Casey Luskin: ID as fruitful approach to science

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 13, 2022

Intelligent Design}

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

In his Kitzmiller v. Dover testimony, biologist Kenneth Miller referred to intelligent design as a “science stopper.” Similarly, in his book Only a Theory, Miller stated, “The hypothesis of design is compatible with any conceivable data, makes no testable predictions, and suggests no new avenues for research. As such, it’s a literal dead end…”
Casey Luskin, “Science Stopper? Intelligent Design as a Fruitful Scientific Paradigm” at Evolution News (May 9, 2022)

Luskin offers a number of examples of areas where ID is a fruitful approach, including

Evolutionary computation: ID produces theoretical research into the information-generative powers of Darwinian searches, leading to the discovery that the search abilities of Darwinian processes are limited, which has practical implications for the viability of using genetic algorithms to solve problems.
Anatomy and physiology: ID predicts function for allegedly “vestigial” organs, structures, or systems whereas evolution has made many faulty predictions of nonfunction.
Bioinformatics: ID has helped scientists develop proper measures of biological information, leading to concepts like complex and specified information or functional sequence complexity. This allows us to better quantify complexity and understand what features are, or are not, within the reach of Darwinian evolution.
Casey Luskin, “Science Stopper? Intelligent Design as a Fruitful Scientific Paradigm” at Evolution News (May 9, 2022)

The trouble is, many people would just as soon that research into evolutionary computation anatomy and physiology, and bioinformatics, however fruitful, not be done if it undermines a comfortable Darwinism.

This is the 12th and final entry in Casey Luskin’s series, which is a modified excerpt from The Comprehensive Guide to Science and Faith: Exploring the Ultimate Questions About Life and the Cosmos (2021).

Incidentally, here are two hilarious vids about fake COVID news from Shanghai. Couldn’t think where to put it but wouldn’t want you to miss out.

Note: The content is available. The warning is part of the joke.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMJ8Sch0pXc

Comments

Relatd Interesting dialogue between Stephen Barr and Cdl Schoenborn - thanks. This document is devastating for the Catholic-Darwinists:
https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms. The Church’s interest in evolution thus focuses particularly on “the conception of man” who, as created in the image of God, “cannot be subordinated as a pure means or instrument either to the species or to society.” As a person created in the image of God, he is capable of forming relationships of communion with other persons and with the triune God, as well as of exercising sovereignty and stewardship in the created universe. The implication of these remarks is that theories of evolution and of the origin of the universe possess particular theological interest when they touch on the doctrines of the creation ex nihilo and the creation of man in the image of God.
He condemns "Neo-Darwinist" evolution. Key point also: There's an “ontological leap” - so human life "cannot be explained in purely scientific terms". There can be no gradual evolution between animal and human. Instead, there has to be a "leap" - beyond the physical (with the creation of the soul). Ken Miller is so totally confused it's not even worth taking him seriously. And Pius XII was condemning Teilhard in 1950, without naming him. Teilhard is the classic theistic evolutionist and in the end it's nonsense. He's still got some appreciation among aging boomers today, but I wouldn't call it a movement towards anything. It's more like a fan club.Silver Asiatic_{May 15, 2022
May
05
May
15
15
2022
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT}

Bingo! Welcome to Intelligent Design!
This is disingenuous. I've pointed out your statement Darwinism in particular, limits scientific inquiry to random chance. is false and that evolution is a non-random process and it is as if I hadn't commented. You are as monologous as KF.Fred Hickson_{May 15, 2022
May
05
May
15
15
2022
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

Chuckdarwin at 35, The Church accepted nothing in 1950. Have you read Humani Generis? It is very clear that Pope Pius XII was only giving those competent to do so, permission to study evolution and to present their arguments, for and against. Then the Pope wrote: "However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11]" So, it is very clear that in 1950, no decision had yet been made.relatd_{May 15, 2022
May
05
May
15
15
2022
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT}

The Catholic Church has published some carefully worded statements. Ken Miller and Jerry Coyne are not credible spokesmen for the Catholic position on evolution. God knew what man would look like. Pope John Paul II delivered a message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1996. It was misquoted by some and supposedly showed that the Church accepted evolution. That is not true. The Pope made it clear that the theory, as viewed by the Church, encompasses a number of theories of evolution. "And to tell the truth, rather than speaking about the theory of evolution, it is more accurate to speak of the theories of evolution. The use of the plural is required here—in part because of the diversity of explanations regarding the mechanism of evolution, and in part because of the diversity of philosophies involved. There are materialist and reductionist theories, as well as spiritualist theories. Here the final judgment is within the competence of philosophy and, beyond that, of theology." In 2005, the New York Times published an Op-Ed by Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn about evolution. The original article is titled Finding Design in Nature and is still available by signing up at the New York Times site. In an article published in First Things, Cardinal Schoenborn gave the key points from his original article: • The Church “proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things.” • “Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.” • Quoting our late Holy Father John Paul II: “The evolution of living beings, of which science seeks to determine the stages and to discern the mechanism, presents an internal finality which arouses admiration. This finality, which directs beings in a direction for which they are not responsible or in charge, obliges one to suppose a Mind which is its inventor, its creator.” • Again quoting John Paul II: “To all these indications of the existence of God the Creator, some oppose the power of chance or of the proper mechanisms of matter. To speak of chance for a universe which presents such a complex organization in its elements and such marvelous finality in its life would be equivalent to giving up the search for an explanation of the world as it appears to us. In fact, this would be equivalent to admitting effects without a cause. It would be to abdicate human intelligence, which would thus refuse to think and to seek a solution for its problems.” Source: https://www.firstthings.com/article/2006/01/the-designs-of-science Unlike science, the Church can combine various types of knowledge and methods of knowing to give a complete answer to the question of human origins.relatd_{May 15, 2022
May
05
May
15
15
2022
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT}

ou now have two (2) testable hypotheses relating to ID. And since you’ll likely want more, here’s a link:
The link is to KF's strawman waffle. I said I am unaware of a testable hypothesis relating to ID. Can you name one, then we can look at it?Fred Hickson_{May 15, 2022
May
05
May
15
15
2022
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT}

Fred Hickson @42,
Darwinian evolution has a non-random element, selection by the niche and the niche can be considered a form of design.
Bingo! Welcome to Intelligent Design! ID officially takes no position on the source of design. It sticks to the inference of design, which pragmatically facilitates scientific inquiry. Conversely, if something is presumed junk, who will get funding for investigating junk?
Not true. Many organisms show purposeful behavior.
Yep, same thing here. Congratulations! By inferring design in unknown effects, you've now joined with those of us who facilitate scientific inquiry and progress! -QQuerius_{May 15, 2022
May
05
May
15
15
2022
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT}

Here's Miller with Levine - in an Evolution textbook:
“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.” (Biology: Discovering Life by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st ed., D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; (2nd ed.. D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161; emphases in original.)
After challenges from various sources, Miller deleted the anti-God references from his textbooks.Silver Asiatic_{May 15, 2022
May
05
May
15
15
2022
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT}

Querius @40 ha ha - excellent!Silver Asiatic_{May 15, 2022
May
05
May
15
15
2022
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT}

Miller:
Miller describes humans as “an afterthought, a minor detail, a happenstance in a history that might just as well have left us out.”
That denies the Catholic teaching that humans were created as "Imago Dei".
We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary. -- Pope Benedict XVI
Silver Asiatic_{May 15, 2022
May
05
May
15
15
2022
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT}

CD
It looks like it is you, not Prof. Miller, who “doesn’t even understand his own religion.”
Someone here recently said: "It apparently is not enough that you act as the self-appointed arbiter of science, you’ve now extended that role to theology and religion….." Kind of strange. But even stranger, here's Ken Miller in an evolution textbook:
“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.‚ (Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)
Ken Miller is featured here: Catholic Darwinist Ken Miller claims increasing information in life forms is easy https://uncommondescent.com/religion/catholic-darwinist-ken-miller-claims-increasing-information-in-life-forms-is-easy/
https://uncommondescent.com/religion/catholic-darwinist-ken-miller-claims-increasing-information-in-life-forms-is-easy/#comment-566448 As for Ken Miller being a Catholic, how does he reconcile with Catholic dogma his apparent belief that life as we find it now came about mindlessly and accidentally? Here is the belief of orthodox Catholics: If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema. — Vatican Council I, can. 2 § I

Good questions … how does he reconcile? I don’t think he even tries.
According to biologist Kenneth Miller, one of the most prominent proponents of “theistic” evolution, God did not plan the specific outcomes of evolution—including the development of human beings. Miller describes humans as “an afterthought, a minor detail, a happenstance in a history that might just as well have left us out.” While God knew that undirected evolution was so wonderful it would create some kind of creature capable of praising Him, that creature could have been “a big-brained dinosaur” or “a mollusk with exceptional mental capabilities” rather than us. http://www.firstthings.com/blo.....direction/

StephenB May 27, 2015 at 8:59 am harry, I have often thought along those same lines. In my post “Christian Darwinism and the problem of apriori intent,” (June 18, 2011) I wrote this: “The God of the Christian Darwinists does not even know what He is producing until He produces it. At that point, He looks back as if to say, “What do we have here? I wonder who initiated this process. Oh wait, that was me!”
As above, Ken Miller is totally confused. To preserve Darwinism, he claims that God didn't know what would emerge from the evolutionary process and that human beings were truly an accident - occurring outside of the power and knowledge of God. A “a mollusk with exceptional mental capabilities” could have emerged, to God's surprise. Ken Miller is good evidence of what Darwinism will do to you - scramble your brain and destroy your faith all for the sake of lies and falsehoods. Miller is a Christian who thinks there is no evidence of intelligent design in nature - none and never has been any. The life of Jesus Christ shows no sign of the presence of intelligent design acting beyond what natural laws can do?Silver Asiatic_{May 15, 2022
May
05
May
15
15
2022
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT}

Fred Hickson @39.
I’m puzzled as to what you mean by this. In fact I suspect it is meaningless. I’m unaware of any testable hypothesis relating to ID.
Not surprising. Of course, you suspect it's meaningless, just like Darwinists suspect that most DNA is "junk" and that over 100 organs in the human body were once considered "vestigial" and I'm sure there are other "vestigial" organs in other living organisms. There. You now have two (2) testable hypotheses relating to ID. And since you'll likely want more, here's a link: https://uncommondescent.com/faq/#nopred -QQuerius_{May 15, 2022
May
05
May
15
15
2022
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT}

Darwinism in particular, limits scientific inquiry to random chance
This is untrue. Darwinian evolution has a non-random element, selection by the niche and that can be considered a form of design.
Choosing not to assume things have a purpose.
Not true. Many organisms show purposeful behavior.Fred Hickson_{May 15, 2022
May
05
May
15
15
2022
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT}

Years ago, I noticed an embarrassing typo on Kenneth Miller's website. I sent him an email alerting him to it, but I encouraged him not to correct it, since this mutation might be on its way to evolve incrementally into a profoundly original thought! No response to my humor, but the next day, the typo was gone. Hmm. Maybe he needed more monkeys and more typewriters! (smile) -QQuerius_{May 15, 2022
May
05
May
15
15
2022
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT}

ID conforms to all basic definitions of the scientific method.
I'm puzzled as to what you mean by this. In fact I suspect it is meaningless. I'm unaware of any testable hypothesis relating to ID.Fred Hickson_{May 15, 2022
May
05
May
15
15
2022
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT}

Jerry @31 (and previous), ID conforms to all basic definitions of the scientific method. What it doesn't do is arbitrarily exclude non-materialistic interactions. For example, space-time is non-materialistic in that there's no fundamental direct measurement of it. Imagine you're floating in space-time. No body, no heartbeat, no objects. How do you measure time without something periodic? How can you measure space without an object to compare it with? There's a small town in my state where people sometimes claim that they "spent a month there one week." I once flew over Greenland with a beautiful view of icy terrain that had many almost parallel cracks in it, but I couldn't tell how wide they were (or our altitude). Thus, I contend that ID science recognizes our limitations. We look for evidences and measure what we can of reality, but by no means is what we can observe necessarily the entirety of reality. And sometimes it's a matter of perspective or ignorance. In a high school physics class, we were shown a clip of four men in suits sitting on chairs at each side of a square wooden table. Each in turn rolled a ball across the table to the man seated directly opposite, but in each case, the ball took a turn and ended in the hands of the person adjacent. The clip stopped and the teacher asked us why the ball took a 90 degree turn. We all had interesting theories that were wrong. After no one else could come up with any new theories, the teacher continued the clip. The camera dollied back, revealing that the entire setup was on a giant rotating turntable. The ball was actually maintaining a straight path, but the men and the table were turning beneath the ball. So, by excluding a portion of reality not readily accessible to us, we get only part of the picture. The evidence brushed off are the strange, unexplained effects that might not be random at all. Another fundamental assumption of science is that we're actually capable of understanding nature. We generate models and equations, but understandability is also not a given. So, from my perspective, ID isn't Science Plus, but rather deterministic materialism is deliberately Science Minus. Darwinism in particular, limits scientific inquiry to random chance, choosing not to assume things have a purpose. I believe this is due to ideological poisoning and not a scientific position. -QQuerius_{May 15, 2022
May
05
May
15
15
2022
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT}

New "scientific evidences" from darwinists: 1. The Church X or Y “officially” accepted evolution , therefore evolution is true. :) 2. "Vatican’s chief astronomer"(???) , George Coyne, SJ, said this ID not science , therefore evolution is true. :) Science it's about scientific evidences(shocking isn't it? ) not about what somebody says. without bringing the evidences that substantiate the claim. PS: If Einstein, Darwin, Fauci, Obama, Trump, Musk,etc. make a claim that is not backed up by the evidences but get traction because they have a bigger megaphone than normal people on the street then anyone can dismiss the claim as being a nonsense.Lieutenant Commander Data_{May 15, 2022
May
05
May
15
15
2022
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT}

Earth to chuckdarwin- Intelligent Design is not anti-evolution. However, if evolution by means of blind and mindless processes is true, then Catholicism is false. The Bible is false.ET_{May 15, 2022
May
05
May
15
15
2022
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT}

SA/23 Two things I took away from sixteen years of Catholic education are that (1) the only arbiter of "true understanding" of Catholicism is the Vatican (not you) and (2) the Catholic Church has never had any serious problems with evolution, even during the tenure of its most doctrinaire popes, such as Benedict, and "officially" accepted evolution in Pius' 1950 Humani generis. In fact Benedict characterized the so-called debate between American-style creationism and evolution as "absurd":
[I]n the United States, a somewhat fierce debate raging between so-called "creationism" and evolutionism, presented as though they were mutually exclusive alternatives: those who believe in the Creator would not be able to conceive of evolution, and those who instead support evolution would have to exclude God. This antithesis is absurd.... (emphasis added)
(https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2007/july/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20070724_clero-cadore.html) And, in fact, in 2015 the Vatican's chief astronomer, George Coyne, SJ, said this:
Intelligent design isn't science, even though it pretends to be. If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science.
(https://www.foxnews.com/story/vatican-astronomer-intelligent-design-not-science) It looks like it is you, not Prof. Miller, who "doesn’t even understand his own religion."chuckdarwin_{May 15, 2022
May
05
May
15
15
2022
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT}

Seversky wrote:
Real science is a continuous process of investigation and exploration of observable reality.
What about non-material, unobservable reality? For example, let's consider the wavefunction, which is considered fundamental to reality. Is it observable? -QQuerius_{May 15, 2022
May
05
May
15
15
2022
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT}

Earth to JHolo- Intelligent Design offers the only scientific explanation for our existence. Without ID all you have to try to explain our existence is sheer dumb luck. And that is the antithesis of science.ET_{May 15, 2022
May
05
May
15
15
2022
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT}

JHolo is a liar and equivocating coward. Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution. So, clearly you don't know jack about ID, science or evolution.ET_{May 15, 2022
May
05
May
15
15
2022
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT}

Mendel’s work was re-discovered and population genetics was born. But it didn’t stop there. They still didn’t know the mechanisms involved so the researchers continued and discovered DNA, RNA, ribosomes, etc. but they still weren’t satisfied so they kept digging and discovered HGT, epigenetics, genetic drift, etc. throughout this entire process the theoretical model was adjusted to better fit the observations and experiments. That is how science works.
And we got the science of genetics which ID endorses. I fail to understand your point. You are constantly introducing nonsense and acting like it is true. ID is Science+ Aside: Darwinian process as an explanation for Evolution is self refuting. As noted they are great for genetics because even there they have to be very limited. Aside2: we are a long way from punctuated equilibrium.jerry_{May 15, 2022
May
05
May
15
15
2022
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT}

Evolution started with the proposition that natural selection acting on heritable variation was responsible for the variety of life we see today. For this to be plausible there had to be a means of increasing variation, and it had to be heritable, so researches started looking for this source. Mendel’s work was re-discovered and population genetics was born. But it didn’t stop there. They still didn’t know the mechanisms involved so the researchers continued and discovered DNA, RNA, ribosomes, etc. but they still weren’t satisfied so they kept digging and discovered HGT, epigenetics, genetic drift, etc. throughout this entire process the theoretical model was adjusted to better fit the observations and experiments. That is how science works. ID sees something that looks designed and is happy. Scientists haven’t been able to reproduce the flagellum using random mutation and natural selection so ID is the better argument. When asked why they are not researching the possible mechanisms of implementation and timing of the design, they say that this is not part of ID. This is not how science works.JHolo_{May 15, 2022
May
05
May
15
15
2022
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT}

why ID doesn’t do science.
Do you have trouble reading? ID is Science+ Aside:once religion has been introduced that should tripple the comments or more. Aside2:
the most honest answer is that we simply don’t know
That is the ID answer. So those who make it are endorsing ID.jerry_{May 15, 2022
May
05
May
15
15
2022
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT}

The question isn’t whether or not ID is science. The real question is why ID doesn’t do science.JHolo_{May 15, 2022
May
05
May
15
15
2022
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT}

If you admit that you "simply don't know" then ID is a legitimate proposal. You can't deny it because you don't know. Kitzmiller v. Dover made that simple logic illegal. So, as above, kids are taught lies instead.Silver Asiatic_{May 15, 2022
May
05
May
15
15
2022
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT}

LCD Good job There is no compelling evidence that life emerged from natural processes. So, therefore, we have to conclude that life must have emerged from natural processes?Silver Asiatic_{May 15, 2022
May
05
May
15
15
2022
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT}

IDists are perfectly happy with teaching "we don't know". The problem is that is NOT what is being taught! Lies are being taught to unsuspecting children. And that is child abuse.ET_{May 15, 2022
May
05
May
15
15
2022
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT}

seversky:
Science might argue that, if there is no compelling evidence for the existence of a designer/creator, then life must have emerged from natural processes and there are ongoing investigations into that possibility but, at this point, the most honest answer is that we simply don’t know.
There is plenty of scientific evidence for an intelligent designer. There isn't any evidence that nature emerged from natural processes as natural processes only exist in nature and therefore could not have produced it. You only have your denial of ID. You don't have anything else but your denial and lies.ET_{May 15, 2022
May
05
May
15
15
2022
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT}

CD Ken Miller wrote a book called "Finding Darwin's God". So, he makes his religious views part of the conversation. Dawkins wrote a "science" book called "The God Delusion". So, let's not have a double-standard here. As for Ken Miller's Catholicism, I can respect that you wouldn't want to discuss it since you're not of the Faith, but I share the same religion as Miller and so yes, I have some authority and role as an arbiter of the same.Silver Asiatic_{May 15, 2022
May
05
May
15
15
2022
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 10 11 12 13 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply