responses, it will be interesting to see if it even makes it on the site. ==================================== [vjtorley responds: Well, I have posted your response, T.H., although I have to say that its sneering, arrogant, know-it-all tone only confirms my belief that you're blustering. T.H., you state on your Website that Information Technology and computer programming are your areas of expertise, and that you teach at a college. Fine. I'd like you to have a look at the Website of Dr. Don Johnson, who has Ph.D.s in both informational and natural sciences, who taught 20 years in universities in Wisconsin, Minnesota, California, and Europe, and who once believed anyone not accepting the "proven" evolutionary scenario was of the same mentality as someone believing in a flat Earth. Now he's an ID supporter. Please tell me why I should believe you instead of Dr. Johnson. It seems that he has a lot more academic experience than you do. By the way, have you read his book, "Programming of Life"? You talked about "real Science, Biology, Evolution, Astronomy, Cosmology, Geology, Paleontology, Physics, Chemistry." Funny. There are real scientists in all those fields who support Intelligent Design. How do you explain that? You say ID proponents should get out in the lab more often. Have you ever heard of a guy named Douglas Axe, and the work he's doing with proteins? And there are dozens more people doing good scientific work like Dr. Axe. Have a look here, to see just a few names: http://biologicinstitute.org/people/ . You're saying all these people are deluded, and you're not? By the way, your own post contains one spelling mistake and one major grammatical error. I won't even bother mentioning the other minor ones. "Evidenciary" is a mis-spelling. The correct spelling is "evidentiary". And "dissociate" is preferable to "disassociate". Finally, we say "bereft of", not "bereft from". I dislike pedantry myself, but I won't tolerate being lectured by you in that tone, thank you very much. Goodbye.]vjtorley_{August 13, 2011
August
08
Aug
13
13
2011
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT}

Here's a response from a skeptic named J.O. who kindly emailed me his responses: Here are my answers. I have a question for you at the end regarding your view, I hope you'll answer. 1) 1: not a believer, but not a "diehard". My opinion is that ID is not creationism in a cheap suit, but as of now ID is the latest cheap suit that creationists are using to try to get religion into US public schools. See Dover for an example. Other theists find it appealing because it gives some credibility to their religious beliefs. 2) best argument for intelligent design is . . . well, what are the arguments for intelligent design? The existence of irreducible complexity in organisms? I think it is clear that irreducible complexity fails because all it really means is that nobody has figured out how something could have evolved. As yet there is no way to prove that something could not have evolved. Complex specified information in organisms above some numerical threshold? Well, as far as I can tell, there is no agreed upon definition of information, let alone a way to measure the amount of it "in" anything. The fact that there is no plausible and complete naturalistic theory as to the origin of life? I think that is not an argument for intelligent design, given that there is no plausible and complete intelligent design theory of the origin of life either. The philosophical arguments? I want to see some data, if ID is supposed to be science. 3) Best argument against ID (as a scientific theory?): It doesn't explain anything better than the generally accepted theories. It's not a scientific theory at this point, it's an intuition. 4) To improve ID arguments? Make some specific positive hypotheses: what changes exactly is it that naturalistic processes couldn't accomplish, and when did they occur? What was the last population in a lineage that did not have a flagellum (or whatever), and what was the first population that did, and when is the dividing line between them? 5) To improve anti-ID arguments? There is no need to improve them. 6) What is less rational than ID? Most of your choices, except something out of nothing, seem less rational than ID to me: the future created the past; every logically possible world exists out there somewhere; I am the only being in the cosmos and the external world is an illusion requiring no explanation; only minds are real, so the physical universe is an illusion requiring no explanation. I don't think the existence of God is impossible, but I don't think aliens or time travelers are plausible candidates for a designer. My question for you has to do with this statement you made in a comment on the quiz post: "You make a very good point about micro vs. macro-evolution. I’d like to see where the boundary is too – although I’d place it tentatively at around the family or superfamily level, and just possibly the order level." Is it your understanding that micro-evolution happens, but macro-evolution can't, and that each family, super-family, or order (whichever it may be in any particular case) must therefore have been either separately created from nothing or by a design intervention of some sort? If so, what do you think it is that makes it impossible for a population of organisms to split into two populations and then evolve differences large enough to place them in different families/super-families/orders? Thanks. --------------------------- Vjtorley responds: According to Professor Michael Behe's "The Edge of Evolution" (pp. 198-199), cell types are distinguished by their own genetic regulatory networks, and each such network is irreducibly complex, having a multitude of components (three is the maximum that could arise by undirected processes, according to Behe). Behe is tentatively inclined to think that each family of organisms has its own unique cell types, and he's quite sure each class has. So it seems that each family of organisms has some feature of some of its cells that requires an Intelligent Design-style explanation. I think the Designer intervened in the process of evolution to produce these new cell types.vjtorley_{August 13, 2011
August
08
Aug
13
13
2011
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT}

@vjtorley #39. You respond by asking me: Does describing something as "an intelligent cause" constitute saying something positive about it? To keep the discussion on topic: does that say enough to allow answers to the quiz? Take as an example question #3: I don't know how to answer this. What would evidence against an intelligent cause look like? What sort of thing could an intelligent cause not be responsible for? Evolution? There are plenty of people who believe that an intelligent cause created evolution. Random events? Many creative artists use chance in their work. Impossible objects? The Penrose triangle was designed by intelligent agents (Oscar Reutersvard and Roger Penrose).TomS_{August 13, 2011
August
08
Aug
13
13
2011
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT}

johnfromberkeley:
Finally, I appreciate your graciousness to all opinions of believers and unbelievers, and the believers and unbelievers amongst them!
Hear, hear!Elizabeth Liddle_{August 13, 2011
August
08
Aug
13
13
2011
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT}

1 (my belief level in ID): 2 (note: this is my level of belief in intelligent as a fact; if you'd asked by level of belief in ID as valid science, it'd be much closer to 0) 2 (best arg for ID): The brute intuition that it takes intelligence to create. 3 (best arg against ID): Occam's razor + the fact that attempts to back that intuition with anything more solid haven't panned out (I am NOT impressed with the attempts at ID-science), which tends to suggest it's just an artifact of human mental biases. (Note: this is the best argument against ID, not the best argument for evolution; they're not simple opposites, so that'd be a different question with a very different answer.) 4 (what args for ID need): They have a meta-problem: they're constructed as arguments, by ID believers; rather than as the results of investigation that happen to point to a particular conclusion. I'll give you an example: in the MathGrrl/CSI thread (the parts I read anyway), the biggest fact that struck me was that nobody actually used CSI for anything other than a basis for polemics, and as a result nobody actually knew how to compute it. (And you seemed to be about the only one actually trying to figure it out.) Another symptom: poor quality control: there are so many bad arguments put forward for ID that the good ones (if they exist) get lost in the noise. 5 (what args against ID need): In theory: better familiarity with ID arguments (i.e. no strawmen or oversimplifications), less mistaking evidence for evolution as evidence against ID, less "sola scientia" ("if it ain't science, it's bunk!"). In practice: less concentration on the "scientific" aspects, more on the real reasons people believe ID: intuition and religion. 6 (b) (explanations less rational than ID): I don't regard belief in ID as irrational, so much as unsupported and unnecessary. Worse options: reality created retroactively by quantum observations; evolution driven by Teelaism; Cartesian demon/brain-in-vat hypotheses; Boltzmann brains; next wednesdayism (the belief that the universe will be created next wednesday, along with our memories of what's happening "now"); it's all a massive coincidence; ...Gordon Davisson_{August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
10:32 PM
10
10
32
PM
PDT}

1. Not meaning to be pedantic, but I don't believe in intelligent design. I do my best to go wherever the evidence leads, and so there's not much belief about it. That said, my conviction that biological intelligent design is true is about 9.9, and I can't really put a number on my confidence in the validity of cosmological intelligent design since that's not my field. 2. I think that the best argument for intelligent design is the amazing intricacy and specificity that defines the processes of life (e.g., protein-based machines, the genetic code, etc.), and, in a lesser sense, the uncanny parallels between molecular machines and human technology. 3. The best argument against biological intelligent design is the absence of a robust framework that can generate real predictions at a very specific, biological level. This is partially due to the general lack of any attempt to define the mechanisms which the intelligent designer(s) used, although Mike Gene has done some nice work in this area. 4. Intelligent design needs some work in the area of testing the idea with real, laboratory research. Doug Axe has done some progress in this direction. Moreover, intelligent design as a biological theory must be developed to the point where it can generate robust predictions, and predictions that are not made after-the-fact. For example, in response to the Darwinian claim that homology at the protein level demonstrates evidence of Darwinian evolution, we argue that an intelligent designer often re-uses components. However, we need to be able to develop the theory to the point where we can predict which components would be re-used, and which components would not be, so that we could predict which protein systems would have homologues, etc. Well that's all I'll say for now.LivingstoneMorford_{August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PDT}

"An ID supporter can accept that the laws and initial conditions of the cosmos suffice to explain life – but he/she would also say that these laws and conditions show signs of having been designed." I wouldn't say they show scientific evidence of being designed. But I would say they show signs of being amazing. For me, the amazing part validates my world view of faith. But it doesn't satisfy my scientific mind for a second, nor need it. Furthermore, I find it humorous that many people find this an existential question. David got it right. Creation is what it is, and God is I am. Another answer to Question 5 I would like to rip off from a commenter at Ed Brayton's blog is that ID is not biologically useful: If there was real science in ID that answered real questions, everyone would be clambering all over it, from glory seekers to profiteers. The fact that 20 years of agressive promotion of ID has not led to any interest or application is telling. And then, you see surveys like these which feel like marketing surveys for a public relations campaign. You don't see surveys like this for scientific theories that have been proven and have real day-to-day applications. Finally, I appreciate your graciousness to all opinions of believers and unbelievers, and the believers and unbelievers amongst them!johnfromberkeley_{August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT}

Hi everyone, Just a few short comments on the quiz. 1. As I said at the beginning of the post, people who are unable to post here should contact me via email. I'd be particularly interested in hearing from skeptics, so if anyone wants to alert them, please do so. 2. Johnfromberkeley: Please refer to my minimal Definition of Intelligent Design: The idea that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and not by an undirected process. If you accept the fine-tuning argument, for instance, that makes you an ID supporter on this definition. You claim to be a Christian who supports evolution. Fine. So is Professor Michael Behe - he accepts common descent (as I do) and doesn't think that the Designer needs to have intervened in the history of the cosmos. An ID supporter can accept that the laws and initial conditions of the cosmos suffice to explain life - but he/she would also say that these laws and conditions show signs of having been designed. 3. TomS You write: "Without knowledge of something positive about the supposed explanation, saying anything about it would be idle." Does describing something as "an intelligent cause" constitute saying something positive about it? I would say yes. If you disagree, please indicate why. 4. Lartanner You write: "Certain features of the universe and the world as we see them now are best explained by an intelligent cause — usually us." To be perfectly clear: in my minimal definition of Intelligent Design, "certain features" means "certain general features of the universe-as-a-whole (e.g. the constants of Nature) and of living things in general (e.g. the specified complexity of DNA)". I was not referring to this or that artifact - e.g. genetically modified organisms. 5. Elizabeth Liddle I'm glad you liked the quiz. You write: "I think that evolution is an intelligent system, and even 'directed' in the sense that it moves populations towards adaptation to their current environment." My response: "directed" is not the same as "intelligent". Foresight is part of the definition of what I and most people would call "intelligent". You also estimate the probability of there being an external cause of the existence of the universe at precisely zero. That means, I presume, that you believe the non-existence of God is logically demonstrable. I'd be interested to hear why. I'd pretty much agree with your views on the evidence for common descent. 6. FadedGlory You ask: "Why is the only choice presented intelligent cause vs. undirected process?" To be clear: When I said "undirected", I meant: "not directed at any long-term goal". I should have said "non-foresighted", to be more precise. 7. material.infantacy I loved your answer to question 1: 10 minus 10^-150. That takes the cake! 8. rhampton7 You make a very good point about micro vs. macro-evolution. I'd like to see where the boundary is too - although I'd place it tentatively at around the family or superfamily level, and just possibly the order level. 9. africangenesis I appreciate your honesty. I think cases of bad design pose a real problem too, and I agree that "unfathomable purposes" is not an adequate response, particularly at a scientific level. 10. Chris Doyle: good one about Descartes' Demon! That's a tough one to refute. 11. Many thanks to Collin, kairosfocus, nullasalus, Neil Rickert, tragic mishap, bornagain77, Mung, Ilion, George R., johnnyb, markf, Scootle, niwrad, lamarck, ForJah, CannuckianYankee, Chris Doyle, junkdnaforlife and all the other contributors who have responded to the quiz so far.vjtorley_{August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT}

What is this, science by focus group?Stacy Kennedy_{August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT}

1. 8.5 2. I was persuaded by the rebel forces via Meyers argument in his book. His inference seems to be the only plausible scenario for OOL. That is just the way it is. From there, that lead me to this den of rebels, and I was further impressed by Kairosfocus arguments. Math is your friend. 3. The best crack at OOL is Shapiro. Ironically, his proposed evolutionary framework seems more ID friendly. 4. pinpoint the edge of rm+ns. 5. Call them creationists. 6. multi-verse 7.Everything popped into existence out of absolutely nothingjunkdnaforlife_{August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT}

After all, that very same replication process must have come about by chance. A convoluted process cannot be design no matter how convoluted it is or how good it is at fixing characteristics in an arbitrary (and often shifting) ecological niche. (By "design" I mean the act of designing, not the product of design).Collin_{August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply