Good and bad reasons for rejecting ID

_{Salvador Cordova

June 24, 2013

Intelligent Design}

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

Although I accept ID, I actually think there are respectable reasons to reject or at least withhold judgment on ID in biology. I am writing this essay because I expect I’ll refer to it in the future since I will frequently grant that a critic of ID might be quite reasonable in not embracing ID.

Unlike some of my ID colleagues, I do not think rejection or non-acceptance of ID is an unrespectable position. It may not be obvious, but several revered “ID proponents” either currently or in the past said they are not convinced ID is true. Foremost would probably be David Berlinski. Next is Michael Denton, and next is Richard Sternberg. I do not know for a fact what they believe now, but statements they’ve made in the past have led me to conclude although they are obviously sympathetic to ID, they had not accepted it at the time of their writings. One might even put Robert Jastrow and Paul Davies in the list of “ID proponents” who actually reject ID.

GOOD REASONS TO REJECT ID
1. Absence of a Designer. I know I might get flak for this, but I think a good reason to reject ID is the absence of seeing the Intelligent Designer in operation today. With many scientific theories we can see the hypothesized mechanism in action, and this is quite reassuring to the hypothesis. For myself, I wrestle with the fact that even if ID is true, the mechanism might be forever inaccessible to us.

2. Lack of direct experiments. A designer may decide never to design again. That is consistent with how intelligent agents act. So even if the Designer is real, even if we’ve encountered Him once personally in our lives, the fact is we can’t construct experiments and demand He give us a demonstration.

3. Belief that some future mechanism might be discovered. This is always a possibility in principle.

BAD REASONS TO REJECT ID

1. Theology! There are some Christian theologians who believe in eternal life, the resurrection of the dead, the resurrection of Christ, but believe God wouldn’t design life based on whatever theological viewpoint they have such as their interpretations of the writings of Thomas Aquinas. I put this at the top of the list of bad reasons to reject ID.

2. “God wouldn’t do it that way”. This is also a theological argument, but is so prevalent its in a class of its own. How would any know God wouldn’t do it that way!

3. Bad design. See my take in The Shallowness of Bad Design Arguments.

4. Common Descent. Common descent is incompatible with Creationism but not ID.

5. Darwinian evolution. Darwinian evolution doesn’t solve the origin of life problem, and thus Dawkins over extends his claim that Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. Darwinian evolution also has been refuted theoretically and empirically, but not everyone has caught on.

6. ID was invented to get creationism into public schools and is part of a right wing conspiracy to create a theocracy, and ID proponents are scoundrels and liars. These claims are false, but even if true, they are completely irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of ID in biology. I posted on the irrelevance of ID proponents being scoundrels. See: Scoundrel? Scoundrel?…I like the sound of that.

7. ID demeans God by making God responsible for bad designs. Denyse O’Leary deals with this one here: Here’s one bad reason for opposing ID.

I invite UD commenters to offer their own list of good and bad reasons to reject ID. This list is certainly not exhaustive, or correct, just my opinions.

Comments

Design is a mechanism. Directed mutation and selection is a specific design mechanism. a targeted search is a design mechanism and Dr Spetner's "built-in responses to environmental cues" is yet another. Designed to evolve/ evolved by design-> mechanisms. What we do NOT have to know before making a design inference, because that comes later, is the specific process(es) used. But given our knowledge of enginering, we have plenty to choose from. Elizabeth:
I don’t think you understand evolutionary theory, ...
It is a given that Elizabeth does not understand evolutionary theory. She stands in stark contrast to what Ernst Mayr stated.Joe_{June 25, 2013
June
06
Jun
25
25
2013
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT}

Eric:
mutations and selection,no real answer
That IS the answer!
design is not a mechanistic theory
Can you point to any human-designed object that was not produced by a mechanism? Seriously Eric, and think your analysis here is profoundly flawed. I don't think you understand evolutionary theory, and I don't think you understand "materialism". Your description simply doesn't fit what I or any so-called "materialist" thinks. Sure, we think things have causes - but you do too. What is the difference between a cause that moves something because it is a particle and a cause that moves something because it is mind? The main difference I would say is that "materialists" think that minds are emergent not causal. But it's a fairly small difference in practical terms. If your Designer causes things to move around, then it does exactly the same thing as our "material" things do - it is no more or less "mechanistic". Unless your Designer doesn't cause things to move around, in which case I don't see how it can work.Elizabeth B Liddle_{June 25, 2013
June
06
Jun
25
25
2013
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT}

Forjah @50:
Can someone explain to me what anti-ID people mean when they say mechanism? I don’t understand the argument against ID. Can someone help me? Define mechanism and then please, in detial, explain what you mean by ID lacks a mechanism?
This is an important point. The materialist is convinced that everything is the result of particles and energy interacting over time. For the materialist, everything -- by definition -- is mechanical. So they insist on a mechanism for everything (though, ironically, when you attempt to pin them down on a mechanism for evolution you will get various vague responses about mutations and selection and lots of time, with no real answer). Unfortunately for them, design is not a mechanistic theory. Design posits that there is something in addition to matter and energy in the universe, something real that can impact matter and energy in ways that are not amenable to law-like processes or pure chance. So design proponents need not offer a mechanistic explanation. This refusal to provide a mechanistic explanation of design drives materialists crazy; but that is just a failure of the materialist's worldview expectations, not a limitation of design theory itself.Eric Anderson_{June 25, 2013
June
06
Jun
25
25
2013
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT}

Anyway, if you’d like to start a thread to see if we can determine what it is that ID is proposing as the cause of life, that would be great!
Yes, let's do that soon. Feel free to post a longer essay here, and I'll base a thread on it. I'll post your essay at UD in its entirety. Thank you for your comments. I'm sure you've written on the topic before, so feel free to cut and paste. You might be surprised which points I actually might agree. :-) Salscordova_{June 25, 2013
June
06
Jun
25
25
2013
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT}

Hi Sal,
I felt it appropriate to acknowledge a position I disagree with but find respectable. If one will reject ID, reject if for credible reasons. I liked RDFIsh’s reason though I know he and I will likely argue about some of the points some day
Thanks for that, Sal. Again, you are someone who I see following evidence toward conclusions rather than the other way around. And I share your belief that biological systems could not possibly have arisen by the evolutionary means we're familiar with. I find it difficult to find people who will engage in debating issues regarding the meaning of "intelligent cause" in the context of ID. The entire theory boils down to this single term - the sole explanatory construct of ID! - and yet ID proponents are generally loathe to discuss what that term might mean specifically. Anyway, if you'd like to start a thread to see if we can determine what it is that ID is proposing as the cause of life, that would be great! Cheers, RDFishRDFish_{June 25, 2013
June
06
Jun
25
25
2013
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT}

Gordon wrote:
BTW, Sal: I have a partly-written comment on your old post about whether we evolved from fish (short summary: I don’t think you fully understand the reasoning behind the relevant phylogenetic reconstruction; also, even if common descent were replaced by something else there’d still be a case that we should be considered fish). Are you still interested in the topic, or should I skip it?
Very nice to hear from you Gordon. Post it here or in the fish thread or at the bottom of some future thread I author. Very nice to hear from you.scordova_{June 25, 2013
June
06
Jun
25
25
2013
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT}

ForJah: Evolution rests on an unrealistic mechanism..and ID rests on a weak inference.
Agreed!scordova_{June 25, 2013
June
06
Jun
25
25
2013
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT}

LT: Pardon, but these sort of questions have long since been answered substantially so I do not see why you want to suggest that there is no reasonable answer from design theory:
>>(1) a line of text,>> --> If more than 72 ASCII characters in English, past the 500 -bit threshold, at 7 bits per character, per ASCII table. You may wish to refine through particular redundancies in English but this will make no material difference >>(2) a face on Mount Rushmore,>> --> The issue here is to specify as a 3-d list defining tiled triangles in a wireframe, sufficiently precise to be a recognisable portrait of a US President. This is routinely done in 3-d packages and the answer is generally in Mega-bits to dozens of such, well past the 500 - 1,000 bit threshold. >>(3) the Mona Lisa, (4) a reproduction of the Mona Lisa,>> --> First, I just downloaded a small repro from online, 5.57 kBytes, or essentially 45,630 bits. If you would want a replication of the canvas with the detailed 3-d features, that would be much more. But already, we are well past the 500- 1,000 bit threshold. (5) a frog, --> I assume you mean the genome of a frog. "Xenopus tropicalis genome is composed of more than 1.7 billion chemical bases." Multiply by two bits per 4-state base and you have 3.4 * 10^9 bits. Well past the 100 mn threshold that would be typical for a minimalist vertebrate, and well past the 500 - 1,000 bit threshold where the best explanation for that much functionaly specific info, on empirical evidence, is design. >>(6) a DNA segment, and so forth>> --> this is a dna sequence, but the principle is simple that we have 2 bits per base, and you can make various adjustments on redundancy, claimed junk etc etc and it makes no material difference: the only empirically known, analytically [needle in haystack] credible source of such a quantum of FSCO/I is design
And, all of this was either already in hand or close to hand when the objection was raised. I therefore cannot accept that the objection was meant to be other than dismissively manipulative and exploitive of the ill-informed. KFkairosfocus_{June 25, 2013
June
06
Jun
25
25
2013
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

LarTanner, I think some of reasons you listed are respectable, except motivations for a theory. Motivation for proposing a theory is irrelevant to its truthfulness. Kepler proposed celestial mechanics because of his views of music and astrology and theology. The motivation was ultimately irrelevant since it accorded with the empirical facts better. Thank you very much for posting, I think you made credible points otherwise... Salscordova_{June 25, 2013
June
06
Jun
25
25
2013
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT}

Thank you to all for your thoughts, please keep writing. I mentioned Denton, Berlinksi, Sternberg, Davies, Jastrow, and I suppose I could even add Hoyle and Tipler to the list. Their writings influenced me to believe in ID, and Jastrow especially kept me believing in God when I almost left the Christian faith. Then I read Denton and became more convinced of Special Creation than at any other time previously. Then there was Mike Gene who argued the case for ID better than anyone on the internet. But he said he thought the evidence for ID was quite weak. :shock: I find myself accepting ID, but having doubts. Nevertheless looking at the molecular machines in biology, it’s really too hard to believe this was all an accident or the product of mindless material processes. Some might wonder and say, "Sal you argue with anti-ID critics so vigorously as if you are convinced there is no good reason to reject ID." I acknowledge it may seem that way, but what I really argue against are sham arguments against ID. Even supposing ID is ultimately wrong, there is the notion of due process in criticizing a hypothesis, and sham arguments are not part of due process. Sham arguments are: 1. based on misrepresentation 2. based on misreading 3. based on uncharitable interpretations 4. based on equivocation 5. based on non-sequiturs 6. based on circular reasoning 7. based on fabricated data etc. I called out sham argument regarding Irreducible Complexity: mouse trap illustration vs. 3-glasses-3-knives illustration — Irreducible Complexity, Depth of Integration And sham arguments surrounding Spencer’s notion of “survival of the fittest” in Death of the Fittest A good example has been the recent dust-up over 500 coins heads. I took umbrage to what some of TSZ critics said. Some of the criticism were uncharitable at best and wrong at worst. It was jaw dropping to hear some of the debate about 500 coins being all heads. People, myself included, spent hours arguing over the issue. If a critic is going to reject ID, reject it for good reasons, not the sort of sophistry I was hearing over the last few days. The reason I wrote the essay is that, there are many things I think are true, but can't in the strict sense be said to proven as true like a theorem of math proceeding from faith axioms. Mark Frank's comment hit a chord with me when he said he would take ID seriously if he saw the Designer in operation today. I sometimes think that would definitely be the case for my ID heroes like Michael Denton.... I felt it appropriate to acknowledge a position I disagree with but find respectable. If one will reject ID, reject if for credible reasons. I liked RDFIsh's reason though I know he and I will likely argue about some of the points some day:
My reason for rejecting ID isn’t on either of your lists. I believe that to the extent that ID fails to provide an operationalized definition for the term “intelligent cause”, ID’s hypothesis is vacuous; and to the extent ID does provide such a definition, ID’s hypothesis is unsupported by evidence. Cheers, RDFish
As far as KeithS, that's the first time I heard an appeal to Occams razor. I give that one honorable mention for novelty. Thanks for that one, KeithS. With respect to Irreducible Complexity, I can't disagree more. I think IC should be criticized but not for some of the sham reasons coming from Ken Miller or Nick Matzke that relied on falsehoods, equivocations, misrepresentations and circular reasoning. With respect to CSI? I've had mild criticisms of the concept myself. My understanding is Berlinski had some reservations as well. But I say this, if one will criticize CSI, criticize it for the right reasons, not for some of the reasons I've heard Perakh, Shallit, and Elsberry put forward. I can't prove ID to be true in the ultimate sense any more than I can prove God’s existence. I simply accept them. What I feel I can prove is when critics of ID put forward sham criticisms of an ID argument, I can prove the existence of the sham. If a critic will criticize ID, I think it should be done with credible arguments, not sham arguments. I’ve put on the table what I think are respectable reasons for rejecting ID even I don’t personally subscribe to those reasons. IMHO, they at least better reasons than the sham arguments I’ve frequently heard from Dawkins, Matzke and Miller and many others.scordova_{June 25, 2013
June
06
Jun
25
25
2013
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT}

