What Are The Top Five Myths About Intelligent Design?

_{Denyse O'Leary

October 24, 2012

News}

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

My friend Melissa Travis just posted this excellent blog post dissecting five of the top misconceptions about intelligent design. She writes,

There are few things more frustrating than hearing the same tired old myths and misconceptions over and over again, particularly when they directly relate to the subject you’ve devoted your education and career to. Intelligent Design theory suffers this plight, even at the hands of Christians who freely criticize it without doing their homework. In this short post, I would like to list and comment upon the untruths I hear most frequently.

Click here to continue reading!

Comments

And the number two myth about intelligent design is? ID can't be refuted.Mung_{November 12, 2012
November
11
Nov
12
12
2012
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT}

And the number one myth about intelligent design is? ID has been refuted.Mung_{November 10, 2012
November
11
Nov
10
10
2012
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT}

Gregory,
WHO or WHAT is ‘recording’ the so-called ‘information’?
The organism transferring that information. Otherwise, it could not be transferred.
I am speaking beyond the ‘material level,’ UB. Aren’t you trying to do the same?
Not particularly. It is an analysis of a material system. The observations are appropriate to the subject under review.
Score!
If you are going to attempt to refute the argument I've alluded to, you will lose that contest. Feel free to place your silly remarks wherever they might provide you some relief.Upright BiPed_{October 31, 2012
October
10
Oct
31
31
2012
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT}

"any instance of recorded information, regardless of its source or function" - UB WHO or WHAT is 'recording' the so-called 'information'? Score! I am speaking beyond the 'material level,' UB. Aren't you trying to do the same?Gregory_{October 31, 2012
October
10
Oct
31
31
2012
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT}

Gregory,
Big difference, splinter the ‘wedge’ with human-made vs. non-human-made. Score!
Again, your human-made vs non-human-made demarcation is false at the material level. The transfer of any instance of recorded information, regardless of its source or function, demonstrates that the same (sufficient and necessary) material conditions have been placed on matter. You are unable to refute this observation.Upright BiPed_{October 31, 2012
October
10
Oct
31
31
2012
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT}

Gregory:
Gregory, Ph.D. (title written to follow the appeals to authority in Melissa’s Blog cited)
There were no appeals to authority in her blog. So there's some other agenda at work here, one in which fact don't appear to matter.Mung_{October 31, 2012
October
10
Oct
31
31
2012
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT}

Gregory @152, 154:
In case this helps: Topic 1) design theory (repeat: I was recently at a major international conference with 1400 people on THIS topic, not the following); Topic 2) Intelligent Design Theory. At odds of 1400-to-1, should we believe Eric Anderson’s ‘no difference’ aka ‘let’s conflate them’ opinion?
Please don't misrepresent what I said. I have never said that intelligent design covers all aspects of design and that it answers or even attempts to address all aspects of design. Indeed, I was quite clear that ID theory addresses only a very limited aspect of design, namely the initial design inference. What I have said is that ID is applicable across fields (remember, we were talking about things like SETI, archaeology, etc.). ID deals with a very basic question of design detection. That aspect is applicable whether we are talking about human design, aliens, some life-force, whatever. And it is applicable across different technologies and fields. It doesn't matter whether 1400 people showed up at a design conference or 14 million. That is wonderful. As I said, it sounds like a neat conference. The fact that the people in attendance were talking about design in a more general sense, the fact that intelligent design did not come up during the conference, has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of whether ID is applicable to human design or technology. Let's cut to the chase and make this very simple: ID asks the following question: Is it possible to detect whether something was designed, even if we do not have direct knowledge about its historical origin? What aspect of this straight-forward question do you think is inapplicable to human design, or SETI, or archaeology, or any other kind of designed system? What aspect of this question is limited to OOL or origin of the universe? You still have not provided any basis for your statement that the design inference doesn't apply broadly -- other than pointing out that if we talk to people on the street they tend to think about OOL-and-such when they hear the term "intelligent design." Look, I agree that when most people hear the term "intelligent design" they think about the origin of the universe and the origin and development of life. That is natural, as that is the area that has received the most attention, and is the area of application of the design inference that is the most interesting for lots of people. This is not a failing of ID. This is not a "problem" for ID, contra your suggestion. And it certainly doesn't mean that the design inference is inapplicable to objects and systems designed by humans. ----- I think it is great that you are aware of public perception. I also applaud your efforts to put forth a new theory that extends things further; I'll click on your name and check it out. Let me also be clear that I have no reason to view you as an enemy, and have never viewed you as such.Eric Anderson_{October 31, 2012
October
10
Oct
31
31
2012
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT}

Evidence for 'design' is plenty (1400 recently sighted!). But not (natural scientific, read: naturalistic) evidence for 'Intelligent Design' Theory. Big difference, splinter the 'wedge' with human-made vs. non-human-made. Score! "I am right here." - Upright Biped Where are you, again? Behind a pseudonym at Uncommon Descent and nowhere else? Do tell if otherwise. I did that. Discovery Institute suggested it, but I'd already done it. Again, well ahead of you.Gregory_{October 31, 2012
October
10
Oct
31
31
2012
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT}

Gregory, I am not the one forced to jump from one subject to another while I ignore material evidence. Nor, when speaking of you, am I forced to invent the basis of my comments. At least you have the good sense not to take on the evidence on its front. If you ever feel otherwise, I am right here.Upright BiPed_{October 31, 2012
October
10
Oct
31
31
2012
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT}

Upright Biped, No idea what a ‘desirous self-promoter’ is. As someone who can’t see beyond the notion of ‘Intelligent Design’ (Big-ID) and who thus needs to hide themselves (pseudonymously) because of it, that is an understandable position for you to take. My ‘sales pitch’ doesn’t need the term ‘design.’ I’ve graduated from that narrow “very limited inquiry” IDM position. Maybe you should follow that fruitful pathway too. GregoryGregory_{October 31, 2012
October
10
Oct
31
31
2012
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT}

Gregory, As a desirous self-promoter, if you were well ahead of me you wouldn't have so eagerly scoffed at the fact that all living things must record and transfer information in matter. Further, you wouldn't have to run from integrating the implications of this observation into your sales pitch. Nor would you present a 'difference in kind' as a relevant distinction.Upright BiPed_{October 31, 2012
October
10
Oct
31
31
2012
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT}

"BTW, out of genuine curiosity, what is this serious alternative to ID you have in mind? I presume you’re not referring to the Universal Design website you linked to?" - Eric No, I'm not. That was just an interesting recent acquaintance. Eric, the serious alternative has been called 'neo-id' but has another more important name that clearly distinguishes it from the 'designism' of the IDM. If you follow the links on my name, it won't be hard to find. Extend yourself! Just yesterday I added a paper recently published that challenges evolutionary theory in a way that George Gilder and the IDM don't (yet) recognise. Look at "how people make use of evolution...and question if at times its meaning is exaggerated." Please hear with your heart what an opponent is and what a friend might be. Painting me with an 'enemy' brush just because I studied carefully and reject IDT won't lead to a peaceful solution.Gregory_{October 31, 2012
October
10
Oct
31
31
2012
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT}

UB, "only a human can record information in matter" That's an interesting way to suggest it. As a person who believes human beings differ in KIND, rather than just in DEGREE from (other) animals and machines, you might be surprised where we agree. The rest of your claim has no anchor in reality and the 'informationism' rampant in IDism is duly noted. Well ahead of you, - Turtle Gr.Gregory_{October 31, 2012
October
10
Oct
31
31
2012
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT}

Eric, The tone doesn’t bother me, only the failure to listen and to answer direct questions. “I don’t give a hoot about whatever sociological impression you claim most folks have when they hear about ID.” – Eric Well, I spoke about people using the term ‘design’ and you jumped immediately to ‘ID.’ There’s a noteworthy difference between ‘design’ and Intelligent Design Theory(ID) that you’re trying hard for whatever reason to conflate. In case this helps: Topic 1) design theory (repeat: I was recently at a major international conference with 1400 people on THIS topic, not the following); Topic 2) Intelligent Design Theory. At odds of 1400-to-1, should we believe Eric Anderson’s ‘no difference’ aka 'let's conflate them' opinion? For the 3rd time: Can you please confirm or deny that you are suggesting the “very straight-forward, everyday, common-sense use of the word ‘design’” is about OoL, OoBI or human origins? It’s a simple yes or no question. Please read #131 for what you initiated regarding ‘design’ as a ‘sociological construct.’ This was your appeal to the “very straight-forward, everyday, common-sense use of the word ‘design’.” That is a sociological contention, one I don’t think you can give evidence for because I don’t think it’s true. Because you got called out on your make-believe IDist assumption (about what MOST PEOPLE think when they hear the term ‘design’), now there’s tension between us. So be it. And this would be very, very, very easy to TEST. Simply walk out on the street, no context or prompting involved, and ask people a question: What do you think about when you hear the word ‘design’? Would you seriously bet your house that in response to this question more than a very small minority think about OoL, OoBI and/or human origins?! If so, perhaps your neighbourhood is a vastly different society than mine. ID leaders mean OoL, OoBI (and most recently) human origins when they say ID. Just look at the images on the cover of ID books, if you are unconvinced. Theme alert! Why try to pretend 'human design' is part of ID leaders' main focus, as if 'designers' *can* be studied when ID leaders clearly say they can't? There is no conspiracy here, Eric, and no negative tone. Just a message from someone who has studied Intelligent Design Theory both from inside (e.g. I attended the DI's intensive Summer Program for students in Seattle) and outside the IDM for over a decade and who has published about Intelligent Design more than anyone posting on UD. What is at stake here is stopping the potentially damaging exaggeration of an idea (‘design’) from one realm into another (and note, Eric, I already mentioned an even hand here with the notion of ‘evolution’). Michel Foucault once wrote: “Look everywhere for power, you will find it.” Now ID people are exclaiming: “Look everywhere for design/Design, you will find it.” That’s what “design detection, period” means according to the IDM, which you are repeating to me as if I should swallow it, Eric. But what are the theoretical limits of ‘Intelligent Design’ if a person (as I am) is a theist? It is the same question I ask to 'theistic evolutionists' – what are examples of things that don’t evolve? – because they have quite obviously tied ‘evolution’ too tightly with their theologies. I am a scholar and am likewise not biting on ‘design’ turned into ‘Design!’ Please hear with your heart that it is far from just me who sees a category difference “between ID and design by humans.” Why are you unwilling to acknowledge this?! “How about instead we say that ID applies across the board until proven otherwise.” – Eric Well, Eric, obviously that’s the end of the conversation. Since sin, rape, hate and the Holocaust were all ‘Intelligently Designed’ – I want no part of that definition of ID! Do you not see more clearly now the leap in logic IDT must make if it were to follow the lead as you have suggested it here?Gregory_{October 31, 2012
October
10
Oct
31
31
2012
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT}

Eric, Gregory's conception of design fails at the material level where ID is concerned, particularly in regards to biological information. As has been shown, biological information, man-made language, animal communication, machine code, and all other forms of information have precisely the same material basis. The big distinction which he wishes to force upon the material evidence simply does not exist. He refuses to ackowledge this. He feels that only a human can record information in matter. This view leaves the transfer of information by any other living thing a process which must (by his definition) use some medium other than matter. Perhaps he envisions the use of ether or something else? When pressed on these lingering issue of material fact, he claims that ID proponents dehumanize humanity. Go figure.Upright BiPed_{October 31, 2012
October
10
Oct
31
31
2012
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT}

[I apologize in advance for the tone, but this insistence that ID does not apply to human design or is some kind of sociological construct is getting a bit old.] ----- As something that might be interesting to those on this site I linked to two courses of interest, one on cryptography, one called Design: Creation of Artifacts in Society. Gregory uses the opportunity to continue to push what he thinks is a critical category difference between ID and design by humans. And this category difference, he thinks, is a "problem" for ID and makes it into some kind of sociological construct.
This course relates 100% to human-made design, not to Big-ID – Intelligent Design Theory, right? If so, good to see you contemplating the social importance of human-made design studies!
I have already clearly stated that I think it would do us all good to learn more about design strategies and principles. Further, most of us who are interested in ID have a genuine interest in design generally. Thus, I think a class like the one I linked to would be of value and of interest. Sorry, Gregory, there is nothing here to try and trip me up on.
A legitimate category difference between Big-ID/ID Theory and the vast majority of ‘design theories,’ i.e. the way MOST PEOPLE use the concept of ‘design’ still remains until proven otherwise.
Because you say so? How about instead we say that ID applies across the board until proven otherwise. Yes, yes, I know you are very focused on your 'captial' Big-ID. I don't give a hoot about whatever sociological impression you claim most folks have when they hear about ID. I haven't done a survey and neither have you. Regardless, and more importantly, people's impressions about the implications of ID are different from the underlying claims of ID. It is true, of course, that ID has received most of its press as being a challenge to the idea of the universe and life arising from purely natural processes. So in that sense when people hear about "intelligent design" of course they are going to think that the primary impact is in the area of the origin of the universe, life and so on. So what? The fact that ID applies there does not mean that it does not apply elsewhere. The principles of design detection are applicable across the board. If you are unable or unwilling to acknowledge this, then we probably don't have any further need to spend our time discussing it. I am interested in the central, basic claims of ID. And those claims have to do with design detection, period. Nothing to do with sociology, or God, or your Big whatever. The prominent proponents of ID have been very clear on this point from the outset. And there is also a logical distinction between detecting design and the subsequent implications of that detection. So I have absolutely no reason to accept your assertion that there is some fundamental difference between human design and the kind of design ID is talking about.
My apology, Eric, that this is obviously quite a different challenge than you are accustomed to facing in U.S. discussions of ID Theory thus far. It happens to be at the root of a serious alternative to IDT, which requires honest consideration of neo-id thinking.
Actually, you haven't presented any challenge yet. Just an attempt to redefine ID in a way that is different from what the leading ID proponents have been saying for decades. That is fine, you are welcome to try and come up with some alternate definition that you think is helpful. But don't expect me or anyone else to jump on board. ----- Now, Gregory, if your whole point is that lots of lay people think ID just relates to the origin of the universe, life and so on, fine. I won't dispute that. And if your point is that ID theorists could do a better job of explaining its central claims and showing how they apply across the board, well, I'm sure a better job could be done. We can agree to that level. But if you are arguing, as you seem to be, that ID itself -- its underlying questions and claims -- is only applicable to the origin of the universe and life, has no relevance to human design, and is but a sociological construct, then I'm afraid I have to strongly disagree, as that is simply not the case. ----- BTW, out of genuine curiosity, what is this serious alternative to ID you have in mind? I presume you're not referring to the Universal Design website you linked to?Eric Anderson_{October 31, 2012
October
10
Oct
31
31
2012
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT}

Axel, some thoughtful remarks; thanks. Later. KFkairosfocus_{October 31, 2012
October
10
Oct
31
31
2012
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT}

and fear.Axel_{October 31, 2012
October
10
Oct
31
31
2012
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT}

It is not even a philosophical conflict, but a war of integrity against cynicism.Axel_{October 31, 2012
October
10
Oct
31
31
2012
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT}

Re4 your post #2, kairosfocus, it has occurred to me that empirical science was an 'elephant in the living-room' of unimaginably significant proportions, at the recent synod of bishops, further to the Christian churches' need to renew its vision for spreading the Gospel. The Catholic church, itself, has been 'on the back foot' ever since the condemnation of Galileo, a particularly ardent son of the Church until his dying breath. The point is, the authority of Pope Benedict, backed by his Papal Academy of Sciences, would speak to the whole of mankind on this issue with enormous authority, both vis-a-vis the people and vis-a-vis the academic and professional community. Now, I'm not talking about evangelising or proselytising, as such, nor even about science, as such; but about the primordial necessity for intellectuals to follow the empirically-proven truth wherever it leads: to refuse to accede to the unimpeachable logic of an argument, inferred from a sound premise, is to all together abnegate one's responsibility, nay, one's very accreditation as a scientist, so that the theoretical scientist now ends up clinging to endlessly discredited, totally gratuitous flights of fancy. Science cannot be left in the hands of a professional establishment, a 'lost tribe', who mistake the paradoxes and mysteries of physics for 'unicorns', 'pink pixies', etc, since established physics has now, on a number fronts, verified the true, primordially theistic vision of the universe in all its scope and complexity, with which the truth of all scientific endeavour in good faith is continuous; something evidently understood by the giants of physics of the 20th century, whose quantum paradigm is not only the most successful paradigm, but has, in fact, been proved to be the final one. How can it be that 80 years after Max Planck spoke about a mysterious force that could only be God, holding an atom together, the current Establishment's paranoid, 'leading lights' of scientific theory can cling to such an insane belief as materialism, in the teeth, moreover, of endlessly discredited experimentation. (I can't see the Pope speaking in this vein, nevertheless...) 'There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.' -Max Planck Yet the theistic assumptions of such men as Planck, Bohr and Godel is now routinely mocked by the myrmidons of the corporate laboratories and corporate-funded university faculties. Einstein was a deist, who, as a panentheist, also was certain that the world was intelligently designed and created by a Spirit of such qualities that one could only conceive of it as God. Theistic truth and scientific truth are one; they form a continuum. If the evidence is open to dispute - which it isn't - there is no evidence even of any effort, futile though it would be, to dispute it. Instead, the paranoid atheist establishment clings to its little stuffed unicorns and pink pixies, etc. wall-to-wall fantasies, while simply ignoring the empirically-attested findings of legitmate science. The materialists' risible usage of the word, 'counter-intuitive' for 'counter-rational', is just one example of how one flight from truth can be seminal in the creation of error, leading to an epidemic of falsehoods, as obtains today. To criticise the materialist's grasp of science is to focus on the symptom, rather than the disease, which, in fact, lies in their fear of reason, and the knowledge to which logic must eventually lead them.Axel_{October 31, 2012
October
10
Oct
31
31
2012
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT}

Eric @#140, This course relates 100% to human-made design, not to Big-ID - Intelligent Design Theory, right? If so, good to see you contemplating the social importance of human-made design studies! Unfortunately, the relevance you opine of "very straight-forward, everyday, common-sense use of the word ‘design’" with OoL, OoBI and human origins is still not clear. It seems to me that you are simply wrong if you are suggesting MOST PEOPLE think OoL, OoBI and human origins when they hear/read/use the term 'design.' Your MOST PEOPLE must be drastically different than my MOST PEOPLE *if* you contend otherwise (which we don't yet know). A legitimate category difference between Big-ID/ID Theory and the vast majority of 'design theories,' i.e. the way MOST PEOPLE use the concept of 'design' still remains until proven otherwise. You have not solved this problem for IDT, nor has Dembski, Behe, Johnson, Nelson and especially not Meyer. Instead, it looks like a paper-over (whitewash) approach is preferred. My apology, Eric, that this is obviously quite a different challenge than you are accustomed to facing in U.S. discussions of ID Theory thus far. It happens to be at the root of a serious alternative to IDT, which requires honest consideration of neo-id thinking. If you'd like to discuss this, I'm here for the moment. - Gr.Gregory_{October 31, 2012
October
10
Oct
31
31
2012
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT}

I wrote: "There is some evidence for [a] uncommon descent and much evidence against it, but there is no evidence whatsoever for the claim [b] that naturalistic forces can drive that process through all the taxonomic levels. (Darwin’s General Theory)." Referring to [a], Jerad asks:
Didn't you just say that there was no evidence to support that claim
No, Jerad. [a] is a qualified affirmation and [b] is an unqualified negation. Try to read more carefully (making sure that you don't apply the negation contained in [b] to the affirmation contained in [a]). Try to think more clearly (learning the difference between common descent and the mechanism that drives it). Try to argue more persuasively (differentiating between an argument and the evidence that supports it).StephenB_{October 30, 2012
October
10
Oct
30
30
2012
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT}

Jerad, The question you have is; what to do with the material evidence, if not deny or ignore it?Upright BiPed_{October 30, 2012
October
10
Oct
30
30
2012
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT}

UBP (137):
Jerad, sorry that my 136 sounds so inenvitable, but it simply is what it is. You have few options.
Don't be sorry, you are speaking the truth as you see it. I don't have to like it or agree with you but you should never apologise for being honest.Jerad_{October 30, 2012
October
10
Oct
30
30
2012
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT}

StephenB (139):
Your Claim : The fossil record, the genetic record, morphological comparisons, geologic distributions, and breeding records all indicate that macro evolution (universal common descent) occurred, and further, that naturalistic forces such as random variation, natural selection, and genetic drift drove that proceess from beginning to end. (Darwin’s General Theory of Evolution) Your empirical evidence ……………………????? In fact, there is no empirical evidence to support that claim
If universal common descent with modification via unguided processes is true then we would expect to see a fossil record similar to the one we have. We would expect to see genomes similar to the ones we have. We would expect morphologies and geologic deposits much like the ones we have. And we would expect to be able to selectively breed for traits. If intelligent design/guided evolution is true then we wouldn't necessarily see the same kind of physical records depending on what kind of ID/guided evolution we were talking about. A designer would not be as limited as natural forces. Given that, why aren't those physical records evidence for common descent at least and strongly suggestive of universal common descent with modification via unguided processes? Many ID proponents make arguments considering the fossil record as being a partial representation (at least) of what life forms were on the earth in the past so it IS evidence yes?
You (and all Darwinists) continue to advance the argument, but you offer no evidence to support it. That is because there is no evidence to support it. Thousands of people are reading our discussion, and many of them are Darwinists. Do you think they would allow me to get away with my claim if they could refute it?
I doubt whether that many Darwinists are reading what we write. And very, very few of them would bother to comment. And some that might comment have been banned from UD. Most working biologists see ID as a fringe movement which needn't concern them.
There is some evidence for [a] uncommon descent and much evidence against it,
Didn't you just say (twice) that there was no evidence to support the claim?
but there is no evidence whatsoever for the claim [b] that naturalistic forces can drive that process through all the taxonomic levels. (Darwin’s General Theory).
There isn't any evidence accepted by mainstream science of any other forces around at the times in question. The evidence that ID holds up is the same as what the Darwinists use but with a different interpretation. So, if there's no evidence for the Darwinists there's no evidence for the ID community either.Jerad_{October 30, 2012
October
10
Oct
30
30
2012
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT}

Related to design, for those signed up with Coursera, there are a lot of other interesting classes available, including: https://www.coursera.org/course/crypto https://www.coursera.org/course/design I'm not sure if you can still sign up for the second one. It started last week.Eric Anderson_{October 30, 2012
October
10
Oct
30
30
2012
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT}

Jared:
I’m pretty sure you know what I consider evidence (the fossil record, the genetic record, morphological comparisons, geologic distributions and breeding records) so I’m at a loss as to what else you want me to say.
OK, I will try to make things more clear. There is a difference between an argument (claim) and the evidence that supports it. Example: Claim--A college educated person makes more money than a high school graduate. Evidence -- In 2002, The University of Georgetown conducted a study which shows that the average lifetime earnings of a Bachelor's degree holder was $2.7 million (2009 dollars), 75 percent more than that earned by high school graduates. The study drew its findings using a random sample of 1000 people, all of whom live in the United States. Your Claim : The fossil record, the genetic record, morphological comparisons, geologic distributions, and breeding records all indicate that macro evolution (universal common descent) occurred, and further, that naturalistic forces such as random variation, natural selection, and genetic drift drove that proceess from beginning to end. (Darwin's General Theory of Evolution) Your empirical evidence ........................????? In fact, there is no empirical evidence to support that claim You (and all Darwinists) continue to advance the argument, but you offer no evidence to support it. That is because there is no evidence to support it. Thousands of people are reading our discussion, and many of them are Darwinists. Do you think they would allow me to get away with my claim if they could refute it? There is some evidence for [a] uncommon descent and much evidence against it, but there is no evidence whatsoever for the claim [b] that naturalistic forces can drive that process through all the taxonomic levels. (Darwin's General Theory).
I know you don’t consider that evidence ‘good enough’ so is there any point in continuing to ask me for evidence?
A claim will not suffice for evidence.StephenB_{October 30, 2012
October
10
Oct
30
30
2012
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

Jerad @133:
What I meant was more along the lines of when was design implemented? Are you thinking of a purely front-loading scenario or . . . .
It is typically not possible to ascertain when design was implemented from the artifact itself. We may have some idea from other clues (dating the artifact, etc.), but those are really just guesses. For example, if I open up my computer and examine the system, absent some outside information, I can't say exactly when this or that part was implemented in the design. As for biology, I have no issue with design being implemented at various times and places. Front loading is an interesting possibility, but I have no need to believe that this is the only possibility. After all, the whole idea of an intelligent agent is that the intelligent agent can act. There is no rational reason why the intelligent agent would be restricted to acting at a particular time or place. In my experience, many people who push the frong-loading idea do so for two reasons: (i) either because they think it is more compatible with some kind of universal or modified-universal descent scenario; or (ii) they have a philosophical aversion to the intelligent agent "interferring" in the history of life after OOL. The first is reasonable, although probably not nearly as needed as is sometimes thought. The second is an unsupportable philosophical assumption.
I would think that the evidence in DNA would indicate whether or not design had been imposed once, few or many times.
Possibly we might find some clues, but I don't think it is nearly as straight-forward as you think. Partly because the design process is a process. If I open up my computer I can't tell the timing of when particular parts were implemented. But it didn't just "poof" into existence at a single point in time, so -- by definition -- design is imposed, as you say, more than at one moment. There was no doubt a process of design and development, typically with higher structural layers being set out first. Again, I have no issue with the idea of design being imposed at various points in the history of life. Just as an example, there are several times during the history of life when there is an infusion of information (e.g., cambrian explosion; transition to humans; etc.). It is possible those were all front-loaded, but the evidence for that is far from conclusive. Design could have been included at various points along the path.Eric Anderson_{October 30, 2012
October
10
Oct
30
30
2012
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT}

Jerad, sorry that my 136 sounds so inenvitable, but it simply is what it is. You have few options. :|Upright BiPed_{October 30, 2012
October
10
Oct
30
30
2012
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT}

Jerad, Because of your ideological limitations, you cannot integrate the material evidence. This leaves you very few options. There is a very clear pattern where time after time opponents will argue for days, weeks, and even months over silly objections, only to begrudgingly accept whatever trivial matter they were arguing over - immmediately followed by yet another silly objection. Others watch in silence, only to pipe up and scoff at the argument after the detbate ends. Others, refuse to enage at all. And of course, the truly well-engineered response is to appear entirely pleasant and balanced as the hopeless denial of material evidence goes down. Apparently, the abject refusal of physical evidence among the sciency is best performed while prim and proper. Sadly, you will not deviate from this pattern. Conversely, there is nothing you can say to me that I must deny.Upright BiPed_{October 30, 2012
October
10
Oct
30
30
2012
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply