The various positions in a nutshell

_{September 19, 2010

Intelligent Design}

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

Help me out here: are these simple but accurate descriptions of where each school of thought stands?

(a) Naturalism (evolutionism) says that matter just happens to have the properties to sometimes spontaneously lead to life, life that can improve itself through evolution.

(b) Theistic evolution says that God designed matter to have the properties to sometimes spontaneously lead to life, life that can improve itself through evolution.

(c) Intelligent design says that matter does not have the properties to spontaneously lead to life, and that it is entirely unclear whether life can improve itself through evolution. It is more likely, perhaps even evident, that evolution can make, at most, only minor changes.

Does this briefly describe each school of thought? Are there other schools of thought other than nuances of these positions? Let me know where you agree or disagree.

Comments

ellazimm (#22): That's exactly what I do every day. And please, have your dinner... I'll happily wait for you :).gpuccio_{September 20, 2010
September
09
Sep
20
20
2010
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT}

ellazimm: ID has never declared "game over". I think it is the other side which ahs been trying to declare that the game is over, at least for what regards the ID theory. Indeed, what they state is that there has never been any game! For us in ID, the game is alive, and beautiful. I would never want darwinian theory to be banned from scientific thought. What I do want is ID to be accepted as a viable scientific theory, and for the game to go on brilliantly and beautifully. There is nothing like intellectual confrontation, even with a wrong and disappointing theory. :)gpuccio_{September 20, 2010
September
09
Sep
20
20
2010
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT}

gpuccio (@19) replace quickly with more specific language and make sure you're sure of 'without any possible gradual mechanisms'; tack that assertion to your mast and wait and see what the research shows. AND, keep up with the current research, go to conferences, participate in the biological community, argue your case, acknowledge new results, etc. Let's see where things stand in a few years. IF someone doesn't already have data to uphold or knock down your assertion already. That's the way it works!! Really have to eat now!! Family time. Yeah!!ellazimm_{September 20, 2010
September
09
Sep
20
20
2010
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT}

ellazimm: Find something in the physical evidence that clearly contradicts the current model? Not just that something is improbable or highly unlikely but not possible. Something that cuts to the heart of the model. That a mechanism which requires random variation at its core is shown to be so improbable as to be empirically impossible does cut to the heart of the model. Absolutely it does. A good physicist has 10 new ideas every day and 9 and a half of them are wrong. Yes, but what if all of them are wrong? :) Well, indeed i am not saying that biologists'ideas are all wrong! Many of them are very good. But the point is: what if the general scenario which is universally assumed as true, is really completely wrong? The, even good ideas, while still useful, will be forced into that wrong scenario, and lose much of their revelatory strength. Unless and until, obviously, some people choose to openly analyze and criticize the assumed scenario, and show that it is wrong...gpuccio_{September 20, 2010
September
09
Sep
20
20
2010
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT}

UB (@17) Physics not being able to answer now does not mean it won't be able to later. Our limited understanding of the rules does not imply impossibility. :-) gpuccio (@18) I'd just like to have some indication of what the point is, if there is one. I certainly agree with being patient. Difficult issues take lots of time to tease out. As my mathematical mentor said: All the easy problems were dealt with hundreds of years ago, all the difficult problems were taken care of in the last couple of hundred years, all the really hard issues were handled in the last 100 years; all we have left are the seemingly impossible problems. It takes time. And I don't think anyone on any side of the issue should be declaring GAME OVER. It's way too early. We all want to follow the evidence but we have to be very sure which way it is pointing. :-) DINNER!! :-)ellazimm_{September 20, 2010
September
09
Sep
20
20
2010
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT}

ellazimm: That’s the kind of thing ID needs. A clear, solid prediction of what the ID paradigm implies. You need a framework to hang the ideas on. ID makes predictions. And very simple observations about facts. Here is an observation and a related prediction which I have made many times here: a) The functional information in basic protein domain families is a set of thousands of unrelated functional islands in the search space of protein sequences. b) The more we know about the proteome, and about its natural history, the more we will acknowledge that those island of functionality emerged quickly and without any possible gradual mechanisms based on RV and NS. No "non design" mechanism will ever be able to explain those "jumps" in information. They are evidence for design. And the more the details we acquire, the more that will be incontrovertible.gpuccio_{September 20, 2010
September
09
Sep
20
20
2010
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT}

Some comments: Gage: As many have remarked, your definitions are quite good, but ID includes the important inference that a specific type of information, such as it is observed in biological genomes and proteomes, points to a process well known to us as conscious intelligent design, and therefore to a conscious intelligent cause. johnnyb: d) pantheism (and also its close cousin, panentheism), which states that matter is itself spiritual, and therefore can create life because it is already living. A good book describing this is Swimme and Berry’s The Universe Story. Very true. But, from an ID perspective, that is compatible with ID, provided that "matter", or whatever immanent principle we are referring to, is conscious and intelligent. Otherwise, we are again to the impossibility of it acting as a cause of biological information. ellazimm: That’s a lot of work over a very, very long period of time. Correct. It certainly is. I’m curious though: if the designer had highly intelligent life in mind (us?) from the get-go why go through billions of years of development? Why waste all that time and effort? Probably the designer is not lazy. And he likes it this way. Most of the value of an achievement is in the work to obtain it. If it is that way for us, why not for the designer? And probably, the whole result is more beautiful that way. And why do you think that the designer's efforts are "wasted"? Maybe he is achieving something very worthwhile, in the end. Is it safe to assume this being is still active or at least paying attention? Are they any ‘modern’ examples of s/he/it’s continued involvement? Personally, I do think he is very active, and in many different ways. Probably, also as a designer of life. But we have to be patient. Our window of observation is not very big, in chronological terms, and we must be very attentive, and humble, in interpreting what we see. And, after all, the same problem is valid for those who believe in darwinian mechanisms.gpuccio_{September 20, 2010
September
09
Sep
20
20
2010
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT}

Ella, We've found the cambrian rabbit; it is the presence of meaningful information instatiated into matter. Physics cannot answer.Upright BiPed_{September 20, 2010
September
09
Sep
20
20
2010
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT}

UB: Find something in the physical evidence that clearly contradicts the current model? Not just that something is improbable or highly unlikely but not possible. Something that cuts to the heart of the model. I think what does happen everyday in evolution research is that smaller, narrower hypotheses are proposed and 'tested' in that evidence is looked for to see if the idea holds up. Testing the whole thing in one shot would be tough for sure. But finding a modern rabbit in the Jurrasic layers . . . . you've heard those arguments many times before. I think a lot of evolutionary scientists think up new ideas, talk to their colleagues about them, give talks at conferences, take some lumps from their peers, refine their guesses, look for evidence and, if they're lucky, find something new that stands up. But most of the new steps are very small and incremental. And I think that lots of new ideas ARE refuted before they really see the light of day and are never published because they are wrong. Can't remember which physicist said it (about physics) and I'll have to paraphrase: A good physicist has 10 new ideas every day and 9 and a half of them are wrong. But the general notion is good: think up stuff, throw out the stuff that doesn't stand up, revise your thoughts and move on. And much of that process takes place in collegial forums so we don't see it. After 5pm in England, time for dinner!!!ellazimm_{September 20, 2010
September
09
Sep
20
20
2010
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT}

SCheesman: 37,000 years? I must look up that passage. It's been too long since I read the New Testament. New International Version: 8But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. Well, s/he/it is much better at multi-tasking than I am I guess!!ellazimm_{September 20, 2010
September
09
Sep
20
20
2010
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT}

ella, "If ID gave us a concrete, testable, verifiable hypothesis then we could check that." How would one test if the opposite is true? What is the test that verifies that purely unguided forces are all there is at work in the cosmos?Upright BiPed_{September 20, 2010
September
09
Sep
20
20
2010
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT}

Elizim:
I’m curious though: if the designer had highly intelligent life in mind (us?) from the get-go why go through billions of years of development? Why waste all that time and effort?
In fact, to God, it just seemed like 37,000 years. (2 Peter 3:8) :)SCheesman_{September 20, 2010
September
09
Sep
20
20
2010
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT}

Propentist: That conclusion will be much more likely to be accepted if some more details are determined. But if the designer IS some incredibly powerful alien then science won't change. People who propose that the mind/soul survives death are trying to make a similar argument: we know it does, why don't the rest of you accept it? Well, until some mechanism/measurable result is discerned or even just hypothesised then people like me are going to stick with the existing paradigms which, while not necessarily completely understood, do give us something to work with. And something to study and test. But just saying the soul exists without at least guessing in what kind of form does it exist, where does it 'live' after death and how does it 'communicate' with the brain and body, there's nothing to work with. At least the guys who claimed to have measured a change in weight of a dying person had something that could be checked. If ID gave us a concrete, testable, verifiable hypothesis then we could check that. Some proponents seem to be edging towards suggesting that, in the end, there will be no 'junk' DNA. (It's a messy issue and the terms must be clearly defined.) Well, that's a prediction that hopefully will eventually be verified or shot down. That's the kind of thing ID needs. A clear, solid prediction of what the ID paradigm implies. You need a framework to hang the ideas on.ellazimm_{September 20, 2010
September
09
Sep
20
20
2010
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT}

Seems good to me, except that c. for Intelligent Design wouldn't just be the negative definition but that there is an intelligent and/or sentient source, and for life on earth specifically. No reason to quibble about that, just put it right out there, in my layman but not humble opinion. The only argument against this more forthright definition would be "but what if there's something that isn't conceived of yet between intelligence and matter?" Science doesn't need to get that ridiculous, and doesn't in any other area. It's there to do a job, not to revel in it's own pandering obnoxiousness.lamarck_{September 20, 2010
September
09
Sep
20
20
2010
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT}

Could anyone clarify the differences among theistic evolution, front loading and the anthropic principal. I've see all of these defended here. Is Michael Denton (Nature's Destiny) a theistic evolutionist?Petrushka_{September 20, 2010
September
09
Sep
20
20
2010
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT}

(c) Intelligent design says that matter does not have the properties to spontaneously lead to life, and that it is entirely unclear whether life can improve itself through evolution. It is more likely, perhaps even evident, that evolution can make, at most, only minor changes.
While this is mostly true of the ID position, it's not a satisfactory definition of ID. I would change it something more like this:
(c) Intelligent design says that matter, natural laws, or a combination of the two does not have the properties to spontaneously lead to life, but immaterial intelligence can do the job. The effects of this intelligence are detectable to the scientific method.
Just a rough idea.tragic mishap_{September 20, 2010
September
09
Sep
20
20
2010
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT}

My comments - a) I think this is reasonable, if you can define "improve" appropriately. b) This sounds accurate to me, but I'm not a TE; actually it sounds more like Deistic Evolution. c) My understanding is that this is one strand of ID, but others could be closer to (a) or (b), with the caveat that sometimes a designer might intervene. Front-loading is, to my understanding, a form of evolution (albeit different from the one accepted by the biological community).Heinrich_{September 20, 2010
September
09
Sep
20
20
2010
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT}

"CannuckianYankee" (#6) wrote: "You seemed to be agreeing with ID, which is not in your nature." Not necessarily - I'm just trying to hold it to its own (hopefully) internally consistent description. "The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause..." So is there any agreement among ID theoreticians what the "certain features of the universe" are? What is included and what is excluded? Similarly, for "certain features...of living things" - what is included and what is excluded? All features? Only a few features? Which ones? Or do you even know - or agree - which ones? Gage, are you limiting your description of ID to life (only)? Or does ID's "official" description limit itself to life (only), and to "certain features" (only - but which ones?) of life?PaulBurnett_{September 20, 2010
September
09
Sep
20
20
2010
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT}

I’m curious though: if the designer had highly intelligent life in mind (us?) from the get-go why go through billions of years of development? Why waste all that time and effort?
When we ask questions about the designer, they can be re-stated somewhat like this: "Since the evidence indicates that the design that we observe in nature was caused by some intelligence, then what can be know about the Designer?" So, the first part of that statement concedes or accepts that there is evidence of Intelligent Design. "Ok, ID exists ... now what?" That's a very good question, but let's start with the culture change that must result from the acceptance of ID. What does that do to the academic world? Then, does the existence of Intelligent Design mesh with philosophical constructs on the existence of God? If so, then those constructs are strengthened. But ID itself has a more modest goal -- and that is to show the reasonableness of the minimal statement: "there is evidence of intelligent design in nature".
What if the designer is not God? Would it be a theological/religious question then? Does that mean we have to figure out who the designer is first?
If the designer is part of the physical universe, then it would still be a scientific question. If the designer transcends the physical/material, then it's philosophical/theological. This assumes that the current Western-scientific paradigm of methodological naturalism for science remains in place after the widespread acceptance of ID. It could change and the study of immaterial being could be included in science also.
If ID is going to have explanatory power then at some point it must address these issues or else the hypothesis is just going to be: some mysterious being modified life on earth billions of times over billions of years but we don’t know why or how or when exactly or what it’s purpose was.
True, but we shouldn't underestimate the power of that conclusion. It will cause a revolution in science and open up many new areas of discovery that we can't predict today.Proponentist_{September 20, 2010
September
09
Sep
20
20
2010
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT}

Kyrilluk (@5) I've tried talking to God but s/he/it never returns my calls. Have you tried asking? What if the designer is not God? Would it be a theological/religious question then? Does that mean we have to figure out who the designer is first? Anyway, we can ask human intelligent designers why they did things certain ways, why not ask ID's intelligent designer the same things? If ID is going to have explanatory power then at some point it must address these issues or else the hypothesis is just going to be: some mysterious being modified life on earth billions of times over billions of years but we don't know why or how or when exactly or what it's purpose was. That might impart a feel good factor for some but it doesn't really say much.ellazimm_{September 20, 2010
September
09
Sep
20
20
2010
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT}

This video may be of great interest to the topic and to readers in general: Agnostic David Berlinski debates atheist Christopher Hitchens on "Does Atheism Poison Everything?" Sept. 7, 2010 http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/id/232872bornagain77_{September 20, 2010
September
09
Sep
20
20
2010
05:04 AM
5
05
04
AM
PDT}