Arthur Hunt's claim is addressed here and found to be wanting: How Arthur Hunt Fails To Refute Behe (T-URF13)- Jonathan M - February 2011 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/on-the-non-evolution-of-irreducible-complexity-how-arthur-hunt-fails-to-refute-behe/ Dr. Hunter's work, and subsequent vitiol from atheists, is referenced here https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/on-the-non-evolution-of-irreducible-complexity-how-arthur-hunt-fails-to-refute-behe/#comment-373010 further note of interest: On the non-evolution of Irreducible Complexity – How Arthur Hunt Fails To Refute Behe Excerpt: furthermore, T-urf 13 involves a kind of degradation of maize. In the case of the Texas maize–hence the T—the T-urf 13 was located by researchers because it was there that the toxin that decimated the corn grown in Texas in the late 60?s attached itself. So the “manufacturing” of this “de novo” gene proved to make the maize less fit. This is in keeping with Behe’s latest findings. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/on-the-non-evolution-of-irreducible-complexity-how-arthur-hunt-fails-to-refute-behe/comment-page-3/#comment-373178bornagain77_{June 25, 2013
June
06
Jun
25
25
2013
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT}

LarTanner, You wrote: "I cannot fathom why some ID proponent doesn’t make a simple table listing the relative FSCO of (1) a line of text, (2) a face on Mount Rushmore, (3) the Mona Lisa, (4) a reproduction of the Mona Lisa, (5) a frog, (6) a DNA segment, and so forth. Wouldn’t such a table be the most handy, compelling, and convincing demonstration that ID theory can work?" For you? No. Why? Because of this: "I could go on, but ID’s problems stand out to all but the cognitively dissonant: a theory that can’t go too deep into its own principles without becoming incoherent; a rationalization of belief that vainly wants the credibility and authority of a science. No one is fooled." The way you've expressed yourself in the second precludes the first from *ever* being a possibility no matter what's offered you. No one is fooled.lpadron_{June 25, 2013
June
06
Jun
25
25
2013
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT}

Arthur Hunt:
The bottom line is that T-urf13 is a new protein, encoded by a gene that has no protein-coding antecedents; it is, bluntly, a new protein that arose “from scratch”, through a series of duplications, recombinations, and other mutations that occurred spontaneously in the course of the breeding process that gave rise to the cmsT line.
1- How was it determined that gene duplications are blind and undirected chemical processes? 2- How was it determined that recombination is a blind and undirected chemical process? IOW, Art, you face the same issues that you have ignored for years.Joe_{June 25, 2013
June
06
Jun
25
25
2013
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT}

Evolution rests on an unrealistic mechanism..and ID rests on a weak inference. The side you chose will ultimately come down to whether you believe in transcient mind of not. In my opinion...as I believe is the opinion of Dr. Berlinski is that we don't even understand how DNA works and what life is...so why are we trying to explain the process by which caused it. What do you mean..."it"?ForJah_{June 25, 2013
June
06
Jun
25
25
2013
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT}

The theory gives no rigor or specificity to the concept of design.
Of course it does.
The theory falls short on defining the concept of an intelligent designer.
ID is about the DESIGN, not the designer. And reality dicatates that in the absence of direct observation or designer input, the only possible way to make any scientific determination about the designer(s) or specific process(es) used, is by studying the design and all relevant evidence.
Religious motivations govern the theory.
Only if interest in reality = religious motivations.
The theory’s inferential argument makes a weak case.
Not when compared with the anti-ID position.Joe_{June 25, 2013
June
06
Jun
25
25
2013
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT}

Lar Tanner...what is interesting is that you provided the same principals by which I dismiss evolutionism. The theory gives no rigor or specificity to the concept of design. If ID can not and does not....than that means when it comes to explaining 'designed" things from your perspective you can not test your mechanism because you can not properly quantify it. The theory falls short on defining the concept of unguided natural selection. How can you test whether a theory is guided or unguided when an intelligence is always the result from said experiments? It also falls short in defining what a species is and lacks demonstratable evidence for the extrapolation from microevolution to macroevolution. Religious motivations govern the theory. Now, I do not mean to say that “EVO is athiesm in a cheap tuxedo” or some glib phrase. Surely, however, most athiestic biologists view the theory’s compatibility with broad atheism as essential. Equally important, EVO proponents despise the holisitic, non-naturalistic view under which much mainstream science could operate— and will operate productively if it is ever considered. Despite the protests of athiestic evolutionists, EVO ultimately boils down to an embarrassed athiesm, an athiesm that wishes not presenting itself as such. This intrinsic duplicity makes neo-darwinism persistently, pervasively suspect. (I'm sure you see what I did here...but I don't hold to it specifically) The theory’s inferential argument makes a weak case. Please show us where the mechanism you suggest for the justification that things merely "appear" to be designed, but really aren't. If you understand ID and EVO then you would understand that the falsfication criteria of one provides the testability of the other. Evolution needs ID and vice versa. How do you test your mechanism if you can not define a species. ID proponents are trying to construct a set of constraints in which to test both evolution and ID...and evolutionists keep destroying it...in essence destroying the testability factor of it's own theory. Therefore we are held in check mate until one of the other side can set up reasonable constraints but that will only come from a larger understanding of large biological questions.ForJah_{June 25, 2013
June
06
Jun
25
25
2013
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT}

The better reasons (i.e., better than those given in the OP) to reject ID include: The theory gives no rigor or specificity to the concept of design. What actions, behaviors, or features fall under the term? How does design differ from pseudo-design? How does ID theory deal with challenges? For instance, if design means something like selecting and arranging materials, then where to these materials come from? Did the designer create these materials? If so, how? When? By what mechanism? The concept of design itself should make the top point of discussion on Uncommon Descent and in ID literature. Although I only casually follow the ID movement, I cannot see that the foundational term gets nearly the attention it should, and this makes a fatal problem for the theory. The theory falls short on defining the concept of an intelligent designer. I understand why ID theorists and proponents resist identifying the designer as a specific being. Yet even without identifying the designer, the theory can and must provide details about what the designer actually did, when, and in what manner. This content makes the central core of the theory, if it hopes to serve as theory. ID addresses primarily the origin of life on Earth: it argues that an intelligent designer created the materials and conditions (at least) for life on Earth to develop into what we see today. The problem here emerges from the creative act. The intelligent designer, as intelligent, must act intentionally and with understanding. Without intentionality and understanding, the descriptor "intelligent" cannot apply. Yet, this means that ID theory must address the designer's intentions and understanding. But ID theory makes no such direct address, for reasons touched upon in item #3, below. Religious motivations govern the theory. Now, I do not mean to say that "ID is creationism in a cheap tuxedo" or some glib phrase. Surely, however, ID proponents view the theory's compatibility with broad theism as essential. Equally important, ID proponents despise the monistic, naturalistic view under which much mainstream science operates -- and has operated productively at that. Despite the protests of ID proponents, ID ultimately boils down to an embarrassed creationism, a creationism that wishes not present itself as such. This intrinsic duplicity makes ID persistently, pervasively suspect. The theory's inferential argument makes a weak case. ID proponents argue that the warrant for ID comes from seeing intelligent design in other aspects of the world. Information, or functionally specific complex information (FSCO), serves as the critical concept here -- we only see and know intelligent agents to have the capability to create FSCO, therefore we have sufficient justification to believe that an intelligent agent created life on Earth. Assuming I represent the argument correctly, as I have tried, the non-sequitur from creating FSCO to creating life seems obvious. What's more, how does one measure the FSCO of a thing -- biological or man-made -- consistently? How does FSCO get created or destroyed? Both of these questions require unambiguous answers,. Although regulars at Uncommon Descent insist that ID proponents have shown ad nauseum how to measure FSCO, I would prefer to see a single, downloadable article focused on just this topic and nothing else. I cannot fathom why some ID proponent doesn't make a simple table listing the relative FSCO of (1) a line of text, (2) a face on Mount Rushmore, (3) the Mona Lisa, (4) a reproduction of the Mona Lisa, (5) a frog, (6) a DNA segment, and so forth. Wouldn't such a table be the most handy, compelling, and convincing demonstration that ID theory can work? How can ID proponents talk about FSCO and its creation/destruction without pointing to a document or reference where FSCO calculations abound for designed and not-designed things? To be useful, ID theory's main inference ought to have unambiguous support from data; until ID proponents can point challengers and onlookers to independent data that supporting use of the design inference in the domain of origins of life, ID theory remains practically useless in that area. I could go on, but ID's problems stand out to all but the cognitively dissonant: a theory that can't go too deep into its own principles without becoming incoherent; a rationalization of belief that vainly wants the credibility and authority of a science. No one is fooled. Cross-posted here.LarTanner_{June 25, 2013
June
06
Jun
25
25
2013
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT}

Recently, I heard a minister speak about the origins of man. He asked if it really mattered what one believed, whether intelligent design, creation, creationism, or evolution. I was reminded of the words of evolutionist William B. Provine: “What we have learned about the evolutionary process has enormous implications for us, affecting our sense of meaning in life.” His conclusion? “I can see no cosmic or ultimate meaning in human life.” Consider the significance of those words. If ultimate meaning in life were nonexistent, then you would have no purpose in living other than to try to do some measure of good and perhaps pass on your genetic traits to the next generation. At death, you would cease to exist forever. Your brain, with its ability to think, reason, and meditate on the meaning of life, would simply be an accident of nature. That is not all. Many who believe in evolution assert that God does not exist or that he will not intervene in human affairs. In either case, our future would rest in the hands of political, academic, and religious leaders. Judging from the past record of such men, the chaos, conflict, and corruption that blight human society would continue. If, indeed, evolution were true, there would seem to be ample reason to live by the fatalistic motto: “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we are to die.”—1 Corinthians 15:32. By contrast, the Bible teaches: “With [God] is the source of life.” (Psalm 36:9) Those words have profound implications.Barb_{June 25, 2013
June
06
Jun
25
25
2013
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT}

Can someone explain to me what anti-ID people mean when they say mechanism? I don't understand the argument against ID. Can someone help me? Define mechanism and then please, in detial, explain what you mean by ID lacks a mechanism?ForJah_{June 25, 2013
June
06
Jun
25
25
2013
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT}

keiths:
We have no independent evidence that the designer exists, and in any case the evidence is far more favorable to the hypothesis of unguided evolution
You did NOT provide a testable hypothesis for unguided evolution. BTW ID includes the OoL and unguided evolution does not. So you lose, right at the OoL.Joe_{June 25, 2013
June
06
Jun
25
25
2013
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT}

GD:
- Common Descent. I agree with Sal that this (in and of itself) isn’t a reason to reject ID, but it does mean that life has been subject to the various processes of evolution. Thus, the question is not evolution vs. ID, it’s evolution vs. evolution+ID. While you might view ID alone as simpler than evolution alone, evolution+ID is clearly a more complicated explanation than either alone.
Please prodcue a testable hypothesis for unguided evolution producing,s ay, multi-protein configurations.
- The mechanism of ID hasn’t been adequately explained, meaning that even if the question was evolution vs. ID, it’d be a evolution-via-a-well-worked-out-and-demonstrated-mechanism vs. ID-by-direct-creation-or-maybe-frontloading-or-maybe-guided-mutation-or-maybe-active-information-in-the-fitness-function-or-maybe… IMO if you want ID to really be a competitor to evolution, you really need to switch from the design detection approach to something that actually gets into producing testable theories of mechanisms. Until that happens, ID won’t be able to offer a serious alternative to evolution.
Yet you cannot offer a testable theory for your prposed mechanisms of accumulations of genetic accidents. Heck we don't even know how they designed and built Stonehenge and that is much more simple than a living organism.
There hasn’t been evidence that you find convincing that natural selection is up to the task.
There isn't any, period.
But since there hasn’t been any evidence that I find convincing that natural selection (+ mutation) isn’t up to the task, I don’t consider this a significant point.
Umm natural selection incudes mutation- random mutation. And it is very telling that you cannot produce any evidence that natural slection can do anything. IOW your bluff is called, what will you do?Joe_{June 25, 2013
June
06
Jun
25
25
2013
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT}

Graham2:
I agree with Keiths here: The main problem with a designer/god/whatever is that it is such a gross violation of Occhams razor. And as soon as either one of you produces some positive evidence to support your claim, people will listen to you. However seeing that you can't even produce a testable hypothesis for your position I would say you have quite a bit of work to do.
Joe_{June 25, 2013
June
06
Jun
25
25
2013
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT}

keiths:
I would be remiss if I didn’t mention my number one reason for rejecting ID: It is literally trillions of times worse at explaining the evidence when compared to unguided evolution.
LoL! That has already been shown to be pure drivel. For one Theobald does NOT say his evidence supports unguided evolution. And seeing that your entire case rests on Theobald, you lose.Joe_{June 25, 2013
June
06
Jun
25
25
2013
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT}

Earth to Arthur Hunt- TURF-13 is NOT an IC system. It is only ONE component. And it arose because of artificial selection. You lose, again.Joe_{June 25, 2013
June
06
Jun
25
25
2013
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT}

There is no good reason to reject ID. ID is a fact - humans employ it. We directly experience ID. ID cannot be rejected upon pain of absurdity. ID is accepted (even if not under that name) in many scientific disciplines - notably, forensics and archaeology. SETI is searching for signs of non-human ID. Even if we do not know the designer, ID is at least intuitively imposed as explanation for many things - including, for example, crop circles. There may be good reason to reject ID as an explanation for certain phenomena, the only reason to reject ID entirely, and fight against it tooth and nail, and refuse even the most trivial and obvious concessions, is ideological bias and Darwinist Derangement Syndrome.William J Murray_{June 25, 2013
June
06
Jun
25
25
2013
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT}

I have not read the entire thread, due to time pressures, so forgive me if this is redundant. I am irked by the appeal to Occam's Razor. Here specifically, as well as, in general. It was intended as a tie breaker. That is, it should only be invoked when there are NO compelling reasons to select one explanation over another. In addition, it is extremely subjective. One person's compelling is another's trivial. On top of that, there is no reason, no law, that the more complicated explanation is not,in fact, the correct explanation. With all that, in my opinion Occam's Razor is quite dull. StephenSteRusJon_{June 25, 2013
June
06
Jun
25
25
2013
04:03 AM
4
04
03
AM
PDT}

scordova You are a bit naive. Don't you doubt that the "inspirators" of your article, you thank, want to use you to destroy ID, indeed at UD? In fact, your "good reasons to reject ID" are actually bad, as others IDers already noted. (1) "A good reason to reject ID is the absence of seeing the Intelligent Designer in operation today." The Being is always "in operation". Otherwise you could not even have your next breath. (2) "Lack of direct experiments." Goto #1. (3) "Belief that some future mechanism might be discovered." A "mechanism" creating CSI is an oxymoron, because CSI is not mechanical. This grants us that no mechanism will be discovered in the future.niwrad_{June 25, 2013
June
06
Jun
25
25
2013
03:45 AM
3
03
45
AM
PDT}

@Graham2:
If there was even the slightest direct evidence for a great spirit in the sky, I would be interested, but so far, none.
Please have a look at: The Bible - A Bood From God. For me the prophecies did the job.JWTruthInLove_{June 25, 2013
June
06
Jun
25
25
2013
03:40 AM
3
03
40
AM
PDT}

WJM Exactly. Just like they have hijacked, tolerance, liberty, logic, reason, and science. Here is my pet grieve with the materialist, they use the immaterial to argue that the immaterial does not exist. And they don't even see their own contradiction..... but you better believe them when they say they are right and you are stupid!Andre_{June 25, 2013
June
06
Jun
25
25
2013
03:22 AM
3
03
22
AM
PDT}

One wonders why a materialist would assume that nature would be more accurately explained via the more simple, or elegant, explanation? That is a design-based assumption from a Franciscan friar and Theologian. There is no non-theological reason for "whatever happens to exist" to be elegantly explicable. Occam's Razor is yet another theological concept stolen by materialists that is not supportable via their own ideology.William J Murray_{June 25, 2013
June
06
Jun
25
25
2013
03:18 AM
3
03
18
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply