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

Jerad, Breeding records do not support universal common descent. The fossil record does not support universal common descent, the genetic record does not support universal common descent, morphological comparisons do not support universal common descent and geologic distributions in no way support universal common descent. Never mind universal common descent via accumulations of random mutations. The fossil record shows fish-> tetrapods-> fish-a-pods- you lose. There isn't any genetic evidence that supports the transformations- you lose Morphology- well marsupials and their placental cousins are morphologically similar, no common descent there- you lose Breeding shows severe limits to the phenotypic plasticity of a population- you loseJoe_{October 30, 2012
October
10
Oct
30
30
2012
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT}

StephenB (122):
OK, here we go again, Jerad. Please present the post number on this thread where you presented the evidence for Darwin’s General Theory of Evolution.
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. I know you don't consider that evidence 'good enough' so is there any point in continuing to ask me for evidence?Jerad_{October 30, 2012
October
10
Oct
30
30
2012
01:15 AM
1
01
15
AM
PDT}

Eric (126):
Sorry to disappoint, but there is not a particular model for design, unless you want some generalized refresher on how intelligent agents design (have an idea or goal in mind; study the relevant principles (say, aerodynamics, if building a plane); implement the design, often with iterations and testing).
What I meant was more along the lines of when was design implemented? Are you thinking of a purely front-loading scenario or . . . . I would think that the evidence in DNA would indicate whether or not design had been imposed once, few or many times.Jerad_{October 30, 2012
October
10
Oct
30
30
2012
01:11 AM
1
01
11
AM
PDT}

UBP (116):
Again, there is nothing whatsoever hard to understand about the argument – not the the least of which is the use of the word “arbitrary”.
I have read the original post several times and am trying to at least skim the responses.
If you return to claim you just can’t understand the argument, you will discredit yourself, just as the others have.
I'm not worried about discrediting myself, I'll just stick to being honest.Jerad_{October 30, 2012
October
10
Oct
30
30
2012
01:05 AM
1
01
05
AM
PDT}

@Eric #124 The ‘sociological appeal’ you made is to the “very straight-forward, everyday, common-sense use of the word ‘design’.” Peoples' usage of 'design' is a sociological phenomenon. I was not referring in that sentence to the definitions themselves. 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? That is a question I would like an answer to. In my view, your contention is a sociological false-hood. As I’ve surveyed people (informally), most people don’t everyday use the word 'design' about OoL, OoBI or human origins. Only hardcore IDists think OoL, OoBI or human origins when they hear/read the word ‘design,’ thus deviating themselves from ‘normal’ contexts of that term's use = Myth #6. This is what defines ID Theory per se as Theory because it focuses (almost exclusively) on OoL, OoBI and/or human origins, thus presenting a different KIND of ‘design theory’ from common-sense usage. The (i)-(iv) definitions of 'design' you cited, Eric, are all unquestionably wrt human-making. These definitions serve to confirm my point; that Intelligent Design (Big-ID) Theory is different – it is not what most people think about when they hear the term ‘design.’ 1399 recent conference-goers agree with me and not with you or the IDM! For some reason, you turn a deaf ear to their meanings of ‘design’ and instead wish to substitute IDT, expecting people to adopt your uncommon, narrowly-focused meaning. It’s not that I’m disappointed with ID. Simply I pointed out its lack of explanatory power. You haven't addressed this lack of explanatory power directly, Eric. Granted, you called IDT “a very limited inquiry.” I guess we’ll have to leave it at that for now (whereas Dembski calls this “very limited inquiry” a ‘Revolution’!) if you won’t directly address IDT’s lack of explanatory power because it doesn’t address who, when, where, how or why questions. "It sounds like your complaint with ID is that it does not seek to cover everything that can ever be known or theorized about design." – Eric Actually, ID as you are presenting it covers both human-made and non-human made things. That is type of a covering theory. "it is unclear why you think there are fundamentally different categories of design detection." – Eric I already explained this above and in the link provided, about which you made no comment. And it is far from me alone who understands the categorical conflation IDT is making, the dependence on analogy between human-made and non-human-made things. “Your distinction between small-d and Big-D is itself an artifical construct to try and categorize things into human-made and non-human-made sets. I don’t begrudge you that approach and it is OK as a subsequent add-on inquiry, but it comes after, and is not directly relevant to, the ability to detect design per se.” – Eric Your ‘design inference’ is also an ‘artificial construct’ that makes an attempt at universalizing design (even while you call it a “very limited inquiry”), leading sometimes to the ideology of 'designism'. Here I’m simply following others who have made this important distinction between small-d and Big-D, e.g. Owen Gingerich. It is a significant problem, Eric, that for one reason or another you don’t seem able or willing to follow the logic of why people make a distinction between small-d and Big-D. My attempt at explaining this to you must soon come to an end. Human-made and non-human-made are legitimately different ‘sets.’ You are trying to conflate them, Eric, but you are not succeeding and will not succeed. It is obvious to “straight-forward, everyday, common-sense” that OoL, OoBI and human origins belong to a different category of dialogue than human-made things, the latter which involve a ‘reflexive’ rather than just an ‘objectivistic' component. This is not merely an 'add-on,' but is rather fundamental. It is ID’s insurmountable opponent. It is the hurdle that it simply cannot clear.Gregory_{October 29, 2012
October
10
Oct
29
29
2012
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT}

Mung @129: All fair points. We're obviously dealing with a very vague and generalized -- and possibly shifting -- definition of what a "model" is in all these discussions. I don't disagree with what you list. Indeed, I think UB has laid out in pretty adequate detail what he is talking about in terms of how information is instantiated in a medium. At the end of the day, though, we end up with the remaining central question: can we confidently infer design? Are purely natural processes up to the task? No-one (except the occasional recalcitrant individual who argues just for argument's sake) disputes that many biological systems are wonderfully complex and intricate, that they contain real information, that they are examples of exquisite engineering, etc. But many people still convince themsleves that all of these wonders can arise from mindless matter in motion. So we can talk about design principles, design strategies, and what is required for design to be instantiated in a material system all we want. And the committed materialist, if unable or unwilling to accept the design inference, will sit there and nod and say, "Yes, yes, these are amazing systems. And if I stir my warm little pond and wait a few million years it can produce the same thing." The basic fundamental willingness to consider the possibility of purposeful design is the key to the discussion, not some more precise "model" of how to design stuff, nor particular observations about which design strategies were incorporated and so forth. I think all those things are very valuable to those of us who accept design as real, because they can lead to new and additional insights. But for objectors who keep demanding such details before they will accept the design inference in the first place, it is just a debating tactic in order to avoid the central issue. For those who are unable or unwilling to consider the possibility of design, every example of exquisite design, remarkable function, or awe-inspiring engineering will just be regarded as yet one more example of the magical powers of evolution.Eric Anderson_{October 29, 2012
October
10
Oct
29
29
2012
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT}

Eric:
Jerad (I think) asked about what my “model” for design was. This question came up last week...
I think Kantian Naturalist also raised the question of a model. I think we can develop a model, though I'm not sure how satisfactory it may be to the critics. But as Upright BiPed points out, and I think he has a valid argument, certain things must be true for design to be instantiated into a material system. So it would be up to us to define what those things are and they would constitute the basis for any model. To that end I think David L. Able has made some significant contributions.Mung_{October 29, 2012
October
10
Oct
29
29
2012
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT}

Reference to Mung @120.StephenB_{October 29, 2012
October
10
Oct
29
29
2012
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT}

Mung @19. That's pretty interesting stuff. I think that part of the difficulty consists in the fact that, among other complex factors, design as [a] creativity or art, is a little different than [b] design as matching a solution to a problem--and yet both can be combined. Mozart was designing as [a] but Stephen Jobs was designing primarily as [b] and perhaps secondarily as [a]. [One can solve a problem, but he can also do it with "style" to serve and stimulate the market. In many respects, the design that comes from the individual's imagination, is unrepeatable (there will never be another Bach), but the design that comes form having applied the problem solving "method," can, to some extent, be replicated. We can, in a derivative way, show someone how to do define the problem, compare alternatives, apply judgment etc, but it is more problematic to show someone how to compose, because true creativity in the artistic sense is inseparable from individuality. Granted, one can find a role model to get the creative process going, but in the end, creative designers fail to develop their potential for uniqueness not because they lack the know how but because, they lack the courage to ignore public criticism and express their individual identity. To be different is to pay a price. Even at that, I am describing only 2 aspects of a multi-dimensional phenomenon, all of which are equally important. So, it seems to me that much of this fuss about "how the designer did it" is, in large part, an attempt to discredit the accomplishment of design detection because it "doesn't do enough." If some genius comes along to build on the work of Dembski, Behe, et al, that would be great, but if it happens, it will be a result of the kind of creative spark that cannot be summoned at will. Many design critics simply want their own gig, but they possess only half of equipment needed to make a significant contribution. Anti-ID scientists, who typically lack creativity, invest their time looking for methodological and mathematical loopholes; anti-ID humanitarians, who lack the scientific knowledge, conjure up impractical paradigms that no one cares about. As I analyze the work of both partisan types, I am often temped to wonder: How sour can grapes get? It seems that just cannot live with the fact that someone got there first. As Fulton J. Sheen once put it, "Jealousy is the tribute that mediocrity pays to genius."StephenB_{October 29, 2012
October
10
Oct
29
29
2012
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT}

Jerad (I think) asked about what my "model" for design was. This question came up last week, but between numerous Halloween parties and watching the Giants sweep the Tigers I didn't get a chance to respond. Sorry to disappoint, but there is not a particular model for design, unless you want some generalized refresher on how intelligent agents design (have an idea or goal in mind; study the relevant principles (say, aerodynamics, if building a plane); implement the design, often with iterations and testing). On the other hand, if you are looking for a mechanistic model of design, you won't find one. Because design is not reducible to mechanical necessity (matter and energy). For example, I can't give you a model for how the bacterial flagellum was designed any more than you can give me a "model" for how Beethoven or Bach came up with their symphonies. That is not how creative intelligent design works. Materialistic approaches, including Darwinism, are (by definition) mechanistic theories, driven purely by matter and energy. They need to come up with a plausible mechanism or "model." Design is not a mechanistic theory and does not propose that there is a particular "model" of design. That may seem unfair, but that is just the reality of the two theories. One is mechanistic; the other is not.Eric Anderson_{October 29, 2012
October
10
Oct
29
29
2012
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT}

Gregory: I should add that to the extent we see particular design principles and strategies implemented in biology (or any other system we are looking at), that might give us further reason to suspect that the system in question was designed. So in that sense I think it would be interesting for all of us (and I certainly include myself) to become more versed in human design principles and strategies (for example, just last night my son and I were discussing possible strategies for implementing a particular function he is trying to incorporate in a C++ program he is working on). However, and this is the key, ID argues that design can be detected on the basis of complex, specified, functional information. It is not necessary that the system implement any particular design strategy or approach to be designed, so we cannot use the absence in our system of whatever the latest-and-greatest design concept is as evidence that the system was not designed. Stated succinctly, observing design strategies and principles implemented in biology may add to the evidence for design, but it is not necessary (and perhaps not sufficient, although that is an additional question in itself (I suspect that, in close inspection, particular design strategies would end up being a sub-category of CSFI)).Eric Anderson_{October 29, 2012
October
10
Oct
29
29
2012
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT}

Gregory @112: I don't know why you think reference to design is a sociological appeal. My dictionary includes the following typical definitions of design: (i) to plan and fashion artistically or skillfully; (ii) to form or conceive in the mind; contrive; plan; (iii) to intend for a definite purpose; (iv) to prepare or plan the form and structure of an object, work of art, etc. If you are pointing out that some people take the inference to design in biology and use it to support their religious/philosophical/sociological views, then fine. I certainly understand some people do that. But that is not part of the design inference itself.
What KIND of ‘intelligent agent’ are you referring to? Your Theory has little explanatory power if you don’t want to ask that question. My neo-id approach is unafraid to ask this question, which gives it much more explanatory power than ID Theory . . .
Look, I realize you and lots of other people are disappointed that ID does not get into the question of the designer's identity or characteristics (beyond what can be ascertained from the artifact itself). Oh well. You can continue to be disappointed that ID does not address those issues and you are free to propose something else beyond the design inference. The design inference is a very limited inquiry and it is what it is. It would be improper to try to make it into more than it is.
IF what you mean by ‘intelligent design’ (by which I mean Intelligent Design Theory) really “encompasses all design by intelligent agents,” then by definition it CAN study designers, design processes, design strategies, etc.
It sounds like your complaint with ID is that it does not seek to cover everything that can ever be known or theorized about design. True, ID does not seek to cover all those things. The concept of design detection (i.e., the inference to design) is applicable to all design across fields. But ID is not a theory about particular approaches to design, the history of human design, the various changing design strategies in the latest textbooks, all manufacturing, design and engineering processes, etc. Of course ID does not address all those areas. It is not intended to. I don't have any problem with someone taking the design inference and then asking follow-up questions about how something may have been designed, what kinds of design strategies may have been implemented, what kinds of hierarchies and principles appear to have been incorporated in the design and so on. Indeed, I think that is a great idea, as Mung notes. Those are interesting questions and can be asked in their own right about certain objects and systems and are typically asked once we already have gotten to the point where we know or feel confident inferring that the thing was designed. Again, there is no point in complaining that ID does not answer all the questions. It is not intended to. It never will. It is not a theory of everything. It is asks a very simple, basic question. Now, I will agree that there is value for a practitioner to incorporate design processes, strategies, approaches, etc. into their study of biology. They will be more successful and gain more insights than if they take the materialist view of biology as a long series of accidental particle interactions. We have already seen examples of this fruitful approach. However, while incorporating the latest and greatest ideas about design strategies and approaches may be enhanced by one's conclusion that the system was intelligently designed, I think we need to keep straight the fact that the initial design inference is a separate issue.
OoL is a categorically different topic/field of study from how to ‘design’ one’s grocery list.
Well, certainly there is a massive difference in the amount of information involved, the skill required, the type of system constructed. But it is unclear why you think there are fundamentally different categories of design detection. Again, ID is interested in design detection. Whether something is more or less intricate, is more or less remarkable is a separate issue. Design is a very simple concept and can be understood in the very simple straight-forward way with the common definitions I cited at the beginning of this comment. Your distinction between small-d and Big-D is itself an artifical construct to try and categorize things into human-made and non-human-made sets. I don't begrudge you that approach and it is OK as a subsequent add-on inquiry, but it comes after, and is not directly relevant to, the ability to detect design per se.Eric Anderson_{October 29, 2012
October
10
Oct
29
29
2012
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT}

And remember, paraphrasing Sec. Clinton, a post is not evidence.Mung_{October 29, 2012
October
10
Oct
29
29
2012
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT}

StephenB @ 80 "Well, at least we both agree that there is no evidence to justify the proposition that unguided, materialistic evolution can produce biodiversity." Jerad @ 85 "And no, just to be clear, I am NOT agreeing that there is no evidence to support the proposition that unguided and natural processes are responsible for the biodiversity we observe today. I think it’s prudent to look for more evidence though." StephenB @88 "Yes, I know that you think that Darwinism (Darwin’s General Theory) is the best model, but, as I have pointed out many times, there is no evidence at all to support that model. According to all the evidence that we have, random variation, natural selection, or genetic drift can produce only minor changes in a species (Darwin’s Special Theory), which means, again according to the evidence, that if macro evolution occurred, there must be some other explanation, such as guided, purposeful, or programmed evolution (compatible with Intelligent Design)." "On the other hand, you claim that Darwin’s anti-ID, General Theory of Evolution is the best model, yet neither you or anyone in your camp can provide any evidence to support it. At best, you can produce some evidence for Darwin’s Special Theory, which no one in the ID community disputes. Are you now prepared to concede that fact?" Jerad @96 "I think there is lots and lots of evidence to support universal common descent with modification from an initial basic replicator via only unguided processes. I think fossils, genomes, morphogies, geographic distributions and breeding records all combine together and form a very powerful case." StephenB @98 "Well, then, please step up and be the first Darwinist to provide that evidence." Jerad @99 "I think I have already presented the evidence." OK, here we go again, Jerad. Please present the post number on this thread where you presented the evidence for Darwin's General Theory of Evolution.StephenB_{October 29, 2012
October
10
Oct
29
29
2012
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT}

So, Jerad, I have a question for you. Does mathematics ever rely on inference? Some Conspicuous Patterns
This is a guide to the practical art of plausible reasoning, particularly in mathematics but also in every field of human activity. Using mathematics as the example par excellence, Professor Polya shows how even that most rigorous deductive discipline is heavily dependent on techniques of guessing, inductive reasoning, and reasoning by analogy. -
Does mathematics require independent proofs for each of it's inferences?Mung_{October 29, 2012
October
10
Oct
29
29
2012
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT}

Myths About ID ID assumes the existence of a designer. Distinguishing Between Inferences and AssumptionsMung_{October 29, 2012
October
10
Oct
29
29
2012
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

Jerad:
I come to UD in hopes of more fully understanding what ID proponents are saying but no one wants to tell me anything beyond: there’s obvious design in nature and if you ask more questions you’re a fool or a knave.
That's a pretty simplistic and hardly accurate distillation of the discussions you've been involved in here at UD. The fact is that many have offered to help you understand ID more deeply, but you never want to go there, claiming certain things are off-limits for you. So when you refuse to discuss ID and then claim we refuse to discuss ID it doesn't reflect well on you, and that could explain some of the current attitude towards you that you've been seeing here lately.Mung_{October 29, 2012
October
10
Oct
29
29
2012
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT}

I'd like to express some sympathy with at least one of Gregory' points. I think it could be helpful to expand ID to include more of what actually goes on in the process of design. For example: Universal Principles of Design How Designers Think Design thinking IMO, this could help strengthen the design inference.Mung_{October 29, 2012
October
10
Oct
29
29
2012
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT}

Jerad:
For example: why are lemurs only naturally found on Madagascar? How does that support your version of guided evolution? Or: why does the genetic code have codon functional redundancy?

Living forms will be more or less well adapted to their environment and will therefore produce more or less offspring thereby affecting the allele frequencies in the overall population. Evolutionary theory is actually quite simple and elegant and has a lot of explanatory power.
How does the claim that "allele frequencies change" explain why lemurs are only naturally found on Madagascar? How does the claim that "allele frequencies change" explain why the genetic code has codon functional redundancy? Jerad:
Perhaps we’d best just stick to discussing the science eh?

A powerful case for universal common descent with modification from an initial basic replicator via natural cumulative selection and other unguided processes.
Sure. Let's stick to discussing the science of "other unguided processes." First, I wasn't aware that there was a science of unguided processes. Can you tell us about that?Mung_{October 29, 2012
October
10
Oct
29
29
2012
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT}

Jerad, Again, there is nothing whatsoever hard to understand about the argument - not the the least of which is the use of the word "arbitrary". If you return to claim you just can't understand the argument, you will discredit yourself, just as the others have. :|Upright BiPed_{October 29, 2012
October
10
Oct
29
29
2012
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT}

UBP (113):
The argument I provided defines the objects within the system strictly in terms of their materiality. This removes ambiguity from the definitions, and unfortunately for the opposition, it also removes all that luxurious wiggle room they so enjoy maneuvering with during debate.
I will have another bash at it shortly. My brain doesn't really work that way!!
Consequently, a very productive defensive strategy among the opposition has been to simply throw up one’s hands and claim they can’t understand the argument. This not only provides an immediate intellectual shelter from having to face the material facts, but also allows plenty of time to hurl insults while treading water.
I haven't really followed the conversation. I did notice a lot of discussion about the definition of arbitrary though.
I predict that you will not deviate substantially from this pattern. Sadly enough, I find that prediction easy to make.
If I don't get the argument I won't ask a lot of dumb questions.Jerad_{October 29, 2012
October
10
Oct
29
29
2012
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT}

Gregory:
As most non-IDists are fully aware, ‘ID proponents’ don’t have diddly-squat (i.e. nothing) for natural scientific evidence of ‘guided evolution.’
That is not true- read "Not By Chance" by Dr Lee Spetner. Then there is johnny b on UD who also has something along those lines.
The claim that one can convincingly ‘detect’ something (anything) in a historical vacuum, i.e. without asking ‘when’ the detection is taking place is science fiction, not science.
What does that even mean? Of course we can detect an object was designed without knowing when it was designed. And we can detect that an object was designed without knowing who designed it nor how it was designed.Joe_{October 29, 2012
October
10
Oct
29
29
2012
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT}

Jerad, The argument I provided defines the objects within the system strictly in terms of their materiality. This removes ambiguity from the definitions, and unfortunately for the opposition, it also removes all that luxurious wiggle room they so enjoy maneuvering with during debate. Consequently, a very productive defensive strategy among the opposition has been to simply throw up one's hands and claim they can't understand the argument. This not only provides an immediate intellectual shelter from having to face the material facts, but also allows plenty of time to hurl insults while treading water. I predict that you will not deviate substantially from this pattern. Sadly enough, I find that prediction easy to make.Upright BiPed_{October 29, 2012
October
10
Oct
29
29
2012
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT}

Eric @109, This requires a shorter answer, starting with a question (it is like McLuhan’s aphorism: For your information let me ask you a question.): What makes you think ‘intelligent design/Intelligent Design’ (distinction explained below or see here) isn’t an example of 'universal design,' instead of vice versa as you suggest? The “very straight-forward, everyday, common-sense use of the word ‘design’” (a sociological appeal), is quite obviously *NOT* about OoL, OoBI or human origins. Those are specialist topics for a very few scientists, philosophers, theologians, information and knowledge about which reaches the public second-hand. If you don’t (or won’t) recognise this, there is little hope you will understand the reality of why people reject Intelligent Design Theory, especially theists. “Either something was designed with input of an intelligent agent or it wasn’t.” – Eric What KIND of ‘intelligent agent’ are you referring to? Your Theory has little explanatory power if you don’t want to ask that question. My neo-id approach is unafraid to ask this question, which gives it much more explanatory power than ID Theory and requires less dependency on 'implications'. Have you considered the idea of Human Extension yet, Eric? “Intelligent design is a broad concept that encompasses all design by intelligent agents.” – Eric IF what you mean by ‘intelligent design’ (by which I mean Intelligent Design Theory) really “encompasses all design by intelligent agents,” then by definition it CAN study designers, design processes, design strategies, etc. But afaik it is a condition of Intelligent Design Theory that it does not (read: cannot or will not) study designers/Designers, design/Design processes, design/Design strategies, etc. That is simply not part of the Theory of Intelligent Design. Do you disagree with ID leaders about this? Big-ID vs. small-id is an important clarification made for this communicative purpose. Universal design theorists and all other non-Big-ID ‘design theorists’ simply don’t have to add the qualifier ‘intelligent’ to their ‘design theory’ because intelligence is (always) already implied in their theories (even if it is not quantified). It would be redundant for them to add the qualifier ‘intelligence,’ so they don’t. This makes ‘Intelligent Design Theory’ a different KIND of ‘design theory,' which was and is my main point to you - the source of Myth #6 about IDT. “I’m not completely clear what you mean when you keep referring to ‘design/Design’.” – Eric OoL is a categorically different topic/field of study from how to ‘design’ one’s grocery list. If you won’t admit this, it is easy to see that you are trying to ‘universalize’ the concept of ‘design/Design’ for your own theoretical purposes (i.e. regarding implications of ID Theory), which people are free to reject and usually do. This would be the case, unless you are suggesting OoL and OoBI occurred ‘naturalistically,’ iow, w/out any supernatural or supranatural input. Otherwise you are saying you believe that OoL and OoBI were Big-D Designed. Are you not saying this? small-d-design refers to human-made things, while Big-D-Design refers to things that couldn’t have possibly been made by human beings, which therefore require a special KIND of appeal to Aliens (unknown civilisations) or God(s). p.s. StephenB – psychology is a social science.Gregory_{October 29, 2012
October
10
Oct
29
29
2012
04:01 AM
4
04
01
AM
PDT}

UBP (106):
You cannot refute the argument I gave you, but you will subsequently refuse to integrate that evidence.
I started reading the thread where you lay out your ideas. I find it complicated and I don't want to ask questions until I've made a good attempt at grasping it and I'm certainly not going to challenge it (IF I'm going to challenge it) until I'm pretty sure I understand it.
This is what’s behind the pity party you threw in #101. It’s better for you if the focus is on how terribly you’re treated here at UD then on the fact that any instance of information transfer requires an irreducibly complex set of two material objects which must (as a empirical and logical necessity) instantiate an arbitrary relationship within a physical system.
They're completely separate issues! Who is going to let one influence their view of the other?? I'll address your argument when I've grasped it. Information theory is not something I'm good at.Jerad_{October 28, 2012
October
10
Oct
28
28
2012
11:24 PM
11
11
24
PM
PDT}

StephenB (102):
I need a bit more definition of what guided evolution could be.
I don’t believe you. No one who reads ID material could possibly be that clueless.
What a shame, I was hoping you'd give me some insight into your view at least. You ask me for evidence that my view is correct and you're not willing to give me your complete view. And why is that? Why the reluctance? Without knowing what kind of guided you mean I can't really judge your hypothesis.
I don’t think I’m naive at all. But there are other opinions obviously.
Well, yes there is always the option of self deception or worse.
I don't understand your rudeness. If you don't want to discuss things further then why not just stop responding?
A powerful case for universal common descent with modification from an initial basic replicator via natural cumulative selection and other unguided processes.
Not even one of your fellow Darwinists would accept that statement of belief as an example of empirically-based evidence. Frankly, I am starting to feel guilty for taking advantage of you.
Well obviously that's not the evidence!! You know what I think the evidence is.
I think fossils, genomes, morphogies, geographic distributions and breeding records all combine together and form a very powerful case.
Now my conscience is really starting to bother me. It’s like shooting a puck into a net where there is no goalie.
You're good at making snide remarks but not so good at reinterpreting the data in your view and explaining it to me. For example: why are lemurs only naturally found on Madagascar? How does that support your version of guided evolution? Or: why does the genetic code have codon functional redundancy? I think you probably have answers for those two examples from the point of view of your version of guided evolution but you avoid answering for some reason. Will you at least tell me why you're not going to tell me what you mean by guided evolution and how your view differs from others?
If anyone takes you seriously after this exchange, there really is a conspiracy!
So you're not really interested in a dialogue in the end? Because I don't agree with you? Because you think I"m playing a game? What game would I be playing? What could I possibly gain? I come to UD in hopes of more fully understanding what ID proponents are saying but no one wants to tell me anything beyond: there's obvious design in nature and if you ask more questions you're a fool or a knave. You complained about evolution supporters dismissing people who disagree with them, are you not doing the same thing? Without even trying to explain your entire position?Jerad_{October 28, 2012
October
10
Oct
28
28
2012
11:16 PM
11
11
16
PM
PDT}

Gregory:
Would you agree with this, Eric: ID Theory is a different ‘design/Design theory’ than those ‘other design theories’ (including Universal Design, for which I provided a link)? Iow, would you agree that ID Theory posits an ‘other kind of design/Design’ from what most people mean when they say ‘design’?
I wouldn't look at it that way. Intelligent design is a broad concept that encompasses all design by intelligent agents. I look at ID's concept of design in the very straight-forward, everyday, common-sense use of the word "design;" the same way the word is generally used by most people when they talk about something being designed. The Universal Design idea you linked to (which is really just another example of thoughtful design planning and implementation -- incorporating flexibility, process, forethought of long term needs, etc.) is an example of intelligent design and not some separate kind of "design" from what intelligent design covers. Either something was designed with input of an intelligent agent or it wasn't. ----- (Incidentally, I'm not completely clear what you mean when you keep referring to "design/Design". Are you trying to suggest there are two different ID theories, one of which is interested in design generally and one of which is interested in some kind of theological implication?)Eric Anderson_{October 28, 2012
October
10
Oct
28
28
2012
08:48 PM
8
08
48
PM
PDT}

Gregory:
IDT is guilty of taking a social scientific premise (intelligence) and trying to turn it into a natural scientific conclusion (design). There is really no defence against this reality due to the prolific use of human analogies by ID leaders.
LOL. Gregory is guilty of taking a psychological concept (intelligence) and trying to turn it into a social scientific premise. Or, maybe intelligence is an anthropological concept, or a legal concept, or a psychiatric concept, or a scientific concept, or a spiritual concept, or an educational concept…..or maybe its meaning depends on the way it is being defined and the specialized context in which it is being used. Ironically, Gregory invested 948 words to claim sole ownership of a word and define it in a self-serving way, but I only invested 98 words to expose his presumptions When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.StephenB_{October 28, 2012
October
10
Oct
28
28
2012
07:02 PM
7
07
02
PM
PDT}

ID proponents seem to want to live in some kind of rarified atmosphere where logic and inference are sufficient to prove existence.
god, no. People might confuse us with mathematicians!Mung_{October 28, 2012
October
10
Oct
28
28
2012
06:52 PM
6
06
52
PM
PDT}

Jerad, You cannot refute the argument I gave you, but you will subsequently refuse to integrate that evidence. This is what's behind the pity party you threw in #101. It's better for you if the focus is on how terribly you're treated here at UD then on the fact that any instance of information transfer requires an irreducibly complex set of two material objects which must (as a empirical and logical necessity) instantiate an arbitrary relationship within a physical system.Upright BiPed_{October 28, 2012
October
10
Oct
28
28
2012
06:07 PM
6
06
07
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply