Are the Inner Workings of Mankind Really All Monkey Business?

[...] pro-intelligent design blog Uncommon Descent to his fan club. And the goods have arrived – with this post about an ID theorist in India. Our blogger has found a report in the International Reporter, which [...] ID Gets Astrologer Ally « Bartholomew’s Notes on Religion

Ok, thanks Crandaddy for responding to my questions and helping me to understand your position. I'll be taking a look at the links that Bombadil provided in good time. Karl Inoculated Mind

Karl, “I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but it seems that what you are saying that not until the complete picture of the evolution of the mental cognition via evolution is worked out, that your position will be that it was designed.” I have my own beliefs and preferences, but I realize that such things are not scientific in nature. Gary, “But the mind is a conceptual entity, not physical.” Are you saying that the mind cannot be reduced to the physical? Let's presume (for the sake of argument, if nothing else) that mental abilities proceed from neurochemical states in the brain. Those states had to come about, somehow. “But let me ask you this: what kind of account would finally satisfy you that the development of the human mind is sufficiently explained by natural evolution that there’s no reason to suppose an intelligent designer was involved?” Look at the quote you used in comment #42. That, or for it to be shown that there is nothing special about human mental abilities and that something very much akin to them would inevitably (or at least probably) have arisen by unintelligent means. Perhaps if it could be shown that a particular human mental quality were a byproduct of a part of the brain for which we have a reasonably probable step-by-step model of its evolution, I think I would accept that; of course this kind of goes along with what I meant by the quote you cited. “Or to put it another way, how could we ever know that no deliberate intelligent agency was involved? Can you think of any criteria by which such agency could be definitely ruled out?” The ontological status of design can never be established. If I go outside, pick up an ordinary rock from the ground, and declare, “This rock was deliberately designed by an intelligent agent.”, there’s nothing you can do to prove me wrong. What we look for is the best explanation to fit the evidence. Intelligent agents are innovators. They incorporate means to achieve ends which otherwise would be highly improbable. What I look for in human mental abilities as well as other biological phenomena is, first, whether or not there is something special about the phenomenon in question which warrants a special explanation of how it originated–Does it have a beneficial function? Does it posess a unique quality which sets it apart from other phenomena in nature? If the answer is yes to either of these two questions, then I’m interested in knowing how likely it is that the phenomenon could have arisen by way of unintelligent means–Could it reasonably have arisen by chance? Is there some understood natural law that causes it? If the answer is yes to either of the first two questions and no to both of the second two, then I don’t see how we can avoid comming to the conclusion that, at least for the time being and from our own finite epistemic perspective, the phenomenon in question is best explained as being the product of intelligent design. It’s been fun guys. However, I have other matters to which I must tend, and I think this may be the last comment from me on this thread. I’ll leave the comment box open, so you all can continue discussing. Be courteous and respectful; that’s all I ask. crandaddy

Note that Brayton completely ignored the arguments put forth in the links I provided in my last post, says Bombadill Not me, though... Back in October and November I did a series of posts on Luskin's views on paleoanthropology. I am pulling them from the archive at my old site and reposting them here... Back in July of 2005 PCID... Afarensis

The case was cited in the article that originally began this thread has been settled. http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7795&news_iv_ctrl=1241&abbr=pr >The district’s board of trustees has also agreed to language stating, “No school over which the School District has authority, including the High School, shall offer, presently or in the future, the course entitled ‘Philosophy of Design’ or ‘Philosophy of Intelligent Design’ or any other course that promotes or endorses creationism, creation science, or intelligent design.” Gary Glass

>Note that Brayton completely ignored the arguments put forth in the links I provided in my last post. Instead, he proceeds to detail the standard Darwinian interpretation of the hominid evidence. But isn't the Darwinian interpretation in fact a response to Brayton? You've got Brayton's interpretation of the evidence, and the standard Darwinian interpretation, so you choose the interpretation that works best. Suppose it was a crime scene investigation. Two detectives look at the evidence in the room, a scuff on the floor, a broken window, a spent shell casing. One of them concludes it's a suicide. One of them a homicide. Somebody lifts a print from the casing and it matches the victim. Looks like suicide! Gary Glass

Note that Brayton completely ignored the arguments put forth in the links I provided in my last post. Instead, he proceeds to detail the standard Darwinian interpretation of the hominid evidence. Note also how the glaring inconsistencies in the hominid record are not exposed or discussed in the treatment he provides. For anyone interested in learning about these gaps in Brayton's summary, please read the treatments I linked above. Here they are again: http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1146 http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/839 http://www.designinference.com/documents/2004.06.Human_Origins.pdf Bombadill

Why was I banned in the first place? The reason was given in the SETI comment. I suggest you drop the subject of banning now while you're still ahead. -ds Gary Glass

DS, are you deleting my comments? If you don't want me to participate, please just tell me, OK? I don't want to waste your time any more than my own. You were banned but miscommunication between moderators let you keep slipping back in with a new registration. Now that I've remedied the moderation problem and observed a number of your comments I think the first banning was hasty. Stick around. Gary Glass

More Nonsense from Bombadill Dembski himself used to post some pretty bad stuff to Uncommon Descent, but the group of acolytes he put in charge of it a couple weeks ago has rapidly proven to be way beneath him in the credibility department (and... But not so far beneath that Ed Brayton won't write a thousand words in response to a one hundred word comment from Bombadill. The man doth protest too much, methinks. :-) -ds Dispatches from the Culture Wars

CD: I think that once the human brain’s neurochemistry is understood, a reasonably probable step-by-step model of its unintelligent evolution is warranted. I think such an account could only be speculative. It's hard to see how it could be experimentally verified. What you're asking for, if I understand you correctly, is a recapitulation of the development of the human mind. But the mind is a conceptual entity, not physical. -- Not to say that this is not a study worth undertaking, and in fact a number of scientists and philosophers do very interesting work in this area. -- But let me ask you this: what kind of account would finally satisfy you that the development of the human mind is sufficiently explained by natural evolution that there's no reason to suppose an intelligent designer was involved? Or to put it another way, how could we ever know that no deliberate intelligent agency was involved? Can you think of any criteria by which such agency could be definitely ruled out? Gary Glass

>SETI is about looking for intelligence. And I’m not looking for any more comments from you. Hasta la vista, baby. -ds DaveScott, I'm not sure what this means. Have I been banned? Am I unwelcome? Or are you just saying you don't wish to continue the conversation with me? Gary Glass

I wasn't arguing one way or the other, I'm just trying to understand how you (and others) have arrived at your position. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it seems that what you are saying that not until the complete picture of the evolution of the mental cognition via evolution is worked out, that your position will be that it was designed. Thanks, Karl Inoculated Mind

Inoculated Mind, I'm really not in a position to positvely assert that human mental abilities, such as sapience, could not have or did not evolve without intelligence playing some role in their developement. I'm still trying to figure all this out, myself. Really, my position is that I don't see how one is justified in positively asserting that human cognitive faculties did, in fact, evolve without intelligent intervention, having only the information about the human mind and brain that we have now. It seems to me that what needs to be done is scientists need to show how human mental abilities can be reduced to the neurochemical aspects of the brain and then show how they could have evolved sans intelligent intervention. I think that once the human brain's neurochemistry is understood, a reasonably probable step-by-step model of its unintelligent evolution is warranted. "It has been mentioned above that ID is compatible with ape->human with or without intelligent intervention, I’m just wondering what leads you to suggest one scenario over the other." ID is a broad concept. It is compatible with a scenario in which the ape to man transition could have occured without intelligent intervention. My intention with starting this thread was to encourage thought on the issue, not really to argue one way or the other. You can see my stance on this matter in the above paragraph. "Do you know of any discussion in the ID community about apes->humans, or is it considered of little importance?" There is discussion on the matter. I recommend you look at the articles by Luskin and Dembski that Bombadill has provided. crandaddy

Hi Gary, You can get the details here: http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1146 http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/839 http://www.designinference.com/documents/2004.06.Human_Origins.pdf Bombadill

>Paleoanthropological studies reveal that hominids appear suddenly, without clear direct fossil ancestors, and distinct from previous hominids. Bombadil, I posted a little earlier today, but my post disappeared. Anyway, what I asked was: where are these studies? Also: which hominids are distinct from which other hominids? Gary Glass

Paleoanthropological studies reveal that hominids appear suddenly, without clear direct fossil ancestors, and distinct from previous hominids. There simply is no escaping the empirical fact that the fossil record demonstrates the abrupt appearance of novel fossil forms without similar precursors. You have homology, genetically, because of the similarity of body plans, etc... It's to be expected. But, I believe it's an unwarranted assumption to conlcude that homo sapiens share a direct ancestry with hominids, in light of the evidence. The evidence would support a common designer. The abrupt appearance of Homo as a novel and distinct form, significantly different from earlier fossil forms and without links to previous fossil forms, implicates intelligent design. Bombadill

Crandaddy, first, thanks for responding to me thus far. What I am getting at are some of the particulars of what about the ape->human transition requires intelligent input. Let's say that semi-sapient primates were designed ex-nihilo, let's even go so far as to assume that sapience cannot evolve on its own at all. But it seems that an intelligent designer could set something up that will inevitably lead to fully sapient animals. What evidence suggests that in this situation, humans could not have or did not have evolved from more primitive ape ancestors? It has been mentioned above that ID is compatible with ape->human with or without intelligent intervention, I'm just wondering what leads you to suggest one scenario over the other. And as a side note, the whole genomes of humans and chimpanzees are freely available, and there's a slough of recent research on differences in crucial neurological genes between the two. The time since divergence has recently been narrowed to between 5 and 7 m.y.a. in a preliminary study. Do you know of any discussion in the ID community about apes->humans, or is it considered of little importance? Inoculated Mind

Follow the links in comments 32 and 34 to see just how bigoted the other side can be. Is there any bottom to how low they can go? I wonder. crandaddy

Inoculated Mind, "So crandaddy, how do you know that other apes (and other whole families of animals) do not possess, to some degree, those mental characteristics that you describe?" I never said they didn't. Other species certainly posess lesser levels of intelligence. I'm not so sure about other mental processes. Neo-Darwinian evolutionary pathways to the mental abilities of other creatures appear to be lacking, as well. This doesn't mean I know for a fact that these things couldn't have evolved; it just means we're not justified in saying they evolved unless we have sufficient empirical evidence. As far as intelligence is concerned, I don't know of any well-established process whereby it could have originated without intelligence playing some role in its developement. crandaddy

[...] On this post yesterday, one of Dembski’s friends who goes by the psuedonym Crandaddy quoted a Dr. Raj Baldev to cast a wide net of doubt on common descent and evolution. [...] Ocellated » Cosmo Theorists Don’t Support Evolution

"I’m interested in whether or not unique human cognitive abilities, such as high intelligence, ability to grasp abstract concepts, and hold beliefs not conducive to survival and reproduction could have evolved without intelligent intervention.–Crandaddy" So crandaddy, how do you know that other apes (and other whole families of animals) do not possess, to some degree, those mental characteristics that you describe? Inoculated Mind

ID and Astrology Again One of Dembski's acolytes posted an item at Uncommon Descent about an Indian "cosmo theorist" supporting ID. I'm not sure why he posted it, since it said nothing of substance, it just had a quote from the guy saying that... Dispatches from the Culture Wars

>SETI is indeed looking for signals that show they’re designed…that they’re truly from SOMEONE or SOMETHING intelligent. You don't need an objective test for designedness to recognize artificiality. We assume that something that doesn't occur in nature independent of human agency is designed. Some typical hallmarks of non-natural phenomena are linearity, regularity, etc. None of these hallmarks are conclusive, but they are suggestive. There are no conclusive hallmarks. Pulsars are regular. Sunlight is linear. etc. >SETI is searching for something we’ve never seen or heard. If someone digs something up and it’s something no human has ever seen (unlike arrowheads), we can infer it was designed or not. It needn’t be something we have examples of. The first person to ever find an arrowhead couldn’t have used that argument. Then how would you recognize something as artificial? Are you perceiving some quality of "artificiality" in it? >Stonehenge is something of the likes we’ve never seen, but it’s obvious that it’s designed, tho we know NOTHING of who could have built it, what they were like, how they built it…really nothing at all about any of it besides the fact that it is clearly the result of an intelligent cause. It doesn't matter that we don't know who did it, or what they were like, or how they built it. We do assume they were human beings, because in our experience only human beings shape enormous stones into regular geometric forms, arrange them in geometric patterns, and stack them up. In other words, Stonehenge looks designed because it shares obvious characteristics with other stuff we know is designed, because we designed them: the pyramids, Greek temples, standing stones, sundials, etc. Could Stonehenge in fact have been designed and constructed by Star Children from Titan? Sure. But we've no reason to think it was. Suppose I took a glass of water and carefully poured it out on ground in a very irregular way. Then I brought you over and said, "Look at that puddle of water. There must be a leak somewhere." You would start looking for a leak. Now, I deliberately and intelligently designed the puddle to deceive you, to look like an accidental thing. How could I have done that? If there is something that you can just see about design, how could I design something that looks undesigned? >If life is totally meaningless, which means the universe is as well- how can ANYTHING have meaning? Depends what you think "meaning" is. In any case, this issue has no scientific bearing on whether or not evolution is real or ID is real. Meaningfulness is not a scientific criterion. >You cannot have meaning within an overall space that is devoid of any meaning. It makes no sense. You're mixing metaphors here in a very loose way. What does it mean for meaning to be "within" something? What is an "overall space"? >RM+NS IS being used to claim nearly everything about us. Why do we feel love? Well, love is a brain chemical that causes an illusion to fool people into thinking they’re feeling “love”, this is based on RM+NS as a adaptation that leads to more and better reproduction. These terms are certainly used in all sorts of ways, some of them illegitimate, but so what? Do these broader, looser meanings somehow invalidate the narrower usage? For instance, if we're talking about what constitutes a "move" in chess, could I argue that because "move" is also used to refer to what the ground is doing during an earthquake that this invalidates your idea about what a "move" is in the game? Could I argue that shaking the board also constitutes a legal "move"? Gary Glass

SETI is indeed looking for signals that show they're designed...that they're truly from SOMEONE or SOMETHING intelligent. SETI is searching for something we've never seen or heard. If someone digs something up and it's something no human has ever seen (unlike arrowheads), we can infer it was designed or not. It needn't be something we have examples of. The first person to ever find an arrowhead couldn't have used that argument. Stonehenge is something of the likes we've never seen, but it's obvious that it's designed, tho we know NOTHING of who could have built it, what they were like, how they built it...really nothing at all about any of it besides the fact that it is clearly the result of an intelligent cause. If life is totally meaningless, which means the universe is as well- how can ANYTHING have meaning? You cannot have meaning within an overall space that is devoid of any meaning. It makes no sense. RM+NS IS being used to claim nearly everything about us. Why do we feel love? Well, love is a brain chemical that causes an illusion to fool people into thinking they're feeling "love", this is based on RM+NS as a adaptation that leads to more and better reproduction. Why do men rape? Well, Thornhill and his partner claim that RM+NS lead to this behavior sometime in the past. A growing number of men and women out there are claiming that evolution, in the mere sense of biological evolution explains EVERYTHING -(EO Wilson comes to mind, Dawkins, Thornhill, Provine, and others- all claim life is meaningless and pointless and that bioevo is what lets us know this. Dawkins comment was for adults to just realize it and get over it.) Why altruism? Well, RM+NS acted to cause behavior that lead to this to help the species. The humans are the only ones that show true univeral altruism. They did a recent experiment where chimps were in one room and an actor in a chimp suit was in another...there were two levers. One pulled let the chimp only have food. The other let BOTH have food. There was no gain to anyone here but the one being allowed food by the one controlling the lever. They found that the chimps were, most of the time, selfish and showed no altruism in this regard at all. They switched it up and changed positions...even when one chimp begged for food, the other was selfish and continued to pull the lever not allowing the other to have any food (when we had 2 real chimps.) Just one example of research that contradicts the claims that chimps are altruistic and even remotely close to the way humans are. Darwinists, now days, love to claim every human emotion, behavior, action as the result of biological evolution. We're even into new claims that religion is a selected adaptation- tho religion, usually, teaches that we should wait for marriage and only marry once before we have children, which sort of kills the idea of spreading your seed as far and wide as you can, so you think this notion would have been selected out and never 'selected' in to begin with- tho, I should note that natural selection doesn't really "select" for anything- selection takes intelligence, purpose, and planning. jboze3131

>How long do you suppose we look for purely materialistic causes before we’re allowed to conclude, scientifically, that something was designed? With this logic- the phrase would FOREVER be “we need more time”, “a bit more time, and we will fill in the massive gaps”, etc. Design would never be allowed in because the committment to dogma. What are you seeking a cause for? Speciation? If so, then evolution is the "purely materialistic" explanation. So what more are we looking for? >And, sorry to say- evolution has become a word used to describe EVERYTHING, from speciation, to what “love is”, to why we rescue kittens from burning buildings, from every human emotion, behavior, action, etc. What’s the most common response? ‘It was selected for, because it helped humans survive and better reproduce, the end.’ THAT isn’t science either- it’s an easy, lazy, catch-all for everything. The word "Evolution" has become a part of the vernacular. It's used in many different ways, including metaphorically. But what we're talking about here (I think) is, specifically, biological evolution: natural selection of random mutations as an account of speciation. >THAT is the sort of thinking that leads to laziness and hinders scientific discovery. The biggest problem is- if we live in a truly meaningless and pointless world as a great many darwinists claim- how can we ever trust ANYTHING any of us say, let alone trust science itself? Evolution is not looking for meaning. The search for meaning is noble endeavor in its own right, but it's not what biology is about. > The same goes for ANY branch of knowledge, any avenue that might lead us to knowledge, truth, etc. If we truly live in a meaningless world, as many propose- science itself and everything other topic in history is also meaningless. You cannot have meaning within a system that is, itself, totally meaningless. Addressing the philosophical issue aside from biological evolution: I think your conclusion is going to be hard to support. >If there’s no way to establish what is designed and what isn’t, then we need to scrap SETI. We need to fire all the archaeologists and many others in similar fields. We need to do away with forensics as a science, and much much more. SETI is not about discovering design. It's about discovering artificial signals. Archaeologists are looking for design either. They're looking for artificial artifacts. We know that an arrowhead is artifical not because we recognize some property of "designedness" in it, but because we have seen arrowheads before. SETI is about looking for intelligence. And I'm not looking for any more comments from you. Hasta la vista, baby. -ds Gary Glass

>It should be noted that CSI, the NFL theorems, and others deal with design in an objective manner and a way to decipher between objects that are and are not designed. Has this actually been done? Have these theorems actually been applied to anything to determine whether or not it is "designed"? Gary Glass

It should be noted that CSI, the NFL theorems, and others deal with design in an objective manner and a way to decipher between objects that are and are not designed. jboze3131

How long do you suppose we look for purely materialistic causes before we're allowed to conclude, scientifically, that something was designed? With this logic- the phrase would FOREVER be "we need more time", "a bit more time, and we will fill in the massive gaps", etc. Design would never be allowed in because the committment to dogma. And, sorry to say- evolution has become a word used to describe EVERYTHING, from speciation, to what "love is", to why we rescue kittens from burning buildings, from every human emotion, behavior, action, etc. What's the most common response? 'It was selected for, because it helped humans survive and better reproduce, the end.' THAT isn't science either- it's an easy, lazy, catch-all for everything. THAT is the sort of thinking that leads to laziness and hinders scientific discovery. The biggest problem is- if we live in a truly meaningless and pointless world as a great many darwinists claim- how can we ever trust ANYTHING any of us say, let alone trust science itself? The same goes for ANY branch of knowledge, any avenue that might lead us to knowledge, truth, etc. If we truly live in a meaningless world, as many propose- science itself and everything other topic in history is also meaningless. You cannot have meaning within a system that is, itself, totally meaningless. If there's no way to establish what is designed and what isn't, then we need to scrap SETI. We need to fire all the archaeologists and many others in similar fields. We need to do away with forensics as a science, and much much more. jboze3131

I think Gary Glass makes a very good point in that any criterion used to distinguish design from non-design must be analytical and objective. A personal view on the appearance of design is not good criteria. Crandaddy, I'm curious, what characteristics of the human brain versus a chimpanzee brain (including their development, genes involved, etc) suggest that the human brain was designed apart from other apes? Or are the characteristics you focus on the more distant consequences of the way the brains are constructed, such as the technologies invented by many of them over time? I mentioned honeybees earlier, but perhaps the way that subterranean termites construct their homes are a better example of how complexity of design can come from simple beginnings. They use very simple rules, and the end result is arches, ventilation shafts, and insect skyscrapers. I'm interested in whether or not unique human cognitive abilities, such as high intelligence, ability to grasp abstract concepts, and hold beliefs not conducive to survival and reproduction could have evolved without intelligent intervention.--Crandaddy Inoculated Mind

CD: Elephants have larger brains than humans, and they lack our mental abilities. The difference between the two species’ mental processes goes deeper than just brain size. What is special about the human brain and how did it evolve? Absolute brain size is not correlated with cognitive capacity; relative brain size is. Primate brains tend to be larger relative to body size. They also tend to have more cerebral cortex surface area. What is special about the human brain is its vast capacitiy for symbolic reason. How did it evolve? The only verifiable explanation we have is natural selection. GG: In other words, evolution explains how different characteristics are persisted through a population, but it does not explain why one particular characteristic occurs rather than another. CD: That’s true; it doesn’t explain why one particular characteristic occurs rather than another. But if the characteristic is beneficial to the organism, it has a specific function and, thus, an explanation is warranted. An explanation of *what* is warranted? Evolution explains that competition for survival selects for variations that work. Intelligence works. What else are you wanting to have explained? CD: If it looks designed, who’s to say that it wasn’t if unintelligent natural processes fail to offer a reasonably probable explanation for it? An explanation can be true whether it is probable or not. It only needs to be verifiable. Compare high energy physics. What could sound more outlandish? And yet we believe that quantum theory is true because the evidence supports it. CD: The human mind is still a big mystery to science. Modern science does not yet fully understand how it works, much less the fine details of how it developed. It’s evolution is certainly not as well-established as gravity! It looks (to me, at least) like it was designed by an intelligence. There's no way to establish scientifically what is "designed" and what isn't. "Looks designed to me!" is not scientifically verifiable. It is for this reason that biologists do not concern themselves with that question. Gary Glass

woctor, I never said "it must have been designed". I never called for science to stop looking for answers, either. Ockham's Razor doesn't exclude intelligent causes, you know. crandaddy

blipey, “Skyscrapers and supercomputers” is a figure of speach meant to designate uniquely human abilities. It seemed clear to me at the time; maybe its not. The sarcasm is intentional. It’s not directed at everyone who buys the wholesale evolutionary narrative, just those who say it’s as obvious as gravity, the roundness of the earth, etc. I’m not sure the book supports my point. If I could write the post over again, it would not include that particular article. Other creatures may display similar abilities in some respects, but I don’t think those abilities rival what humans are capable of doing. The issue is not just with external behaviors, but also with internal mental processes. I tried to imply that in my post, though it may not be as clear as I had originally thought. Gary, If you really didn’t understand what I was trying to say, then I retract my charge of taking potshots and apologize. There need not be animosity between us. My purpose in that section of the post was not to make an argument, It was to generate discussion. See my response to blipey above for the purpose of the sarcasm. In comment #17, you wrote: “Evolution provides a coherent explanation of how morphological characteristics such as a very big brain could come about, the environmental factors that are at work, etc. It is not meant to explain anything about what we do with that brain, i.e., mental abilities, such as reasoning, believing, and designing skyscrapers and supercomputers.” Elephants have larger brains than humans, and they lack our mental abilities. The difference between the two species’ mental processes goes deeper than just brain size. What is special about the human brain and how did it evolve? You also said this: “In other words, evolution explains how different characteristics are persisted through a population, but it does not explain why one particular characteristic occurs rather than another.” That's true; it doesn't explain why one particular characteristic occurs rather than another. But if the characteristic is beneficial to the organism, it has a specific function and, thus, an explanation is warranted. Here’s the thing, and I’ll let this serve as my response to comment #19: If it looks designed, who’s to say that it wasn’t if unintelligent natural processes fail to offer a reasonably probable explanation for it? The human mind is still a big mystery to science. Modern science does not yet fully understand how it works, much less the fine details of how it developed. It’s evolution is certainly not as well-established as gravity! It looks (to me, at least) like it was designed by an intelligence. crandaddy

What makes ID a "better" explanation? You seem to be saying ID better explains the "design" of DNA, but evolution isn't even about explaining the "design" of anything. It's about explaining speciation. If what you want to explain is the design of something, I certainly agree that invoking a deliberate intelligence at work makes good sense. Another point here is that "artificial interference" can explain everything. Why is the sky blue? It was painted that way. Why are humans smart? The maker made them that way. Why are books made of paper? The bookmaker made them out of paper. But, so what? Evolution is interested in the how of things, the mechanism, not who did it or why. Apples and oranges. Gary Glass

Gary It's not the best account we have. It's the best account devoid of purpose. If one doesn't a priori exclude artificial interference then the best account is intelligent design. Cellular machinery is machinery. It appears to be designed. All machinery of similar complexity where the origin can be determined is designed. If it weren't for specific exclusion of design from the set of possible explanations then design would be the obvious default assumption for the most complex things like DNA and ribosomes. For simpler things like white fur instead of black on polar bears a natural explanation seems reasonable. It's not all or nothing. ID is an additional mechanism not the only mechanism. DaveScot

Let me clear an apparent inconsistency in my previous post. On the one hand I said: CD: The issue is whether or not unintelligent evolution can account for human cognitive faculties; GG: It’s the best account that we have. On the other hand I said: CD: How about the human capacity to hold beliefs and grasp such concepts as reason? GG: Biological evolution isn’t meant to explain human mental abilities either. It’s meant to explain speciation. Let me ammend and expand: Evolution is the best explanation we have for the differentation of species, one of which is homo sapiens. One of the most distinctive characteristics of homo sapiens is outstanding cognitive ability. Evolution provides a coherent explanation of how morphological characteristics such as a very big brain could come about, the environmental factors that are at work, etc. It is not meant to explain anything about what we do with that brain, i.e., mental abilities, such as reasoning, believing, and designing skyscrapers and supercomputers. It is obvious however that these abilities are the very abilities that make a big brain worth its biological cost. In other words, evolution explains how different characteristics are persisted through a population, but it does not explain why one particular characteristic occurs rather than another. I think this distinction is one that lies at the heart of many misunderstandings about evolution. Gary Glass

>The issue is whether or not unintelligent evolution can account for human cognitive faculties; It's the best account that we have. >the point is that I’m highly skeptical that it can. Why? >The reason I said that you were taking “pot shots” is because it seems obvious to me that I make these things clear in the portion I wrote at the end of the post, and you do not address them in your comment. It's not obvious to me. Which is what I plainly said: >The article cited is about a legal action in California, and says nothing substantive for or against evolution. I don’t understand the purpose of citing it here.... [Crandaddy]’s superficial remarks, ... do not illuminate the mystery. I don't see any reason for calling that a potshot other than to score irrelevant rhetorical points. Here's what you actually said: >Are humans really descended from apes without any help from intelligent agency? Does RM+NS=skyscrapers and supercomputers? If the answer is yes, then evolutionary theorists appear to have a real whopper of a puzzle to figure out!!! Oh, wait…the descent of man sans any intelligent intervention is as well established as gravity. I temporarily forgot; my bad. The first two sentences are questions. The 3rd is a conditional response. The last two are sarcastic remarks. This is neither clarity nor legitimate argumentation. >(See also my response to CommonSense in comment #3 for greater elucidation of my view.) Which is comprised of the following 3 sentences: >[1] Would you care to enlighten us as to how unintelligent evolution can explain all the technological marvels mankind has produced? Biological evolution isn't meant to explain human technology, it's meant to explain speciation. >[2] How about the human capacity to hold beliefs and grasp such concepts as reason? Biological evolution isn't meant to explain human mental abilities either. It's meant to explain speciation. >[3]While you’re at it, tell us why it is so blatantly obvious that intelligence is not necessary to explain these phenomena. I don't know that it isn't. Seems "blatantly obvious" to me that human intelligence is the explanation of the 1st and is largely defined by the 2nd. So that's the 3 sentences. Two questions and a request. I don't see how this constitutes taking a position about anything either. Gary Glass

Crandaddy, As an observer, I don't really think it is that clear what your point was in this post. You say that evolution can't explain skyscrapers. Through the comments here, I now see what your point was. However, I think framing it in less sarcastic terms (even though sarcasm certainly does have its merits...) would have helped. It doesn't do much good if someone reads evolution = skyscrapers...they'll just assume the post isn't worth anything, which is not necessarily the case. However, I would ask for more clarification on this point. I am interested in how this particular book necessarily holds up your point. Evolution is obviously not a theory of concrete mixing. It is the human cognative process which you feel couldn't have evolved; fine. I also have read the above mentioned papers on bees and ants. It seems they, as well as many other animals, display similar, if not as somplicated behaviors. It may be arguable if this is the same as human cognative ability, but it seems plausible that they may be very similar. This source seems to say that evolution for animals is okay, but for humans it is not. If these behaviors of humans, bees, ants, apes, etc are related, how does this argument hold water? blipey

Gary, The issue is whether or not unintelligent evolution can account for human cognitive faculties; the point is that I'm highly skeptical that it can. The reason I said that you were taking "pot shots" is because it seems obvious to me that I make these things clear in the portion I wrote at the end of the post, and you do not address them in your comment. (See also my response to CommonSense in comment #3 for greater elucidation of my view.) Understand, I don't blame you for finding fault with my post; I find fault with it, myself. crandaddy

It is annoying to have to scroll to the bottom of the post to see who wrote it before reading it so that the right voice is in your head. Wordpress has a whole slough of themes that can be installed effortlessly. OR one could go in and edit the CSS style sheet and make the names either appear at the top, or at LEAST be bigger. Okay, so I guess Bill's position on Ape->Human is pretty nonspecific, biochemically speaking. I was also curious what other people's opinions in this blog were about that? DaveScot, I am a beekeeper and I've got to say, Honeybees are incredibly fascinating creatures. This last week on my show I was talking about two research papers that have come out on bees. The other one I noticed folks on this blog took notice of the LiveScience article on it that mentioned intelligent design. The http://www.sciencedaily.com article was more informative, which is usually the case for LiveScience. Anyway, one of the other papers I talked about was on the subject of ants, that leader ants of one species will 'teach' in a back-and-forth bidirectional fashion, recruit ants how to get the food source. It is done en-route to the food, so it is not the same kind of thing as with the bees, which tell them how to get there before leaving the hive. However, bee dances are not bi-directional, so the ants might actually be one-upping them in the heirarchy of communication. I don't think the researchers have been able to figure out whether there's any symbolic communication involved, that, like bees, would take years of clever experiments. Inoculated Mind

>I’ll concede that the article is not the best complement to my point and that Dr. Baldev has some questionable credentials which I was unaware of at the time of posting. I found the article, read the excerpt, and was reminded of the point I made in the above post which neither of you has made any attempt to address. So instead of taking pot shots at my admittedly less-than-par journalism skills, why don’t you address the issue? 1. Potshots? 2. What point did you make? what issue did you raise? p.s. Apologies for referring to you as Dembski. I just assumed the writer was the man who's picture's in the banner. My bad. Gary Glass

"This post makes me curious, does anyone here (including Bill) believe that a designing intelligence was necessary for the flagellum but not apes -> humans? Or does everyone agree that both required intervention?" Bill's personal beliefs on the subject: "My focus with evolution tends to be on the molecular side, so with regard to human origins, I’m still sorting out what I believe. I do know, however, what I don’t believe, that is, I don’t believe that humans evolved from ape-like ancestors by a gradual process of descent with modification. Thus I don’t see human consciousness and language ability gradually emerging as an ape-like ancestor gradually becomes more and more human. Thus I see these features of our humanity as well as the physical endowments needed for these features as emerging suddenly [ex nihilo]." Note that the quote was on his PERSONAL beliefs, not necessarily something the design detection of ID "requires". He's also had this to say: "ID is entirely compatible with a path-dependent form of evolution that is intelligently guided." Patrick

Inoculated The thing that intrigues me most about bees is the honey bee's ability to use symbolic communication to give hivemates travel directions to blooms of flowers. AFAIK aside from humans these are the only critters known to use symbolic communication. DaveScot

Gary and Boesman, I'll concede that the article is not the best complement to my point and that Dr. Baldev has some questionable credentials which I was unaware of at the time of posting. I found the article, read the excerpt, and was reminded of the point I made in the above post which neither of you has made any attempt to address. So instead of taking pot shots at my admittedly less-than-par journalism skills, why don't you address the issue? Inoculated Mind, That's an interesting article you provided. I think Dr. Amdam may be on to something. To answer your question, I'm quite suspicious of unintelligent evolution's ability to account for either the flagellum or the human mind. But I'm open-minded and willing to consider the possibilities. Show me the science! :) crandaddy

There's recently been some good research out of Arizona State U. peering into how solitary bees came together and formed colonies, since folks are asking questions about how evolution can produce complex behaviors. I find social insects to be a really interesting group of organisms because of how they collectively make decisions, and the complexity of their colonies comes out of their interactions, not just the individual characteristics of the bees. Here's a link: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060106134815.htm I would think that if evolution produced the current state of human behaviors without intelligent intervention then it still has a lot of work to do. This post makes me curious, does anyone here (including Bill) believe that a designing intelligence was necessary for the flagellum but not apes -> humans? Or does everyone agree that both required intervention? Inoculated Mind

"When water was there in Mars, there was a definite life; small insects, reptiles and fishes were the natural life, fishes used to live in small, medium and big lakes. There were no seas or oceans on Mars, only lakes were available, where the river used to end their journey by dropping water, particularly in the big lakes." Dr. Baldev said. Interesting. http://internationalreporter.com/news/read.php?id=615 Boesman

1. Leaving aside the fact that training as a "cosmo theorist" (cosmologist?) is irrelevant to evaluating the theory of evolution, it appears that Dr. Baldev is actually trained as a metallurgist ( http://www.igcar.ernet.in/igc2004/balbio.htm ), which is no better a qualification, and is, apparently, something of a crank ( http://chris-cohen.blogspot.com/2004/07/stephen-hawking-stole-my-ideas-about.html ). 2. The article cited is about a legal action in California, and says nothing substantive for or against evolution. I don't understand the purpose of citing it here. 3. Mr Dembski's superficial remarks, >Are humans really descended from apes without any help from intelligent agency? Does RM+NS=skyscrapers and supercomputers? If the answer is yes, then evolutionary theorists appear to have a real whopper of a puzzle to figure out!!! Oh, wait…the descent of man sans any intelligent intervention is as well established as gravity. I temporarily forgot; my bad. do not illuminate the mystery. 4. Is there another forum where ID is discussed with real seriousness? Gary Glass

It sure would seem that unintelligent evolution over-shot it's target a tad, with humans. Bombadill

beat me to it, crandaddy. ;) I might just add altruism and the apparent hard-wired inclination to ponder/seek out why we are here. Bombadill

CommonSense, Would you care to enlighten us as to how unintelligent evolution can explain all the technological marvels mankind has produced? How about the human capacity to hold beliefs and grasp such concepts as reason? While you're at it, tell us why it is so blatantly obvious that intelligence is not necessary to explain these phenomena. crandaddy

Human evolution is becoming more and more of an embarrasement for Darwinists. Usurper

Congratulations on finding yet another piece of mishmashed garble-dee-gook. I'm going to give the title "Man Never Descended from Species" a pass and hope that it's just a bad translation into English. If not, what the heck does that mean? Descended from species of what? when? how? huh? "Dr. Raj Baldev said, “There does exist a glaring controversy. Darwin’s principle is convincing to a certain extent that species sprung up by natural selection but there is a grave error so far the descent of human being is concerned." Well, I guess the Raeliens are right! If this is really the thesis of his book, it seems to me that he is arguing that humans are not animals and that we must somehow be separate from them in some material way. He says that the diversity of "animals" (I'm guessing he would not include the human in a definition of the word) can be explained by evolution, but somehow humans can't be. I would ask for evidence that humans are in someway materially different from the rest of the animals for this to be true. Otherwise, why not extrapolate what happened with every other animal as happening with us? Oh, right. I forgot; we were seeded by the Raeliens. CommonSense