OT, but I wanted to adress: PaulBurnett, When I first read your post I was astonished. You seemed to be agreeing with ID, which is not in your nature. :) However, after reading it again, I noticed what you were referring to with this: "Carping about evolution is not part of intelligent design’s definition." It was this: "Intelligent design says that matter does not have the properties to spontaneously lead to life, and that it is entirely unclear whether life can improve itself through evolution. It is more likely, perhaps even evident, that evolution can make, at most, only minor changes." Well I would ask you to hold on there. Intelligent Design needs to deal with issues from what is opposed to the theory in order to make the strongest argument. After all, this is what Darwinism attempts to do. In fact, Darwinism is a contrary argument to natural theology and William Paley's design argument. Therefore, it makes sense that if we're going to present a positive case that ID (as you say) "is the theory that the natural world shows signs of having been designed by a purposeful, intelligent cause," that we counter the arguments, which deny this. Besides this, you're definition is incomplete: "The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion." And further, the OP did not posit a "definition" of ID, but a "description." The OP's description of what ID says is perfectly in keeping with the definition above.CannuckianYankee_{September 20, 2010
September
09
Sep
20
20
2010
01:34 AM
1
01
34
AM
PDT}

<cite?I’m curious though: if the designer had highly intelligent life in mind (us?) from the get-go why go through billions of years of development? Why waste all that time and effort? This is theological question. I would tell you: why don't you ask God? You seems to care very much about whales being extinct but what make you think that the creator has the same concern? Do you weep when you bake a cake or when you prepare yourself a salade because you throw away stuff that you won't eat? As Human, 1 billions years is long period. Why should it be the case for the creator?Kyrilluk_{September 20, 2010
September
09
Sep
20
20
2010
12:54 AM
12
12
54
AM
PDT}

So, (c) means that at some unspecified time in the past some being introduced life on earth and that every single 'major' morphological change we see in the fossil record was an example of this being (or beings I suppose) modifying existing designs. And that many of these designs were allowed to die off and be supplanted by other designs. All (or most) of the dinosaurs were killed off and not brought back after millions of years of existence. All the precursors to modern whales were deemed unworthy. And this was all done leaving no physical evidence aside from fossils, complex specified information in DNA sequences (including the presence of endogenous retro-viruses and widely varying number of chromosomes), eyes of many different types and levels of complexity, many different blood clotting sequences, male nipples, remnants of leg structures in whales, ebola, malaria, small pox, leprosy, HIV, anthrax, cancer (well, that could just be particular mechanisms going rouge), yellow fever, polio, measles, whooping cough, mumps, etc. All the fossils geographically distributed so that some 'types' only appear in certain locations. That's a lot of work over a very, very long period of time. I'm curious though: if the designer had highly intelligent life in mind (us?) from the get-go why go through billions of years of development? Why waste all that time and effort? Is it safe to assume this being is still active or at least paying attention? Are they any 'modern' examples of s/he/it's continued involvement?ellazimm_{September 19, 2010
September
09
Sep
19
19
2010
11:00 PM
11
11
00
PM
PDT}

Intelligent design is the theory that the natural world shows signs of having been designed by a purposeful, intelligent cause. Defining anything by only saying what it is not is unfair and incomplete. Carping about evolution is not part of intelligent design's definition. And intelligent design is not limited to life sciences. ID has major implications not only for chemistry and physics but cosmology as well. Keep in mind that 99.999999+ per cent of the intelligently designed universe is extremely hostile to life - most of the universe is hard vacuum, and most of the rest is stars.PaulBurnett_{September 19, 2010
September
09
Sep
19
19
2010
08:02 PM
8
08
02
PM
PDT}

I don't know exactly where this video, I recently loaded, ties in since you did not list Theism as its own class to counterbalance naturalism/materialism, but it may add some food for thought: The Big Bang and the God of the Bible - Henry Schaefer PhD. http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5222493bornagain77_{September 19, 2010
September
09
Sep
19
19
2010
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PDT}

d) pantheism (and also its close cousin, panentheism), which states that matter is itself spiritual, and therefore can create life because it is already living. A good book describing this is Swimme and Berry's The Universe Story. Basically, take what we think of as being an "agent", and impute it onto matter itself. In all honestly, much of evolutionary theory already uses this language, but usually with the qualification that they are merely speaking in metaphor. Nonetheless, Jerry Fodor pointed out that there is a difference between "selection" and "selection for", with the latter implying a teleological component. Fodor said that biologists were correct to use the phrase "selection for", but incorrect to attribute this to Darwin's theory, which has no concept of "selection for", but only "selection". When described explicitly, it is actually somewhat of an ID position. The difference between this and traditional ID is that ID tends to make distinctions between agents and physical entities, while this essentially states that all matter has some form of agent-like properties.johnnyb_{September 19, 2010
September
09
Sep
19
19
2010
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply