E. O. Wilson on ID

_{William Dembski

November 26, 2007

Intelligent Design}

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

Here’s what E. O. Wilson writes in THE NEW SCIENTIST:

. . . Many who accept the fact of evolution cannot, however, on religious grounds, accept the operation of blind chance and the absence of divine purpose implicit in natural selection. They support the alternative explanation of intelligent design. The reasoning they offer is not based on evidence but on the lack of it. The formulation of intelligent design is a default argument advanced in support of a non sequitur. It is in essence the following: there are some phenomena that have not yet been explained and that (most importantly) the critics personally cannot imagine being explained; therefore there must be a supernatural designer at work. The designer is seldom specified, but in the canon of intelligent design it is most certainly not Satan and his angels, nor any god or gods conspicuously different from those accepted in the believer’s faith.

Flipping the scientific argument upside down, the intelligent designers join the strict creationists (who insist that no evolution ever occurred) by arguing that scientists resist the supernatural theory because it is counter to their own personal secular beliefs. This may have a kernel of truth; everybody suffers from some amount of bias. But in this case bias is easily overcome. The critics forget how the reward system in science works. Any researcher who can prove the existence of intelligent design within the accepted framework of science will make history and achieve eternal fame. They will prove at last that science and religious dogma are compatible. Even a combined Nobel prize and Templeton prize (the latter designed to encourage the search for just such harmony) would fall short as proper recognition. Every scientist would like to accomplish such a epoch-making advance. But no one has even come close, because unfortunately there is no evidence, no theory and no criteria for proof that even marginally might pass for science. . . .

Two comments:

(1) ID does not argue from “Shucks, I can’t imagine how material mechanisms could have brought about a biological structure” to “Gee, therefore God must have done it.” This is a strawman. Here is the argument ID proponents actually make:

Premise 1: Certain biological systems have some diagnostic feature, be it IC (irreducible complexity) or SC (specified complexity) or OC (organized complexity) etc.
Premise 2: Materialistic explanations have been spectacularly unsuccessful in explaining such systems — we have no positive evidence for thinking that material mechanisms can generate them.
Premise 3: Intelligent agency is known to have the causal power to produce systems that display IC/SC/OC.
Conclusion: Therefore, biological systems that exhibit IC/SC/OC are likely to be designed.

(2) Wilson’s claim that proving “the existence of intelligent design within the accepted framework of science will make history and achieve eternal fame” is disingenuous. The accepted framework of science precludes ID from the start. Wilson and his materialistic colleagues have stacked the deck so that no evidence could ever support it.

Comments

ellazim I didn't notice anyone refuting your argument against premise 1. If you know the definitions of IC/SC/OC then these are not disputable. IC - irreducible complexity is any component assemblage performing a task wherein if any component part is removed it cannot perform the task. Let's take an automobile for an example. Its task is transportation. We could remove windows, fenders, seats, heater, radio, or any of many other components and it would still perform its task. It is not irreducibly complex. However, as we remove components we would eventually reduce it down to a critical set which was irreducibly complex - axles, wheels, and frame for instance - remove any of those and it no longer functions for transportation in any reduced capacity. It could still serve for something like shelter but it's useless for the original task. Irreducible complexity does not preclude being useful for something other than the original task - it merely states that removing any component completely spoils the current task. Assemblages of biological components in living things exhibit irreducible complexity in spades. Let's take a spider and its task is to produce more spiders. You could remove some legs, sensory organs, and many other components without completely disabling its ability to reproduce but at some point nothing more can be removed without completely disabling its ability to produce more spiders. Specified Complexity - this an arbitrarily complex pattern that can be independently described. The independent description is the specification. Complexity is defined by Dembski as any pattern which can take on 10^150 or more different permutations. Again let's look at an automobile. The complexity is given by the number of possible arrangements of the atoms that make it up which easily exceeds 10^150 possibilities. The independently given specification is a self-powered transportation device. Clearly the number of arrangements of its atoms that don't result in a self-powered transportation device so vastly exceed in number those that do that we can confidently say that an arrangment made by pure chance is so unlikely to produce an automoble that a finite universe with the constraints of space, time, and physical laws of ours won't produce an automobile. Yet millions of automobiles exist. The reason they exist is because of intelligent design. Intelligent agents make possible what is otherwise statistically impossible. There is no reasonable argument that biological systems do not exhibit specified complexity. The argument is over whether non-intelligent agency can produce biological specified complexity. OC - I'm not sure what the formal definition of that is. I presume it's some combination of IC and SC. IC/SC/OC as defined above are clearly and logically diagnostic of design but that doesn't mean they are certain markers of design. That's where premise 2 comes into play. The caveat is that no search for non-intelligent mechanisms can ever be complete. They may be exhaustive but there always remains the possibility that something was overlooked, remains hidden, or that chance beat almost impossible odds. This is where reasonable doubt must be exercised. It's theoretically possible that an automoble could somehow become assembled without intelligent agency but no reasonable person has any doubt that the universe as we know it will not produce an automobile absent intelligent causation. Biological systems are not the same as an automobile of course. Reasonable doubt exists with many reasonable people that non-intelligent mechanisms can spontaneously generate novel biologically complex systems. The onus is on them to demonstrate a reasonable possibility. We already know that intelligent agency can produce these levels of novel complexity. What we don't know is if any other mechanism is adequate. Chance & neccessity (Darwin's paradigm) is essentially trial and error with feedback. Trials are generated by chance (random mutation), errors are evaluated by natural selection, and feedback is accomplished by DNA storing the trial arrangement and (if the trial is not catastrophic)generating another trial with new random mutations. Theoretically it's possible for this mechanism to generate novel biological complexity but it can only be observed generating trivial novelties which are usually destrimental (often catastrophically detrimental) and when not detrimental are seldom anything but very near neutral (hardly any good). Theoretically possible does make something reasonably possible. ID proponents don't believe this mechanism makes evolution reasonably possible. It appears to us that the more science reveals about the true complexity of biological systems and the mechanism of chance & neccessity is increasingly inadequate to explain it. DaveScot_{November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PDT}

Jerry Thanks. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus, Below is a quote from Behe at Dover and from this I believe you can see the difference in Organized Complexity from the other two types of complexity though I can see IC can be part of OC in many cases. " 'On the next slide is a short summary of the intelligent design argument. The first point is that, we infer design when we see that parts appear to be arranged for a purpose. The second point is that the strength of the inference, how confident we are in it, is quantitative. The more parts that are arranged, and the more intricately they interact, the stronger is our confidence in design. The third point is that the appearance of design in aspects of biology is overwhelming. The fourth point then is that, since nothing other than an intelligent cause has been demonstrated to be able to yield such a strong appearance of design, Darwinian claims notwithstanding, the conclusion that the design seen in life is real design is rationally justified.' " Apparently this explanation was too much for Judge Jones to comprehend.jerry_{November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
04:20 AM
4
04
20
AM
PDT}

H'mm: I think we could all do with a bit of cooling off from the hot remarks above! (BTW, Lazarus/Solon -- L/S -- there is a Kairos here and a (different) Kairosfocus. I take it your remarks [though I was not present when they were made] target me, as Kairos so far as I know does not maintain his own reference site. If you object to the substance of what I have to say in my always linked, why not address it on the merits of fact and logic; here, especially the logic of inference to best explanation which is the underlying context of scientific thought? And, if you doubt that this is a reasonable exercise for a Bible-believing Christian, then perhaps you need to re-read Rom 1 - 2, esp. 1:19 - 24 [notice the appeal to the acknowledged validity of the evidence of nature without and heart and mind within], 2:6 - 8 and 14 - 16. And, of course, you have not to date taken up my invitation to dialogue from the previous thread.) Having noted as above, can we now focus on the interesting points that lie in the contrast between E O Wilson's claim . . . .
The formulation of intelligent design is a default argument advanced in support of a non sequitur. It is in essence the following: there are some phenomena that have not yet been explained and that (most importantly) the critics personally cannot imagine being explained; therefore there must be a supernatural designer at work
. . . and Dr Dembski's summary:
This is a strawman. Here is the argument ID proponents [of whom Dr Dembski is arguably the leading exemplar] actually make: * Premise 1: Certain biological systems have some diagnostic feature, be it IC (irreducible complexity) or SC (specified complexity) or OC (organized complexity) etc. * Premise 2: Materialistic explanations have been spectacularly unsuccessful in explaining such systems — we have no positive evidence for thinking that material mechanisms can generate them. * Premise 3: Intelligent agency is known to have the causal power to produce systems that display IC/SC/OC. * Conclusion: Therefore, biological systems that exhibit IC/SC/OC are likely to be designed.
I would especially be interested to see how Dr Dembski defines "organised complexity" as that is tied closely to functionally specified and integrated, complex information. At least, if I am correct to infer that he means something like "systems that are based on multiple, interacting, integrated information- using/based structures that work together towards a common target in a specific environment." That is, an extension of CSI and IC. [I have in mind things like communication systems, control systems, and general processing systems that use information to structure and/or control the way inputs of materials and energy are transformed into useful products. Photosynthesis and the gene to protein process come to mind for life systems.] Also, I believe that it is indeed fair inference and comment to note that we have abundant evidence that FSCI is a commonly observed product of agency [e.g this post, the PCs we are using to read this on], and AFAIK none that it is an observed product of chance + necessity only. For in every case where we do observe the causal story directly, we see agents at work, and we have good reasons tied to the underpinnings of statistical thermodynamics, to see that in the context of contingency and sufficiently large configuration spaces, it is maximally unlikely for random walk processes [however filtered for function after the fact] can find the islands and archipelagos of function. That is of course what I discuss in my always linked, Appendix 1 section 6. GEM of TKI PS: I, too was very impressed with the paper CS linked, and indeed, this is one of the documents that made me sit up and take notice of the ID movement. I think, based on my reading of Rom 1 - 2 as noted above to L/S, that today's theistic evolutionists have some significant scientific AND theological challenges to meet. Finally, CS's civility and fair-mindedness are a model for us all.kairosfocus_{November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
01:56 AM
1
01
56
AM
PDT}

Frost122585 - nice post Those linking ID to any particular religious view are, in my opinion, doing irreparable damaged to its standing at large and especially in the scientific establishment. As Frost has already aptly put it – ID is compatible with many religious views, but is not confined or dependant on them. Lazarus, you must understand that some people (myself included) could never accept the argument that there is a god which could apparently do what is claimed in the bible. This is not because we hate the idea of god.Acquiesce_{November 27, 2007
November
11
Nov
27
27
2007
01:25 AM
1
01
25
AM
PDT}

I was just going to comment that Lazarus was Solon raided from the dead, and there he goes, blowing his own cover. I'm a bit miffed that I didn't get to post my conjecture before it was confirmed. A body always wants to look a bit prescient, for sure.D.A.Newton_{November 26, 2007
November
11
Nov
26
26
2007
10:53 PM
10
10
53
PM
PDT}

Lazarus, look, just get off of the site. This is not your site. And all of this crap about the dishonesty of the ID movement is all BS and you know it. People don’t even allow it to stand on its own two feet so we have to come here and talk to one another without constant interruption by a bunch of people like yourself who use nonsensical irrelevant arguments that have nothing to do with ID. This is why they have to monitor you. I question if you have even read the material and if you are even interested in ID in the first place or if you just come here for a bitch session. If it was my site you would be gone. If Jesus is your thing go do that but ID is not about Jesus. I repeat ID is not about Jesus. It is compatible with fundamentalist Christianity but it is not confined to it nor dependent on it. And we don’t need you. I don’t even want you. We don’t want to win the debate in the political or religious arena we want to win it in the scientific arena. If our (ID's) ideas can’t champion origin science and appeal to the average mind then it is not meant to be heard. Or as Christ said "let the spiritually dead care for themselves." It is people like you who constantly conflate ID with religion that are giving this scientific theory a bad name. This is not about Christ. It never has been and it never will be. Christ or no Christ ID stays. It never rested on Christ’s shoulders. ID is supported by the design inference and No Free Lunch and Michael Behe's work with irreducibly complex biological mechanisms and Stephen Meyers work with fossils, DNA and digital code. We are not selling Christ. If ID increases your faith and that is what you want then great. But don’t come on this site to blabber about nothing and try to pick a political or religious fight. We are trying to progress science and philosophy- trying to move it beyond the fallacy of methodological materialism which ignores truth. If your posy of Christians are only interested in ID as a way of propping up your faith then your not real supporters of ID because you fail to grasp the theory for what it is and worse you are not real Christians because you fail to take Christ for his word. Christ might be the ultimate truth but it’s not provable and it’s not science. Christ always requested faith. Science requires facts.Frost122585_{November 26, 2007
November
11
Nov
26
26
2007
10:16 PM
10
10
16
PM
PDT}

Carl Sachs, Thanks for pointing out the article by Dembski. I believe it should be required reading for all who come here whether ID supporters or not. The other interesting thing about the article is that it was written 11 years ago and I find nothing or very little that should be changed. I have often made the claim that ID subsumes neo Darwinism and this article supports that position and so does Michael Behe. It is the Blind Watchmaker thesis which is at odds with ID, not neo Darwinism as a scientific theory. We have to recognize that they are different even though many biologists do not see the differences nor do many ID proponents. Both Dembski and Behe accepts neo Darwinism but maintains it has limits and its effect in terms of evolution is real but trivial. I doubt few would question the genetic implications of mutations on inheritance and disease which is classic neo Darwinism and of extreme importance. All those coming here with the idea that ID is vacuous should read the article before posting their comments that challenge ID.jerry_{November 26, 2007
November
11
Nov
26
26
2007
09:49 PM
9
09
49
PM
PDT}

Lazarus, I (and hopefully others here) see where you're coming from, but consider the situation from their point of view. Firstly, if intelligent design is identified with, or necessarily entails, monotheism, then it cannot, under the present law, be taught as an alternative to neo-Darwinian evolution in a public school science class or in any university which relies on state or federal funding. You might think "so much the worse for the law!" but I'm afraid that's pretty much how it stands. Thus, while an ID proponent can be a Christian, nothing about the logic of ID requires her to be a Christian. ID advertises itself as compatible with Christianity, and perhaps it is -- but there's an important difference between "compatible with" and "necessarily entails" and "is identical with." Secondly, while you might not be interested in questions of evidence and theory, many of those here are interested in just those questions. You'll do little but irritate those of us who find those issues of great interest. At the end of the day, you might be best served by simply saying that you and the IDers are fighting in two very different battles on the same war.Carl Sachs_{November 26, 2007
November
11
Nov
26
26
2007
09:15 PM
9
09
15
PM
PDT}

Carl Sachs, I will have to read Dembski's article more closely and see how he treats the TE's, especially the ones at ASA who think ID is screwed up theology. In the mean time, my beliefs on ID relative to religion are just above and I will have to read all of Dembski article to see if/how he differs. I am not a theologian by any means and Dembski is but so are many of the people at ASA who differ with him.jerry_{November 26, 2007
November
11
Nov
26
26
2007
08:42 PM
8
08
42
PM
PDT}

Carl thanks for being mildly civil. I am as concerned as you about folks that purport to be pro-ID but when the roll is called are willing to backpedal and attempt to change the subject about what the true design inference is all about. I am very concerned that we are harming the cause of Christ. For those who wish to know, yes i was Solon. I was banned and not allowed to comment for three days and I gave up. Following this, a moderator has the temerity to tell me he will be watching my posts in the future!!! Can you believe this? I am eliminated from the conversation, commenters see this as a concession to their ill-conceived and contrived points, and then a MODERATOR tells me that he will be watching me closely! Watching me do what? This sort of intellectual dishonesty is at the heart of the 'ID' movement and is a serious obstacle to the stated goals of ID, namely winning souls for Christ. All this crap about 'good science' is just metaphysical masturbation and you would do well to get back to the basics and skip all of the crap that is just a carrot on a stick to non-believers and a political move to enlarge the base. And when you do that, you are not following Christ. kairos, I am real, and I don't really care what your blog says or what kind of garbage you can post here without dealing with the issue: The bible is either true, or not. If it is not true, in your fallen opinion and in the opinion of 'intelligent' design, then I will encourage my fellow christians to disassociate themselves from the wolf in sheeps clothing that is ID. If you be not for Christ, you be not for me. I don't know if you read the polls, but you need us.Lazarus_{November 26, 2007
November
11
Nov
26
26
2007
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PDT}

Lazarus, ID is compatible with Christianity as I see it. I also believe it is compatible with many other religions including pagan religions with multiple gods. It is also compatible with various forms of deism. Even cosmological ID does not necessarily point to monotheism. However, ID is not compatible with atheism. One has to look elsewhere than ID to support their particular religious or philosophical beliefs. And by the way, theistic evolutionists do not accept ID and consider themselves very good Christians. They look at ID as worshiping a lesser God, one that could not get it right from the beginning and thus had to constantly tinker. They believe God embedded the inevitability of life and all its variants as part of the initial conditions at the Big Bang. That according to them is a truly omnipotent God. Life to them is a high probability event not a low probability one. I do not agree with the TE's but that is what many of them believe.jerry_{November 26, 2007
November
11
Nov
26
26
2007
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PDT}

Lazarus, you might not know this, but we've had some trouble lately with people who might have been pretending to be pro-ID but really trying to stir up trouble. (Or at least that's how the situation seemed to most of the posters here. I still don't know what was going on with "Solon.") Don't be surprised if you get a more critical or hostile response than you were expecting -- that is, assuming you're sincere.Carl Sachs_{November 26, 2007
November
11
Nov
26
26
2007
07:27 PM
7
07
27
PM
PDT}

magnan are you going to address my comments or obfuscate and change the subject?Lazarus_{November 26, 2007
November
11
Nov
26
26
2007
07:22 PM
7
07
22
PM
PDT}

Jerry, I was thinking of Dembski's criticisms of "theistic evolution":
As far as design theorists are concerned, theistic evolution is an oxymoron, something like "purposeful purposelessness." If God purposely created life through the means proposed by Darwin, then God's purpose was to make it seem as though life was created without any purpose. According to the Darwinian picture, the natural world provides no clue that a purposeful God created life. For all we can tell, our appearance on planet earth is an accident. If it were all to happen again, we wouldn't be here. No, the heavens do not declare the glory of God, and no, God's invisible attributes are not clearly seen from God's creation. This is the upshot of theistic evolution as the design theorists construe it.
From "What Every Theologian Should Know about Creation, Evolution, and Design." Moreover, I find that Dembski's stance is well-represented among pro-ID bloggers here. Or am I totally off-base here?Carl Sachs_{November 26, 2007
November
11
Nov
26
26
2007
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PDT}

Here we go again. Lazarus, please review the recent debate with your comrade Solon in an earlier thread at https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/thanks-to-phillip-johnson-or-darwinism-in-its-death-throes/.magnan_{November 26, 2007
November
11
Nov
26
26
2007
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT}

Carl Sachs, you said "This is part of why, so far as I understand it, design theorists have been severely critical of “theistic evolutionists,” or for that matter, any person of faith who accepts neo-Darwinian evolution." Who are these design theorists who are critical of TE? There are plenty of people here who criticize TE but these are certainly not the design theorists you refer to.jerry_{November 26, 2007
November
11
Nov
26
26
2007
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PDT}

magnan it sounds like you believe that men are descended from monkeys. If this is what ID is about I am pretty sure that we can do better. Dr Dembski and Phillip Johnson doesn't believe this crap and I don't know why he lets you say this sort of stuff on his blog. If Jesus was just an ape then the bible doesn't mean anything, and if the bible isn't true then ID isn't true. there is not other possible designer than the god of the bible and it is a fools errand to go running around pretending that we don't know that this is true, all in the name of some liberal postmodern all truths are created equal kind of jibberjabber.Lazarus_{November 26, 2007
November
11
Nov
26
26
2007
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT}

Lazarus, didn't you get the memo? ID must be totally neutral on all God-talk if it's going to be introduced in public schools as a scientific alternative to evolution. Hence design theorists are trying to re-cast the debate as one between a scientific theory which is at least compatible with monotheism (though not implying it) and one that is incompatible with monotheism. This is part of why, so far as I understand it, design theorists have been severely critical of "theistic evolutionists," or for that matter, any person of faith who accepts neo-Darwinian evolution.Carl Sachs_{November 26, 2007
November
11
Nov
26
26
2007
06:44 PM
6
06
44
PM
PDT}

Premise 2: Materialistic explanations have been spectacularly unsuccessful in explaining such systems — we have no positive evidence for thinking that material mechanisms can generate them. elazimm: "Premise 2: Again a matter of opinion and there is no positive empirical evidence against a deterministic explanation." ".....My contention is that there is quite a lot of positive physical evidence that is in accordance with evolutionary theory whereas there is very little positive empirical evidence in support of ID." What would you consider positive empirical evidence for a "non-deterministic" or ID explanation? A pattern in bone microstructure saying "a message from your sponsor"? Somehow observing the event by traveling back in time? In your disagreement it is your obligation to present the evidence. Please make it more than evidence for microevolution, which is fully accepted by ID proponents. This also needs to be more than fossil evidence of major transitional forms showing large evolutionary innovations at the order, class and higher levels (also accepted by ID proponents), but fossil evidence of the vast numbers of transitional forms to be expected from the NDE process.magnan_{November 26, 2007
November
11
Nov
26
26
2007
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT}

"Certain biological systems have some diagnostic feature, be it IC (irreducible complexity) or SC (specified complexity) or OC (organized complexity) etc." Can you define these terms such that they are functionally distinct from "I know it when I see it"? If so, then your point would be a lot stronger. What is exact the mathematical definition of SC, for instance? A journal of information theory would no doubt be very excited to publish such a useful tool that can reliably distinguish active design from the products of things like genetic algorithms (if, of course, you would allow for any such a distinction to be made such that SC wasn't simply an assumed part of anything that looks complex or well adapted): you wouldn't even have to mention ID or any implications at that point. Why not do that?plunge_{November 26, 2007
November
11
Nov
26
26
2007
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PDT}

This post and the comments by Aquiesce are disturbing to me and I am sure will be plenty disturbing to many other Americans. it sounds as if ID is attempting to distance itself from the God of the Bible. I know for a fact that ID was predicated upon the God of the Bible and it will not behoove the folks who are in charge of ID to attempt to distance themselves from the Designer. Compartmentalizations such as 'well, it might be god or it might be aliens or something that has never even had interaction with mankind' are the same kind of denials that the materialists make with respect to their absolute lack of a moral foundation since they deny the Holy Spirit. I find it hard to believe that such a godly man as DR Dembski and Phillip Johnson and Jonathan Wells are going on the record as saying it is possible that they are holding to a false faith, or that God might just turn out to be an alien or some aloof hyperdimensional being. If you don't accept the God of the Bible then you are just as lost as the direst atheist materialist. What does it profit a man to gain the scientific establishment if he lose his very soul?Lazarus_{November 26, 2007
November
11
Nov
26
26
2007
06:17 PM
6
06
17
PM
PDT}

"Any researcher who can prove the existence of intelligent design within the accepted framework of science will make history and achieve eternal fame. They will prove at last that science and religious dogma are compatible." Why does E. O. Wilson think that present-day "Scientists" would even understand what they were looking at once it was submitted; especially since they haven't understood it yet? - More than likely, religionists would recognize it before scientists would. - More than likely, it would be discarded as fantasy by "Scientists" and character assassination of the author(s) and his/their followers would begin. - More than likely, it wouldn't be taught in schools because of the religious implications involved; especially if it proved the existence of God. - More than likely, it would end up being the target of mass suppression because it showed that "Good" and "Evil", "Right" and "Wrong", "Truth" and "Lie" truly exist. So, my question is that if someone had such a theory, to whom or to where would they submit it?John Kelly_{November 26, 2007
November
11
Nov
26
26
2007
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT}

Systems theory says that natural systems are self-organizing and evolve towards greater complexity. It's really saying the same thing as Intelligent Design, but scientists might find the terminology more acceptable. Older scientific ideas like systems theory and vitalism are very relevant to the evolution controversy, but are seldom mentioned.realpc_{November 26, 2007
November
11
Nov
26
26
2007
04:35 PM
4
04
35
PM
PDT}

ellazimm, your said "I will do my best to be open minded but I’d feel better with objective data." "Can I please ask everyone to honestly examine the evidence for premise 2. My contention is that there is quite a lot of positive physical evidence that is in accordance with evolutionary theory whereas there is very little positive empirical evidence in support of ID." You say you like objective information. Then I think you have to put up or shut up. What is the extensive positive physical evidence that is in accordance with evolutionary theory for creating IC, SC and OC? You have to understand you will be the first one to do this, so we are not too hopeful. But give it a shot. And by the way explain just what is evolutionary theory. There are a lot of theories out there. Do you disagree that intelligence can create IC, SC and OC? What ID says that this is a given. No one doubts this. It also says that no non intelligent process has ever come close to creating these types of complexity. But you seem to disagree so the onus is on you. Good luck.jerry_{November 26, 2007
November
11
Nov
26
26
2007
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT}

E.O makes no sense whatsover.Benji_{November 26, 2007
November
11
Nov
26
26
2007
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT}

Premise 2: Materialistic explanations have been spectacularly unsuccessful in explaining such systems - we have no positive evidence for thinking that material mechanisms can generate them. ellazimm
Can I please ask everyone to honestly examine the evidence for premise 2. My contention is that there is quite a lot of positive physical evidence that is in accordance with evolutionary theory
There is empirical evidence that Darwinian mechanisms can produce change by filtering existing genetic information (e.g., cyclic finch beak change with variation in weather patterns), and can produce trivial changes by filtering random genetic changes (e.g., bacterial antibiotic resistance). There is no empirical evidence that Darwinian mechanisms can do much more than this (especially no evidence that such mechanisms can produce complex, functionally integrated machinery), and plenty of evidence that they can’t (that’s what Behe’s Edge is all about).GilDodgen_{November 26, 2007
November
11
Nov
26
26
2007
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT}

'Evolution' to the public is defined as 'change over time'. Then change that definition and proclaim 'strict creationists insist that no evolution ever occurred' har harAcquiesce_{November 26, 2007
November
11
Nov
26
26
2007
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT}

I have heard it said that Intelligent Design is the best explanation for certain biological systems (supposedly thousands of them). But it leads me to a puzzle which I have yet to find a satisfactory solution for. Putting aside the veracity or accuracy of design Vs evolution, I am forced to question the value. From what I have read Evolution represents at least a partial solution (for those who disagree with this, then we are not discussing the same Intelligent Design which I have read about). Evolution has proven useful in the several areas of research including the study of disease and the development of resistance to treatment. When I investigate Intelligent Design, I am unable to discern the value. The designer, and nature of intervention (frequency, mechanism, reason) appear to be outside the scope. I don't wish to present a "strawman" but I have come to my own conclusion that it is analogous to declaring that some problems simply cannot be solved. Even if it is entirely accurate, it this context it seems to serve only as an excuse, a reason to give up on certain research as unsolvable. If this is the case, is it not better to treat all problems (evolutionary steps) as potentially solvable rather than misidentifying one as unsolvable?Alann_{November 26, 2007
November
11
Nov
26
26
2007
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT}

"strict creationists insist that no evolution ever occurred". I have never met a "strict creationist" by this definition. Another "straw dummy"?idnet.com.au_{November 26, 2007
November
11
Nov
26
26
2007
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply