“Intelligent Design is NOT Anti-Evolution” — a guest post

Ray, The modern synthesis was not co-founded by Wallace. I am sure he was dead when the modern idea as to how evolution might occur was founded. Joe

Kairosfocus (msg #119): RM: have you actually read Wallace? The previously linked excerpts from his The World of Life make it quite plain that much more is involved, e.g. consider his focus on the feathers of birds . . . cf the diagrams and the excerpts in context in the linked book [set up to be downloaded!], a major discussion he uses on a subject on which he was manifestly expert. Methinks, with all due respect, the shoe is on the other foot. KF

Anyone who believes the co-founder of modern the idea as to how evolution might occur (A.R. Wallace) can help or be supportive to their Intelligent design theory has either not read Wallace or hasn't understood a word that he has written. Despite his lip service to Agnosticism, Wallace was the quintessential Atheist-Materialist. I suspect you will now invoke the credentials of some person who has written a book on Wallace. Again, my comments above are really directed at these persons. Wallace, like Darwin, was an Atheist: He completely rejected existence of the Biblical Trinity. Anyone can read his writings and see for themselves. Therefore his scientific claims presuppose Atheism. RM (Protestant Evangelical, Old Earth-Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist) Ray Martinez

RM: have you actually read Wallace? The previously linked excerpts from his The World of Life make it quite plain that much more is involved, e.g. consider his focus on the feathers of birds . . . cf the diagrams and the excerpts in context in the linked book [set up to be downloaded!], a major discussion he uses on a subject on which he was manifestly expert. Methinks, with all due respect, the shoe is on the other foot. KF kairosfocus

Ray Martinez:

Your understanding makes Dawkins and his Atheist colleagues somewhat happy and satisfied.

Quite the opposite, Ray. Now they have to tell us how they determined taht all genetic change is an accident/ error/ mistake. Now they can no longer point to anti-biotic resistance and human chromosome 2 as refuting our position. The ACLU will no longer be able to bluff their way through a trial by producing articles and books with the word "evolution" in them as if they refute ID. Your understanding has no founding other than you and your personal feelings. The fact is "evolution" has several meanings and only one deals with blind and undirected chemical processes. And I can't help it if you are too shallow to understand that. Joe

Joe (msg #115): And Ray, when I say that your understanding is incorrect and needs to change, you just can’t keep using your misunderstanding to support your claim.

Your understanding makes Dawkins and his Atheist colleagues somewhat happy and satisfied. My understanding makes them completely unhappy and completely unsatisfied. I offer my understanding as evidence that you're understanding is delusional. RM (Protestant Evangelical, Old Earth-Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist) Ray Martinez

Joe (msg #115): And Ray, when I say that your understanding is incorrect and needs to change, you just can’t keep using your misunderstanding to support your claim.

In your understanding, "Intelligence causing evolution" is logical (and in my understanding it is clearly illogical). Moreover, and in my understanding when Intelligence is involved with biological production it becomes a logical necessity to describe effects as designed. Since you're unable to clearly see the gross illogic in your position, Richard Dawkins is proven wrong: the delusion isn't working on persons who believe in God, but on persons who believe in evolution. RM (Old Earth-Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist) Ray Martinez

And Ray, when I say that your understanding is incorrect and needs to change, you just can't keep using your misunderstanding to support your claim. Joe

Ray Martinez:

You quoted famed Atheist-Darwinian Materialist Douglas Theobald. And you’ve misunderstood what he’s saying.

False accusation- how very Christian of you. And your twisted version of an interpretation just exposes your desperation.

So the idea wasn’t obtained from Johnson, Dembski, or Behe, is that correct?

Read the OP AGAIN, for the first time, Ray. Behe said he thinks evolution is guided by God. And don't ask me personal questions wrt Mike Gene- what is wrong with you? Joe

Kairosfocus (msg #110): Joe, It looks like we need to revisit and remind ourselves on the work and thought of the co-founder of modern evolutionary theory, Wallace.

The only significant departure Wallace advocated from Darwin was the human brain produced with the help of invisible immaterial agents. He could not identify these agents except to rule out any connection with the Biblical Trinity. You and your sources need to do better research. Ray Martinez

Ray: "Please tell me where you obtained the idea that evolution was designed by Intelligence?" Joe: "On top of that there is 'Not By Chance' by Dr Lee Spetner, prescibed evolution by John Davison (rip) and front-loaded evolution by Mike Gene and others." Ray: So the idea wasn't obtained from Johnson, Dembski, or Behe, is that correct? Where did Mike Gene (assumed pseudonym) obtain the idea of a deistic Creator? Ray Martinez

Joe (msg#109): No, it doesn’t. I quoted an evolutionist that supports my claim.

You quoted famed Atheist-Darwinian Materialist Douglas Theobald. And you've misunderstood what he's saying. Theobald is saying despite the fact that natural selection offered as explaining adaptive microevolution, do not assume that he is saying the same explains macroevolution. Whatever the cause of macroevolution, which he cannot explain, it's still true nonetheless (that's what he's saying). Theobald can't explain how macroevolution occurs, but it has occurred, per his explication, and this explication stands alone as true regardless of absence of mechanism. The Theobald explication specifically assumes and says characters were obtained from previously living species. In other words, even though he can't explain how macroevolution occurs, it is presupposed by some unknown/unguided material agency, including the agent of a stupid previously living species or organism. Another stab: Theobald is saying since we know natural selection true on the microevolutionary scale, even though we don't know how nested hierarchies occur, it must be some unknown/unguided material process. Theobald basically demands macroevolution be given an exemption from the universal scientific logic of "cause-and-effect." Your assumption that Atheist-Darwinists (like Theobald) do not assume Materialism is the only problem here. RM (Old Earth, Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist) Ray Martinez

Joe, It looks like we need to revisit and remind ourselves on the work and thought of the co-founder of modern evolutionary theory, Wallace. kairosfocus

Ray Martinez:

Your message #97 simply repeats your denial that definitions of evolution used in the OP do not presuppose a material mechanism.

No, it doesn't. I quoted an evolutionist that supports my claim.

When Intelligence is the cause effects must be described as designed—not evolutionary because evolution is understood as being caused by unintelligence.

That "understanding" is incorrect and needs to change. Joe

Ray Martinez:

Please tell me where you obtained the idea that evolution was designed by Intelligence?

IDE doesn't explain all evolution. It does allow for blind watchmaker evolution to break things. That said I got the idea for IDE from the premise that organisms were designed and given my knowledge of genetic and evolutionary algorithms. IOW there is no way an intelligent designer would design living organisms and not design them with the ability to change, either genetically or behaviourly. Also their is our immune system which is IDE in action. On top of that there is "Not By Chance" by Dr Lee Spetner, prescibed evolution by John Davison (rip) and front-loaded evolution by Mike Gene and others. Joe

Joe (msg #103): Intelligent Design Evolution

Please tell me where you obtained the idea that evolution was designed by Intelligence? I'm asking you to name one or more persons and provide the references? Ray Martinez

Joe (msg# 104): And Ray, please read comment #97. It refutes your premise.

Your message #97 simply repeats your denial that definitions of evolution used in the OP do not presuppose a material mechanism. Since each definition was produced by a Darwinist these definitions presuppose Materialism. You can take any given definition and say the same was designed to occur, but you cannot say the same is evolutionary because evolution was accepted as being caused by unguided material agencies. Why would you want to give any validity to a concept (evolution) that provides aid and comfort to Atheists? When Intelligence is the cause effects must be described as designed---not evolutionary because evolution is understood as being caused by unintelligence. I don't understand what you don't understand? Ray Martinez

Using the explanatory filter to detect design in biology: Evolutionists say they have seen the explanatory filter used for anything dealing with biology. That must be because they haven't looked. What is the explanatory filter? It's just a process that forces you to follow science's mandate. See Newton's Four Rules. (page 13 of No Free Lunch shows the EF flowchart. It can also be found on page 37 of The Design Inference, page 182 of Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design, and page 88 of The Design Revolution)The flowchart for the EF is set up so that there are 3 decision nodes, each node capable only of a Yes or No decision. As are all filters it is eliminative. It eliminates via consideration/ examination. That is why the design inference cannot be the default. START ? CONTINGENCY? ?No ? Necessity (regularity/ law) ? yes COMPLEXITY? ?No ?Chance ? yes SPECIFICATION? ?No ? Chance ? yes Design Take the bacterial flagellum: There isn't anything in peer-review that demonstrates any bacterial flagellum can evolve via accumulations of/ culled genetic accidents in a population that never had one. With Dr. Lenski's long running E. coli experiment there hasn't even been any new proteins, let alone new multi-protein complexes. As Jerry Coyne said, these things are true, no math needed. As as Christopher Hitchens said “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”  The necessity and chance hypotheses are hence dismissed. As if I have to do the work of the evolutionists. So the first two decision boxes have answered "Yes". Moving to the third node: The criteria for inferring design in biology is, as Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Leheigh University, puts it in his book Darwin ‘ s Black Box: “Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.” He goes on to say: ” Might there be some as-yet-undiscovered natural process that would explain biochemical complexity? No one would be foolish enough to categorically deny the possibility. Nonetheless, we can say that if there is such a process, no one has a clue how it would work. Further, it would go against all human experience, like postulating that a natural process might explain computers.” The bacterial flagellum is both complex and specified. Therefor given our current state of knowledge of cause and effect relationships, ie science, we can say with confidence that the bacterial flagellum is designed.

"Thus, Behe concludes on the basis of our knowledge of present cause-and-effect relationships (in accord with the standard uniformitarian method employed in the historical sciences) that the molecular machines and complex systems we observe in cells can be best explained as the result of an intelligent cause.In brief, molecular motors appear designed because they were designed” Pg. 72 of Darwinism, Design and Public Education

And there you have it. (for a better treatise of the explanatory filter just search Uncommon Descent. Kairos Focus has several excellent discussions on it) Joe

And Ray, please read comment #97. It refutes your premise. Joe

Ray Martinez:

You can’t call effects evolutionary when caused by Intelligence for reasons I’ve explained over and over.

Your explanation doesn't hold water. A change in allele frequency is evolution regardless of the cause.

You can take facts produced by Darwinists and explain them as supporting ID, but you can’t use their cause-and-effect terminology because the same is subjective and highly illogical.

Evolution is the effect part. And I make it clear that the cause is different.

If species change by Intelligent agency, then the only proper description of said change is design, not evolution.

What if the species changed due to what the intelligent agency designed? The proper description would then be evolution by design. The reason we need to use the same words with different adjectives is to stop the confusion. When the media asks a candidate if he/ she accepts evolution, that candidate cannot say, "well I do but we call it something else." It would be best if teh candidate responded with- "What type of evolution are you talking about? Blind watchmaker evolution, Intelligent Design Evolution or front-loaded evolution?" Joe

JoeG (msg #101): Ray, The asterisk is all in your head. What do you call evolution by intelligent processes?

Whenever Intelligence (or any synonym) is involved with biological production the same has always been known to the History of Science as Supernaturalism, Creationism, or teleology, or a host of other synonymous concepts. You can't call effects evolutionary when caused by Intelligence for reasons I've explained over and over. You can take facts produced by Darwinists and explain them as supporting ID, but you can't use their cause-and-effect terminology because the same is subjective and highly illogical. Historically, ID and Darwinian evolution utilize two different sets of nouns and adjectives to convey their cause-and-effect claims. When a person removes a term from either set, and uses it to serve the other set, corruption of objective claims occurs and confusion ensues. If species change by Intelligent agency, then the only proper description of said change is design, not evolution. RM (Old Earth, Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist) Ray Martinez

Ray, The asterik is all in your head. What do you call evolution by intelligent processes? Joe

Phinehas (msg #96): Ray: "There is only one kind of accepted evolution: Darwin’s; hence Darwinism." Phinehas: "Accepted by whom? Darwinists? OK. That’s not particularly surprising and rather circular. But if you are speaking in broader terms, then I am not a Darwinist and yet I accept the evolution outlined in the OP. Your statement above is thus disproved." Ray: When I said accepted evolution was Darwin's I meant the same is caused by unintelligent processes (that's the claim). IF your fine with this then say nothing more. In response: You have Intelligence causing unintelligent processes, which is illogical. How does unintelligence indicate Intelligence? IF, however, you do not accept unintelligent processes then you can't say you accept evolution because evolution was accepted and continues to be accepted as being caused by unintelligent processes (Darwinian Materialism). I suspect you're attempting to have things both ways. You want the public to think you accept evolution, but you really don't; if it isn't caused by unintelligent processes you accept pseudo-evolution. Worst of all, as seen in the OP essay, you guys refuse to state up-front and in advance that the "evolution" you accept is guided by Intelligence. As we both know, every definition of evolution outlined in the OP was obtained from a Darwinian source. These sources offer their claims in the context of Naturalism and/or Materialism. So you don't, in fact, accept evolution. When you say you accept evolution there is an invisible asterisk next to it. Ray: "These definitions presuppose unintelligent material/natural causation because that was how the evolution, at issue, was accepted by science. In other words, these definitions all assume and presuppose unintelligent causation." Phinehas: "Of course they do. And that’s the point... [snip remainder]." Ray: So you do or you don't accept unintelligent processes? Ray Martinez

Scordova (msg #89): ID is compatible with both evolution and non-evolution (special creation, Darwin used the term “special creation”).

Then your "ID" isn't falsifiable; and evolution, as you've implied, is understood to always mean "not created." Therefore invisible Intelligence can't be compatible with evolution. Your claims are illogical and your thinking immersed in subjectivism. RM (Old Earth, Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist) Ray Martinez

Joe, evo mat is ever more beginning to sound like a new species of esotericism, complete with 1984 style double- speak/ think terms infused with special inner meanings, strictly for the initiated. Where if you don't know the funny hand shake signal, you are locked out -- or expelled. Magisterium sitting around a darkened table in a hidden room, wearing lab coats, anyone? Nah, couldn't be. Or, could it . . . (This begs for the talents of an editorial cartoonist!) KF kairosfocus

I have been thinking about what some comments have said- that the definitions I provided for "evolution" that were provided by evolutionists actually presuppose blind and undirected chemical processes as the mechanism. I don't think that is true. And for evidence to support my claim I give you non-other than Doug THeobald's "29+ evidences for macroevolution": Common Descent Can Be Tested Independently of Mechanistic Theories -

In this essay, universal common descent alone is specifically considered and weighed against the scientific evidence. In general, separate "microevolutionary" theories are left unaddressed. Microevolutionary theories are gradualistic explanatory mechanisms that biologists use to account for the origin and evolution of macroevolutionary adaptations and variation. These mechanisms include such concepts as natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection, neutral evolution, and theories of speciation. The fundamentals of genetics, developmental biology, molecular biology, biochemistry, and geology are assumed to be fundamentally correct—especially those that do not directly purport to explain adaptation. However, whether microevolutionary theories are sufficient to account for macroevolutionary adaptations is a question that is left open. Therefore, the evidence for common descent discussed here is independent of specific gradualistic explanatory mechanisms. None of the dozens of predictions directly address how macroevolution has occurred, how fins were able to develop into limbs, how the leopard got its spots, or how the vertebrate eye evolved. None of the evidence recounted here assumes that natural selection is valid. None of the evidence assumes that natural selection is sufficient for generating adaptations or the differences between species and other taxa. Because of this evidentiary independence, the validity of the macroevolutionary conclusion does not depend on whether natural selection, or the inheritance of acquired characaters, or a force vitale, or something else is the true mechanism of adaptive evolutionary change. The scientific case for common descent stands, regardless.

And the sane can be said of the definitions I provided- absent of mechanism. Joe

RM:

There is only one kind of accepted evolution: Darwin’s; hence Darwinism.

Accepted by whom? Darwinists? OK. That's not particularly surprising and rather circular. But if you are speaking in broader terms, then I am not a Darwinist and yet I accept the evolution outlined in the OP. Your statement above is thus disproved.

These definitions presuppose unintelligent material/natural causation because that was how the evolution, at issue, was accepted by science. In other words, these definitions all assume and presuppose unintelligent causation.

Of course they do. And that's the point. Stop it with the equivocations already. Either lay out your assumptions clearly in your definitions, or risk having others fill in the spaces with their own. Look: the writers of those biology textbooks want to have their cake and eat it too. They don't want to openly state their assumptions about unintelligent/unguided changes in a population over time because the unintelligent/unguided part is completely unsupported scientifically and, in fact, could not possibly be supported without allowing an ID foot in the scientific door. But neither do they want to admit that changes in a population over time could ever be other than unintelligent/unguided, since this would be at odds with their metaphysical commitments. The OP exposes their attempt to have it both ways, and does so rather brilliantly. And your responses merely highlight the ongoing attempt to have it both ways. Phinehas

Mapou, Richie Hughes is one of my personal cupcakes. He loves to misrepresent me and if I catch it I correct him. Joe

The media are very quite about it. God doesn't seem to have followed their script at all. Axel

'And if it is war, then let it be war. Realizing that ID will be able to overrun its enemies, forcibly unseat them, and relegate to the dustbin of history by one thing, and one thing only. Overwhelming. Scientific. Evidence. There is no other way.' Don't think so, JStanley01. Surely, the evidence was always known. If there's been an unwarranted paradigm shift, away from the scientific evidence, it has been in favour of the fatuous paradigm of materialism, scorned by all the great scientists of the past; most interestingly, perhaps, to us, the giants of the last century. - and it just keeps rolling in. Still, piling it on can only help in the overall scheme of things. Meanwhile, there's going to be a lot of unlikely knees bowing and tongues confessing before too long, by the look of things. Nuclear radiation looks set to be o'erweening man's nemesis. And who but the Almighty can man turn to, but the Lord? Axel

F/N: FYI, re RTH and other denizens of Plato's Cave echo chambers such as Anti Evo etc, on their willful abuse of language, as the corruption of language is a key device of ideological manipulators. So, it is worth highlighting correct usage:

guide (?a?d) vb 1. to lead the way for (a person) 2. to control the movement or course of (an animal, vehicle, etc) by physical action; steer; 3. to supervise or instruct (a person) 4. (tr) to direct the affairs of (a person, company, nation, etc): he guided the country through the war. 5. (tr) to advise or influence (a person) in his standards or opinions: let truth guide you always . . . . Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

Unless RTH intends to personify -- not likely -- the environment in which an organism lives or dies, reproduces or fails to do so, it cannot "guide" as it is not an agent with a purpose or a knowledge base and skill set. Period. Where also, something like an auto-pilot system expresses built in guiding designs impressed by intelligent designers and programmers. But, wrenching and distorting language ideologically can lead to people imagining it does. In the context of chance variations provoked by mutations and the like, less varieties sufficiently less successful reproductively as to be eliminated, leading to changes in populations, the environment is not a guide in any reasonable sense of language. And of course, the claim that minor adaptations (often tracing to loss of function) lead onwards through incremental accumulation to origin of novel body plans and branching tree evolution leading to the tree of life forms, this lacks empirical, observational support. Yes, it is ideologically imposed by the back door of question-begging methodological constraints and the like, but that is a very different thing. KF kairosfocus

You are right to defend yourself against calomnies from blowtards. But who is Richard Hughes and why should anybody care about his opinion? Mapou

When all else fails evos just lie about what I post: Richie Hughes spews:

Joe is now claiming that the environment (in the context of organism / environment fit) can't guide reproductive success / evolution.

Except I never made that claim. Strange what the coward;y evos say when they are refuted. (Richie tried and failed to refute something I had posted and now he is upset) Joe

ID is compatible with both evolution and non-evolution (special creation, Darwin used the term "special creation"). However, evidence against evolution (like sudden emergence of forms with no apparent ancestor) is very favorably to ID. Why is that? Special Creation is a sufficient but not necessary condition for ID to be true. but the converse is not true, thus ID is a necessary but not sufficient condition for Special Creation to be true. One reason anti-Evolutionary (anti-common descent) arguments frequently appear in defense of ID is that if evolution is shown non existent, this favors ID, but that doesn't mean ID is inherently anti-evolution, it's just that some of the best arguments that will make ID persuasive are anti-evolutionary in nature. Second, just because some IDists are antievolutionary, doesn't make the claim of ID inherently antievolutionary. The discipline of ID is "the study of patterns in nature that signify intelligence". Nothing there about common descent. ID is not anti-evolution, but that doesn't mean evidence against common descent won't help the ID case. Thus a lot of pro-ID arguments are anti-evolution (anti-common descent). scordova

This is one of the best threads on UD in a long time, IMO. Mapou

"they light their denial fires and dance around them" Consider this stolen. Mine now. :) Upright BiPed

Ray, #75 The term evolution, and the discovery of it's true nature, is evolving. It must be defined and explained by observation and experience, not preference. Unfortunately, I must work today and do not have the time to catch you up on the science, however, I suggest you read James Shapiro's recent book regarding evolution in the 21st century (assuming you are truly interested in another form of evolution disconnected from darwinism). In addition, I suggest you look at evolution as a very broad life insurance policy. It is a process that has been established by the Creator to assure life is provided with the opportunities necessary to adapt and survive in an ever changing world. Insofar as the evidence goes, I can not think of any research that does not support teleological evolution. littlejohn

This semantics tussle is, in my opinion, irrelevant.

The relevance is that Joe is demonstrating the wall of straw men and obfuscation anti-theistic zealots constantly throw up in their irrational desire to keep ID at bay - to make it appear not only anti-evolutionary, but anti-science as well. They're just scared to death of the implications of apparent and perhaps provable teleology in nature, so they light their denial fires and dance around them. William J Murray

Simply ridiculous. Every definition of evolution offered in your essay employs material concepts.

Including ID - unless, of course, you consider intelligence "immaterial"?

Every definition presupposes Materialism.

Even if that were true, so? ID doesn't claim that the design mechanism is immaterial. Humans design things all the time - are we immaterial?

To put it mildly: You and your supporters have made an elementary blunder. In short: No immaterial concept used in any definition (= Materialism), which is what Darwinian evolution is. There isn’t any such thing as “Intelligent or immaterial evolution,” never has, never will be.

The blunder is yours - a basic one, where you failed to do your due diligence and just read the faq of weak arguments provided on this site. ID doesn't require that the designing intelligence be "immaterial". If "materialism" vs "immaterialism" is the best you've got, you've failed in separating ID from evolution. William J Murray

SteRusJon: Well said. And largely my point as well. Eric Anderson

Ooops, the links in my comment 79 are not working. Use these: mechanism (note the synonyms means, method, process) design Joe

Thank you SteRusJon. When I say, to evolutionists, that design is a mechanism, I follow that up with front-loading, targeted searches, ie active searching for solutions (see the immune system responses), artificial selection and non-random mutations, as possible design candidates. And I usually say that list is hardly exhaustive. I then provide examples such as genetic and evolutionary algorithms, which used constrained mutations/ variations, cumulatively selected towards a goal, as support. Some of those are pretty amazing. And if we can do that then just think of what a more powerful designer could do, by design! Joe

Joe and Eric, This semantics tussle is, in my opinion, irrelevant. From what I have seen, when an (unguided) evolutionist seeks a "mechanism" from an ID advocate, they are most often looking for a mechanical equivalent to their "mechanism"- culled accidents. They fail to see, or refuse to acknowledge, that design is not solely, or even mostly, a mechanical event. Design is almost entirely a process. A process of selecting the components and planning the arrangement of the components for the final step of instantiation. They seem to be fixated on the instantiation when the most critical aspects are the selection and arranging. It matters little, and is likely undetectable, how the design was instantiated. Unless some assembly plant was left behind, there is probably no way to determine just how it was mechanically produced. A plant would operate by "natural" law processes anyway and would not really tell us how the highly unlikely became inevitable, since the plant itself would need a "design mechanism" proposed to satisfy them. Since the method of construction is probably indeterminable and largely irrelevant, the proper answer to their question, "What is the mechanism?" is to tell them the important aspects for an intelligent design are those that make up the process- component selection and arranging. You are both correct in the sense that the correct answer to their quest for an "design mechanism" is the "process of design by an intelligent agent." Sorry, if they don't like what they get. They need to get of their box and start thinking. Stephen SteRusJon

Eric- As with most words mechanism has several meanings. In the context of the ID vs. anti-ID debate, mechanism refers to a way or means of doing something. For example, in biology the anti-ID mechanism is "culled genetic accidents". In contrast the ID position which posits there was a plan, a structure, a purpose, an intention- IOW some grand (or not so grand) design. Many of the greatest scientists who ever graced this planet used science as a way to understand that design. IOW for those who embrace ID they can only be as scientifically literate as those great scientists. Which is something I would wish on everyone. OK mechanisms are a way of doing things. We can do things by design or we can do things willy-nilly. Both are mechanisms in this sense- the sense that the word is being used in this debate. Joe

Eric:

I’m aware of that definition, which is the closest you are going to get with the idea that design is a mechanism. (Most other definitions of mechanism are even more focused on the physical aspect.)

Yes mechanism, like design, can be either a noun or a verb.

However, all we can say from the definition you cited is that a process can be used to produce a particular result. Used by whom? Or by what?

It doesn't matter. Natural selection is a mechanism too.

Certainly a designer can use a particular “mechanism” to produce a desired result. A designer can use a “process” to produce a result. But it does not follow that because a designer goes through a process of designing that design itself is a mechanism.

The part of designing is a mechanism and building is a mechanism.

We don’t have fully overlapping Venn diagrams here. In other words, even though a mechanism can include a process, it does not mean that every process is best described as a mechanism, particularly not a process that is primarily a mental one.

Actually it does.

Whatever the case, my larger point is that calling design a mechanism is not helpful in the design debate.

It is when compared to the mechanism of natural selection.

It plays right into the hands of the materialists who demand to know what “mechanism” produced X, and saying “design” isn’t at all helpful.

Again I refer you to their mechanism of natural selection.

Furthermore one then ends up playing in their playground and having to fall back to the idea that there are multiple design theories about how this or that artifact could have come about.

That is irrelevant wrt ID. wrt ID.

The whole situation would be a lot clearer if we just think of design as it is normally understood in everyday language, definitions like:

I have been involved with design in one way or another for over 4 decades. My use of the word "design" is normal. And once you answer the question "it was designed" you know some design process, ie a mechanism, was used. Again when compared with natural selection saying design is a mechanism is valid. Context is important. Joe

Joe:

I love this part: mechanism: : a process or system that is used to produce a particular result As I said, design is a mechanism, by definition. And you just demonstrated that it is.

Almost, but not quite. :) I'm aware of that definition, which is the closest you are going to get with the idea that design is a mechanism. (Most other definitions of mechanism are even more focused on the physical aspect.) However, all we can say from the definition you cited is that a process can be used to produce a particular result. Used by whom? Or by what? Certainly a designer can use a particular "mechanism" to produce a desired result. A designer can use a "process" to produce a result. But it does not follow that because a designer goes through a process of designing that design itself is a mechanism. We don't have fully overlapping Venn diagrams here. In other words, even though a mechanism can include a process, it does not mean that every process is best described as a mechanism, particularly not a process that is primarily a mental one. Of course one might choose to declare that every process is a mechanism. But in that case we've simply robbed the word "process" of any independent meaning in its own right. Whatever the case, my larger point is that calling design a mechanism is not helpful in the design debate. It plays right into the hands of the materialists who demand to know what "mechanism" produced X, and saying "design" isn't at all helpful. Furthermore one then ends up playing in their playground and having to fall back to the idea that there are multiple design theories about how this or that artifact could have come about. There is no need to even go there or to cede that ground. The whole situation would be a lot clearer if we just think of design as it is normally understood in everyday language, definitions like: - to prepare the plan, form and structure of - to plan and fashion artistically or skillfully - to form or conceive in the mind; contrive; plan - to plan and fashion the form and structure of an object, work of art, etc. - an outline, sketch or plan - organization or structure of formal elements of an object Of course a design is eventually instantiated in matter. Of course in producing the designed object mechanisms are used. But design itself is not primarily a mechanistic issue; it is not primarily a physical issue. Well, enough on that. I obviously can't prevent people from using whatever terminology they want, but I hope it is food for thought. I'll end with just an example to consider: Suppose we come across an artifact that exhibits specified complexity, but the provenance of which is unknown. The materialist asks us whether it was designed or not. We answer, "Yes." And we can appropriately conclude design without knowing how it was constructed or which mechanisms were used to construct it, and so on. In other words, we can answer the question "Is x designed?" completely independently of knowing how x was designed or how x was constructed. They are separate questions. And answering the "how" question by saying "It was constructed with the mechanism of design," doesn't add any new information to the discussion at all. All it does is repeat the fact that it was designed and attach a different label to it. And it certainly doesn't convince the ID skeptic that we know what we are talking about. Thus, tying the concept of "mechanism" to the concept of design doesn't explain anything helpful and, I fear, in most cases just confuses the discussion. It confuses the discussion because it conflates the mental/intelligence-oriented design activity (what ID can infer) with the actual physical mechanisms used to carry it out (which ID in most cases cannot infer). Eric Anderson

Greetings everyone. Ray Martinez, Much of the discussion you had with Joe would have been avoided if you noticed that he agreed with what Eric Anderson wrote at 55. Reading what was posted, and following the discussion, what the post shows is that one has to differentiate between observations and causes of observations. If one uses the definitions as provided above, and it is observed in nature, then that should not be a problem. Joe is just trying to expose the underlying problem: What is the cause of the above observations? It is true that many of these authors who define evolution assumed purely material causes. But that is just it: Causes. Joe is stating that in principle, ID is not against the above observations. seventrees

LittleJohn (#72): I think Joe is just pointing out that since Darwin, many forms of evolution have been discovered.

He said or implied no such thing. If you still disagree then paste the quotes? Better yet: Why don't you show us just one other form of evolution? ALL of Joe's definitions were obtained from a Darwinian source. There is only one kind of accepted evolution: Darwin's; hence Darwinism. Gould 2002 (1000+ pages) was written to say while the structure has changed considerably the theory of evolution remains Darwinian.

As the evidence continues to pile up, we are beginning to find that evolution is clearly teleological, and design hypothesis’ best explain our observations, regardless of the consensus of wrongheaded presuppositions.

What evidence are you talking about? IDists don't publish books advocating evolution, Darwinists do that. If everything is designed, as you seem to imply, then why call it evolutionary? Since the term belongs to Darwinism irrevocably, you're advocating confusion. Since evolution has always meant "by unintelligent processes" you can't call whatever you're talking about to be evolution. Whenever Intelligence is being advocated one must use terms that correspond (like design). Every DI-IDist in this thread continues to conflate terms that are known to describe Darwinian processes to be legitimately interchangeable with Intelligent agency (and vice-versa); this is subjective and illogical thinking at its worst. RM (Old Earth, Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist) Ray Martinez

Ray:

Speciation, as we understand the term since the rise of Darwinism, presupposes unintelligent causation; and since Creationists and science in Linnaeus’s [sic] day accepted supernatural or Intelligent causation, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Speciation, whether or not via darwinain processes, was still accepted by Creationists and as such they were not for the immutability of species. Do try to follow along. Also in 1997 Dr Spetner had "Not By Chance" published which discusses Intelligent causation wrt biological evolution. See littlejohn's post Joe

Ray, I think you may be painting yourself into a corner. It may be true that all biologists accept darwinian evolution as one manifestation of evolution, but I think Joe is just pointing out that since Darwin, many forms of evolution have been discovered. As the evidence continues to pile up, we are beginning to find that evolution is clearly teleological, and design hypothesis' best explain our observations, regardless of the consensus of wrongheaded presuppositions. littlejohn

RAY: "This is seen in the fact that before Darwin published species were considered immutable." JOE: "Wrong. Linne [sic] was before Darwin and he put the Created Kind at the level of Genera, meaning Creationists before Darwin accepted speciation. Immutable species was a Darwin strawman, Ray. Please get with the program already." RAY: Speciation, as we understand the term since the rise of Darwinism, presupposes unintelligent causation; and since Creationists and science in Linnaeus's day accepted supernatural or Intelligent causation, you don't know what you're talking about. You've conflated contradictory concepts that belong to contradictory paradigms. And since Darwin was writing as a virulent transmutationist, he had no reason to say science accepted fixism if it wasn't true. ALL scholars, without exception, know that before 1859 science accepted species to be immutable.

Charles Darwin (1859:6,310): "....the view which most naturalists entertain, and which I formerly entertained---namely, that each species has been independently created---is erroneous. I am fully convinced that species are not immutable." "We see this in the plainest manner by the fact that all the most eminent paleontologists, namely Cuvier, Owen, Agassiz, Barrande, Falconer, E. Forbes and all our greatest geologists, as Lyell, Murchison, Sedgwick have unanimously, often vehemently, maintained the immutability of species....I feel how rash it is to differ from these great authorities, to whom, with others, we owe all our knowledge."

So you're saying every scientific authority named above didn't maintain fixism? as if we can't confirm what Darwin said by reading their writings for ourselves? LOL! It's hard to believe that you didn't know that before 1859 science accepted fixism. Again, this is WHY Darwin is SO famous. Natural selection was largely rejected by his scientific peers. It didn't see widesppread acceptance until the 1930s and 40s. Now that you've exposed yourself as a rank amateur, I don't care what you say....you can have the last word. RM (Old Earth, Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist) Ray Martinez

Ray Martinez:

Every definition of evolution offered in your essay employs material concepts.

Not one mentions blind and undirected chemical processes. Not one says accumulations of genetic accidents didit. Not one even mentions how we could even test that premise. Do you know of a testable hypothesis wrt natural selection allowing the evolution of any bacterial flagellum? And I don't care what is presupposed. That is irrelevant. Joe

JoeG: Now we are left with: the only way Intelligent Design can be considered “anti-evolution” is if and only if the only generally accepted definition of “evolution” matches the definition provided for “materialistic evolution.” However I cannot find any credible source that definitively states on the record that that is the case.

Simply ridiculous. Every definition of evolution offered in your essay employs material concepts. Every definition presupposes Materialism. To put it mildly: You and your supporters have made an elementary blunder. In short: No immaterial concept used in any definition (= Materialism), which is what Darwinian evolution is. There isn't any such thing as "Intelligent or immaterial evolution," never has, never will be. Every definition in your essay was obtained from a Darwinian biologist source. It, therefore, goes without saying that said definitions presuppose Materialism (= unintelligent material/natural causation). SHEESH!

Ernst Mayr (writing in 1991): "There is indeed one belief that all true original Darwinians held in common and that was their rejection of creationism, their rejection of special creation. This was the flag around which they assembled and under which they marched. When Hull claimed that 'the Darwinians did not totally agree with each other, even over essentials', he overlooked one essential on which [sic] all these Darwinians agreed. Nothing was more essential for them than to decide whether evolution is a natural phenomenon or something controlled by God. The conviction that the diversity of the natural world was the result of natural processes and not the work of God was the idea that brought all the so-called Darwinians together in spite of their disagreements on other of Darwin’s theories (boldfacing added)."

ALL biologists today, without exception, consider themselves Darwinians. Ray Martinez

Ray Martinez:

Accepted evolution is Darwin’s evolution.

That needs to change:

This is seen in the fact that before Darwin published species were considered immutable

Wrong. Linne was before Darwin and he put the Created Kind at the level of Genera, meaning Creationists before Darwin accepted speciation. Immutable species was a Darwin strawman, Ray. Please get with the program already.

Moreover, to claim acceptance of evolution without clearly disclaiming unintelligent causation, is inexcusable deception.

Yes Ray, covered in the OP. Read it again, for the forst time. Mike Gene has "front-loaded evolution". John Davison proposed his "prescribed evolutionary hypothesis". Dr Spetner has his "non-random evolutionary hypothesis" and now I give you Intelligent Design Evolution. Painting us as anti-evolution menas we accept the immutability of species, Ray. It's time we buried that strawman. Joe

Eric Anderson:

If all you are proposing is that the process of design produces, say, X, and therefore design is the “mechanism” that brought about X, then fine.

I apologize if I haven't made that very clear.

When they talk about a mechanism, they are most certainly talking about things like matter A interacting with energy B to produce X.

Except with evolutionism. It is void of that type of detail. Their alleged designer-mimic mechanism, natural selection certainly doesn't match your description.

Just think it would be a lot clearer to refer to design as a process or an approach, rather than a mechanism.

I love this part: mechanism: : a process or system that is used to produce a particular result As I said, design is a mechanism, by definition. And you just demonstrated that it is. Joe

Phinehas (msg #50):

The OP is extremely clear. It goes out of its way to define evolution as the change in a population of organisms over time.

Yes, I agree.

It uses six different quotes from respected Biology sources to validate this definition. The OP goes out of its way to specify that it is in the context of this definition that claims are being made.

Agreed.

No where in any of the quoted definitions of evolution or in the OP’s approach to the subject is there the slightest hint that the change over time being discussed must be the result of an “unintelligent process.” This is a concept that you’ve smuggled into the conversation, evidently with the sole purpose of creating a dichotomy that does not exist in the OP or in the literature it quotes. I’d like to understand what motivated you to do this.

Well, I answered this question in previous messages. Once again (and I'll add more information this time): Accepted evolution is Darwin's evolution. This is precisely why Darwin is so famous and revered even today. This is seen in the fact that before Darwin published species were considered immutable (Darwin 1859:6, 310; London: John Murray). And the theory of how evolution occurs remains Darwinian. Therefore every definition of evolution offered by JoeG presupposes a Darwinian source. His definitions reflect the actual mechanics of the scientific claim. These definitions presuppose unintelligent material/natural causation because that was how the evolution, at issue, was accepted by science. In other words, these definitions all assume and presuppose unintelligent causation. Evolution has never been accepted as being caused by anything else. Therefore, since 1859, unto the present, the term "evolution" is always understood as presupposing unintelligent causation. For you, or JoeG, or any DI-IDist to claim acceptance of evolution is to claim acceptance of unintelligent causation. Moreover, to claim acceptance of evolution without clearly disclaiming unintelligent causation, is inexcusable deception. Based on the facts just outlined, the term evolution can never be used in conjunction with Intelligent causation. We who have studied the History of Science know that whenever Intelligent causation is being advocated, effects cannot be described as evolutionary, but have always been described as designed. Evolution, since Darwin, has always been understood as an effect of unintelligent causation. Since you guys accept Intelligent causation you can't claim to accept any genuine evolutionary concept. You want the world to think that you accept evolution, but you really don't. Evolution caused by Intelligent agency is pseudo-evolution. RM (Old Earth, Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist) Ray Martinez

I'm still not sure I'm following you guys. Bear with me a moment . . . I didn't ask about the "mechanism" that does the designing, or whether a designer utilizes "mechanisms" in the process of instantiating a design in matter. The question is whether design itself is a "mechanism." In working with plenty of engineers I've certainly heard of a "design approach" or a "design process." But I don't know if I've ever heard anyone refer to design itself as a "mechanism." If all you are proposing is that the process of design produces, say, X, and therefore design is the "mechanism" that brought about X, then fine. But that is a somewhat unusual use of the word, particularly when we are discussing things with our materialistic-minded friends. When they talk about a mechanism, they are most certainly talking about things like matter A interacting with energy B to produce X. They are talking about mechanical parts, or physical systems. They are not talking about things that occur with design, like planning, analysis, forethought, sketching, review, goals, purpose, etc. Furthermore, if we talk of design as a mechanism, then the natural follow-up question is: "OK, then tell us what the exact mechanism is that was used to produce X." And when the ID proponent cannot do so, then the retort is, "Well, you say design is a mechanism, but you can't tell me what the mechanism is." I just don't think it is a very clear -- or helpful -- use of terminology. Anyway, it sounds like all that is being proposed by the wording here is that design brought some X about. I certainly don't disagree with that. Just think it would be a lot clearer to refer to design as a process or an approach, rather than a mechanism. Indeed, rather than being a "mechanism," it is better thought of as a process or an approach that can utilize various "mechanisms" to bring about the design goal. Eric Anderson

Eric, Design is a mechanism, by definition. Cars are assembled by design, not willy nilly. And a targeted search is a specific design mechanism. Joe

Eric Anderson:

What is this “mechanism” of intelligent design you refer to?

In my view, it is the brain, the only intelligent mechanism we know of that has the ability to design complex objects. Whoever designed life on earth had to have a brain or something similar. Of course, in the case of living organisms, we are talking about a highly advanced brain (or many brains) and one that is not necessarily made of ordinary matter. Mapou

For JoeG and Mapou: OK, I'll bite: What is this "mechanism" of intelligent design you refer to? Eric Anderson

William- Too funny, Kevin has a challenge for us IDists. He has two DNA sequences- the code for two DNA sequences- one belongs to a real organism, ie allegedly designed, and one was randomly generated. He said ID is useless if it can't tell which is the randomly generated one. I told him that his position says it can determine design from not so any randomly picked evolutionary biologist should be able to make the determination or evolutionary biology is useless, by Kevin's own standards.

When a Darwinist says that there is no evidence of ID (that shows intelligence necessary for an outcome), they are also necessarily stating that there is no evidence for Darwinism (which would show intelligence unnecessary).

He doesn't understand that. But anyway I also told him that his "challenge" has nothing to do with anything that ID claims. But he won't have any of that and really thinks he has outsmarted us. Joe

Joe @58:

No, Kevin, we don’t know what that specific design mechanism was and knowing what it was is not part of Intelligent Design. It is not required to know how something was designed before determining it was designed.

Kevin McCArthy is obviously a dishonest and anal retentive jackass. One thing that can be said about any intelligent design mechanism (I agree with you that it is a mechanism) is that it is goal-directed and thus has the ability to imagine future outcomes and make predictions. Mapou

The problem any darwinist (evolutionary materialist) faces is that the only means by which their assertion can be tested would be by the same metric that would test for ID - they are two sides of the same metric. When a Darwinist says that there is no evidence of ID (that shows intelligence necessary for an outcome), they are also necessarily stating that there is no evidence for Darwinism (which would show intelligence unnecessary). William J Murray

This bothers me so I will get it off my chest. Kevin McCarthy takes on Dr. Behe:

Unfortunately, Behe isn’t really our best choice for this. Despite being a fellow at the Discovery Institute and writing several books on the subject, he can’t even keep a straight definition of ID. Check the underlined [italicized] parts of these two statements from the Dover trial:

Q If we could go to page 11 of your report and highlight the underscored text. You say, “Intelligent design theory focuses exclusively on the proposed mechanism of how complex biological structures arose.” Correct? A That is correct, yes. Q That’s consistent with your testimony today. A Yes, it is. Dover Trial Testimony – A = Dr. Michael Behe http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm2.html

Yes, in that context he was talking some unguided processes vs. some design processes.

Followed by

Q. And before we leave the blood clotting system, can you just remind the Court the mechanism by which intelligent design creates the blood clotting system? A. Well, as I mentioned before, intelligent design does not say, a mechanism, but what it does say is, one important factor in the production of systems, and that is that, at some point in the pathway, intelligence was involved. Dover Trial Testimony – A = Dr. Michael Behe http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am2.html

So, while ID focuses on the mechanism of how complex biological structures arose, there is no actual mechanism. Got that, thanks Michael.

No, Kevin, we don’t know what that specific design mechanism was and knowing what it was is not part of Intelligent Design. It is not required to know how something was designed before determining it was designed. Context is always important and always ignored by Kevin. Do you see a pattern? Joe

The Bengalese Finch

If the Bengalese finch is anything like the Darwin finch then there is no evolution at all going on or at least no new species. The Darwin finches primarily select mates based on songs learned just after birth. But that does not mean that they could not mate with a finch using a different song. And after 3 million years all the varieties of Darwin's finches are still one species. They all can inner breed. They just have musical preferences. jerry

Too funny: I had said: Evolution has several meanings. And seeing that ID only disagrees with one definition it is not OK to cal it anti-evolution. It is OK to call ID anti-blind watchmaker, ie unguided, evolution.

To which Richie Hughes responded (as an attempt to refute what I said: The Bengalese Finch: A Window on the Behavioral Neurobiology of Birdsong Syntax,KAZUO OKANOYA,Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences Volume 1016, Behavioral Neurobiology of Birdsong pages 724–735, June 2004 Quote ...When female preference in a natural environment guides the direction of evolution... MODELING PHENOTYPIC PLASTICITY IN GROWTH TRAJECTORIES: A STATISTICAL FRAMEWORK http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi............ull Quote ...A number of quantitative hypotheses can be made for the interplay between environment and development in a hope to address fundamental questions in biology; for example, how the environment affects developmental rate and timing and the length of a particular developmental event in the lifetime of an organism (Parsons et al. 2011) and how the environment guides the development of traits to achieve maximum fitness (Agraval 2001; Beldade et al. 2011). Second, statistical modeling of developmental traits is based on a few parsimonious parameters that can capture the structure of trait development and correlation, thus facilitating the computation of a complex model and its power for the detection of environment-induced differences (Ma et al. 2002; Griswold et al. 2008)...

In the first article, it doesn't refute what I said. That sexual selection producxes some direction doesn't mean darwinain evolution didit. In the second Richie doesn't realize it doesn't support unguided evolution nor refute what I said. The environment influences development? REALLY? The environment changes and that means what is of benefit changes too. No guidance nor direction beyond "whatever survives and reproduces". Then Richie links to Larry Moran baldly declaring evolution is unguided- as if that settles things. Unfortunately Larry never sez how to test his claim. Joe

Eric Anderson:

It is also true that 99.9% of the time when the concept of evolution is discussed in scientific papers, in textbooks, in the media, it is understood to be a purely natural process without any intelligent guidance or intervention.

And that is the problem. I would love to have disclaimers put in all textbooks that state the exact issues of the debate. I would also have those who adhere to the unspoken blind watchmaker nature of evolution ante up with testable hypotheses wrt unguided evolution. As people like Lizzie and Kevin have proven though, they dismiss that darwinian/ neo-darwinian evolution positits blind watchmaker, ie unguided evolution. And that is why Kevin just freely omits it as an adjective when discussing evolution. And that is also why they both think that genetic and evolutionary algorithms mimic darwinian evolution- they just don't understand what darwinian evolution entails and are proud of their lack of understanding. So, Eric, this is why what I am saying has to be made more public. I, for one, am sick of their equivocating- all evolution is darwinian. It has to stop. Joe

I understand why everyone is jumping on Ray. Furthermore, I understand JoeG's point that many things under the heading of "evolution" are not in conflict with ID. However . . . It is also true that 99.9% of the time when the concept of evolution is discussed in scientific papers, in textbooks, in the media, it is understood to be a purely natural process without any intelligent guidance or intervention. Furthermore, every single one of the quotes JoeG used all assume that to be the case, even though they don't explicitly state it. The fact of the matter is that when "evolution" is discussed, it is assumed to be a blind, purposeless, undirected process, unless the speaker explicitly states otherwise. Indeed, that is one of the primary rhetorical moves of the evolutionary storyline, namely, failure to be up front about the underlying (usually unstated) assumptions. There is certainly value in pointing out that the results of certain biological processes that are held up as evidence of "evolution" are not in conflict with ID, and indeed in some cases may even hint at design. There is also value in finding whatever common ground may exist between different people in the debate. But we should not deceive ourselves into thinking that just because a speaker or a news story or a scientific article or a textbook doesn't explicitly say "and all of this came about purely through natural processes without any intelligent guidance or intervention" that they have anything but precisely that in mind. Eric Anderson

Ah Ray Ray Ray. Ray “Egregious Error of Stupendous Ignorance” Martinez, still slaying the dragons. :) Hi Ray. Upright BiPed

Thank you Phinehas... Joe

IDists say: Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution. Intelligent design argues against the claim thatdarwinian/ neo-darwinian/ blind watchmaker/ unguided evolution can account the appearance of design in living organisms. evos hear: They say ID is not anti-evolution and the very next sentence they say ID argues against evolution. IDists say: Natural selection exists, there just isn't any evidence for it being a designer mimic. evos hear: They say ID is not anti-evolution yet say natural selection, which is evolution, doesn't exist. Kevin McCarthy trots out ALL of the PRATTS, all of the misrepresentations, he doesn't hold back. There are many such evobabblers out there, censoring ID and promoting their twisted version to help their cause. I think it is past the time we should start educating the people and continue to expose the lies of our opponents. Joe

Ray Martinez, The OP is extremely clear. It goes out of its way to define evolution as the change in a population of organisms over time. It uses six different quotes from respected Biology sources to validate this definition. The OP goes out of its way to specify that it is in the context of this definition that claims are being made. No where in any of the quoted definitions of evolution or in the OP's approach to the subject is there the slightest hint that the change over time being discussed must be the result of an "unintelligent process." This is a concept that you've smuggled into the conversation, evidently with the sole purpose of creating a dichotomy that does not exist in the OP or in the literature it quotes. I'd like to understand what motivated you to do this. Phinehas

And that is why people like Kevin R. McCarthy have to be exposed and slapped down by reality. Joe

All too true and why I will not stop my conveying my message. Darwin erected a strawman (the fixity of species) and the evos have set to worshipping it. Joe

Joe: To such, "evolution" = "a priori materialist evolutionary materialism dressed up in a lab coat." And as what is in a lab coat "must be" science and as if matter etc is all that is then blind watchmaker evo and blind watchmaker replicator molecules or molecule sets etc MUST be so. They don't even realise they ate begging big questions. Indeed to them, if you challenge that YOU must be wrong. As Lewontin said, to them it is all self-evident and science is the only begetter of truth -- they don't even realise this is self refuting. KF kairosfocus

Kevin McCarthy wrote:

Some time ago, I had an online debate with a gentleman who both claimed that ID was not anti-evolution and in the very next sentence claimed that all I had to do to refute ID was to prove evolution.

Ya see that? What I actually said was to falsify ID all one had to do is demonstrate that blind watchmaker, ie unguided, evolution is true. Kevin is so clueless even when it is spelled out for him he still blows it. Joe

Hi Robert, Evolution has several meanings. And seeing that ID only disagrees with one definition it is not OK to cal it anti-evolution. It is OK to call ID anti-blind watchmaker, ie unguided, evolution. Joe

Ray Martinez, Thanks again but obvioulsy you did not read the OP. Joe

YEC has complained about ID.Yet on this forum evolutionism is so attacked that in effect its anti evolution.So don't run away from being seen as anti evolution.It still comes down to the merits of the evidence. Robert Byers

Intelligence and unintelligence are antonyms. They contradict egregiously. Both cannot occupy the same place and the same thing at the same time. To say othwerwise, as JoeG has said, in behalf of DI-IDism, is to say God created/caused unintelligent processes. Unintelligence does not logically imply or indicate God (= invisible Intelligence).

Where is this pompous drivel coming from? Mapou

JoeG: Or perhaps Ray just has some single-minded definition of “evolution” that he is not sharing? Maybe he didn’t read the part where I say that ID is anti-evolution given one single-minded definition of “evolution”.

Your essay says DI-IDism accepts most evolutionary concepts as existing in nature. In this context I remind readers that "evolution," as it has been accepted since the rise of Darwinism, was accepted as being caused by unintelligent processes. Therefore, in your paradigm, Intelligence caused and produced unintelligent processes and their effects (evolutionary concepts). But this can't be true based on the fact that no effect can be described as evolutionary if caused by Intelligence. You've conflated contradictory concepts. Illogic runs rampant in the DI-ID paradigm. RM (Old Earth, Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist) Ray Martinez

Moreover, JoeG, representing and conveying the claims of DI-IDism, seems to forget that IF the concept of Intelligence exists in nature (and it most certainly does) then the concept of unintelligence cannot possibly exist because unintelligence cannot be an outcome or effect of Intelligence. Since the rise of Darwinism, evolution has been accepted as being caused by unintelligent processes. Therefore when JoeG goes on and on about DI-IDism accepting evolution, whether that be microevolution, macroevolution, speciation, and/or common ancestry, he is saying that Intelligence ultimately created or enacted unintelligence. Intelligence and unintelligence are antonyms. They contradict egregiously. Both cannot occupy the same place and the same thing at the same time. To say othwerwise, as JoeG has said, in behalf of DI-IDism, is to say God created/caused unintelligent processes. Unintelligence does not logically imply or indicate God (= invisible Intelligence). In short: By accepting antonymic agents of causation as existing in nature, Intelligence must have and does have preeminence as the ultimate cause. Since evolution was accepted as an exclusive effect of unintelligence, one cannot imply or describe the concept as a product of Intelligence. Therefore DI-IDism does not accept any evolutionary concept as existing in nature. RM (Old Earth, Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist) Ray Martinez

Ray, Thank you for not even addressing what I said to defend my claim. It proves that you have nothing to say. Humans use evolution to design so they can hardly be mutually exclusive. Talk about being unaware, that would be Ray. Or perhaps Ray just has some single-minded definition of "evolution" that he is not sharing? Maybe he didn't read the part where I say that ID is anti-evolution given one single-minded definition of "evolution". Did you read the OP, Ray? Joe

JoeG and the D.I. don't seem to understand that the concept of design and the concept of evolution are logically and mutually exclusive; the latter caused by unintelligence, the former caused by Intelligence. Darwinists understand quite well. All of them reject the concept of design as existing in nature. Based on design seen in species, we Paleyans don't see any evidence of unintelligence in species or nature. And JoeG seems quite proud and unaware of his gross illogic. Yes, the delusion is working on those who believe in evolution, not God. RM (Old Earth, Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist) Ray Martinez

Oops- thanks Optimus! Joe

Thanks Q- But anyway, right on Q (pun) I give you the evobabble "response" to this OP which really didn't deal with the OP at all. Kevin still doesn't understand the distinction between evolution, the thing, and darwinian/ neo-darwinian evolution which tries to explain the thing. ID is anti-evolution, even though Kevin never sez in what way ID is anti-evolution. He won't let me post there- he can't handle the truth. But thanks to the IDists here he can see that you agree with me and he is willfully ignorant and apparently proud of it. Stop by and say hi to Kevin for me Joe

Good post! Optimus

Eric, One strawman wrt ID not being a mechanistic theory is that the antiIDists take that and say that means ID desn't have any mechanisms. As if... And my point with calling design a mechanism is that is just as valid as saying natural selection is a mechanism- both very general. Joe

Kairos Focus- at the swamp (atbc)- the usual suspects, Richie "cupcake" Hughes and Glenn D. Joe

Joe @30, Why is a jackass troll like LarTanner even allowed to post here? Mapou

Joe, where are those responses? KF kairosfocus

Mapou, Some of the evo responses are priceless. One guy actually chides the OP for not saying what ID predicts, not realizing that is not the topic. Anything to distract from the facts, I guess. Another guy sez that natural selection is a designer because of his misunderstanding of the way we classify phenomena. Again anything to avoid the actual topic- look at LarTanner's "response" (#15) Classic and priceless... Joe

Joe, What I really like about this thread is that it takes the strawman arguments that the Darwinists love to use against critics of their stupid theory and throws them right out the window. Darwinists will hate you precisely because their brain-dead talking points are ineffective against people like you. They want to forever make believe that the only people who oppose Darwinist philosophy are young earth creationists and fundamentalist Christians from the Bible belt. We must snatch that silly weapon from them and shove it down their throats. PS. Your book idea is great. You just need adequate funding and time to work on it. A project like that can turn into a monster. Mapou

Kind of new to intelligent design concepts Guess my understanding is that Intelligent Design requires: An unknown intelligence, working from an unknown location, through unknown mechanisms, via unknown means, over an unknown time period, with an unknown purpose, designing specific biological features of living creatures towards an unknown end. Can anyone fill in a few of the 'unknowns' for me? howdoesthiswork

CuriousCat:

Hence, I’m into ID for scientific reasons, but skeptic about it for religious reasons

That is a very good mix IMO. For me, ID is only a scientific theory, and it has nothing to do with religion. Although our materialist interlocutors seem to think that those who accept ID so it for religious reasons, I believe the opposite. Indeed, like in your case, one's personal religious convictions can be in contrast with some of the aspects of ID. That is perfectly fine, and if you can still see the scientific reasons to accept ID, I appreciate very much your position.

while classifying creations as designed and non-designed is not an attractive idea from a religious point for a Muslim (I hope that this is not a problem for this discussion board.

I can speak only for myself, but I am really happy that you are here.

BTW, I do not think Islamic theology is generally opposed to ID, it is just my interpretation (actually close to the view held by al-Ghazali, the philosopher responsible from the theory called “occasionalism”, later heavily influencing Malebranche and Hume).

It is always good to make a distinction between the formal religious views that shape our lives and our personal interpretation of them. You make that distinction, and that is one more reason I appreciate you. While our interpretation of our religion is certainly precious for us, it is equally certainly subject to possible changes and, if you allow the word, evolution :) Moreover, as you are "a researcher who is into modeling protein dynamics", I would very much appreciate your contributions when more technical discussions arise here, like for instance the resent discussions about protein origin from non coding DNA, Turf 13, and so on. As a medical doctor, I am specially interested in the details of biological ID. gpuccio

Eric- Thank you. True ID is not a mechanistic theory but that does not stop design from being a mechanism. Nor does it prevent IDists from proposing possible design mechanisms.

I think I understand what you are saying. I don't mean to nitpick definitions too much, but in the design field we typically speak of "design processes" or "design approaches", rather than a "design mechanism". There are good reasons for that terminology. A design approach or a design process can make use of mechanisms or implement mechanisms, but the design itself is typically not thought of as a "mechanism." Anyway, just want to flag that in case there might be some value in slightly tweaking/adjusting your use of terminology. Eric Anderson

Mapou- I was going to follow Uncle Charlie's original, with subtle differences, ie a little descent with modification. I don't know if you are familiar with the 29+ evidences for macro-evolution- I designed a better version: Evidences for Common Design- Evidence 1 the Fundamental Unity A little descent with designed modifications. That is my plan with the book. :cool: Joe

Joe: And FYI- I have started writing a book titled “On the Origin of Species by Means of Intelligent Design Evolution”- don’t know when or even if I will finish it, but I did start it… Do you have a rough outline you can share with us? Mapou

If you go to this blog, and tell Kevin (the owner) that ID is not anti-evolution he will tell you that you are wrong and never address the points in this OP. Kevin is a grand equivocator and proudly ignorant of his opponents' positions. Joe

And FYI- I have started writing a book titled "On the Origin of Species by Means of Intelligent Design Evolution"- don't know when or even if I will finish it, but I did start it... Joe

Yes but ignoring the post and reality makes them willfully ignorant. And basically this post would then be for the objective lurkers. Joe

Honest question: If your theory thrives on rampant equivocation, what is the incentive to seek clarity? Shouldn't they just ignore Joe's post and go back to equivocating? lifepsy

Eric- Thank you. True ID is not a mechanistic theory but that does not stop design from being a mechanism. Nor does it prevent IDists from proposing possible design mechanisms. As to your first point- also true. And tat is what I am driving at. In the Kitzmiller v Dover SB case Judge Jones sed that certain peer-reviewed papers do not support ID because they did not contain the words "Intelligent Design". Well by the same standard the peer-reviewed papers supporting evolution do not support unguided evolution because they do not mention it. In the next court case the evos and ACLU are going to have to deal with the facts presented in the OP. And if they don't then they will fail- if they do they will also fail. Joe

Good post. Couple of thoughts:

Now we are left with: the only way Intelligent Design can be considered “anti-evolution” is if and only if the only generally accepted definition of “evolution” matches the definition provided for “materialistic evolution.” However I cannot find any credible source that definitively states on the record that that is the case.

It is good to point out that ID does not have an issue with much of what comes under the heading of evolution, including finch beaks, peppered moths, antibiotic resistance, even all the way along the spectrum to universal common descent. However -- and this is a massive "however," large enough to drive a truck through -- it is virtually always the case when we see evolution discussed in science textbooks, in the media, in the popular press, or by well-known proponents like Dawkins or Coyne -- in all those cases evolution is assumed to be operating purely on the basis of natural and material processes, without any intelligent guidance or intervention. This is essentially always the case, even if that underlying assumption is not stated. Thus, while it is nice that we can find definitions that don't explicitly include the materialistic statement, and while we might occasionally even find a strong supporter of evolution who acknowledges the possibility of a non-materialistic aspect to evolution, we should not deceive ourselves into naively thinking that the general understanding of the word "evolution" as used day in and day out is not precisely what its staunchest defenders believe it to be -- namely, a purely materialistic process that leaves no room or need for any intelligent guidance or intervention. -----

As Dr Behe et al., make very clear, it just argues about the mechanisms- basically design/ telic vs spontaneous/ stochastic. (Yes, design is a mechanism.)

Yes, perhaps in a broad sense if we are talking about identifying a general process. But we need to be clear that ID is not a mechanistic theory. One of the favorite ploys of anti-ID rhetoric is to demand to know exactly how something in biology was designed. This is partly because in the materialist mindset everything boils down to a mechanistic process of particles bumping into each other. In contrast, the design process typically involves planning, considering, analyzing, drafting, reviewing, refining, making choices, weighing competing engineering parameters, and so on. It is primarily a non-mechanistic process. Certainly there is an eventual instantiation of the design into matter, but it doesn't make any difference to the fact of design -- the essence of drawing a design inference -- if, say, a car was built purely by robots on an assembly line in a massive factory in Japan or if it was carefully crafted by hand in my neighbor's garage next door. The process of instantiating a design into matter -- the actual mechanical mechanisms used -- is a separate question from whether something was designed. So we need to be careful not to get caught in the rhetorical trap of thinking that ID is required to propose a detailed step-by-step mechanistic answer as to precisely how a particular artifact was designed. As interesting as such a question may be, it is not an essential part of drawing a design inference. ID is not primarily a mechanistic theory. Eric Anderson

Thanks to Stephen.

"How you integrate the limited abilities of ID into your theology is entirely up to you."

It is an interesting view, I haven't though before. I'll consider it. As to what Box said about Al-Ghazali, I will avoid a discussion on this subject, since it has the potential to turn into completely something else. I can only say that Ghazali, Hume and Popper are my favorite three philosophers of all times, and for a correction of mistaken beliefs on Al-Ghazali, please watch the following video (Al-Ghazali's views on science starts at 13.45): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cY-u_37SNz4 CuriousCat

Thank you for this excellent article Joe. A few words about al-Ghazali ...

CuriousCat #11: BTW, I do not think Islamic theology is generally opposed to ID, it is just my interpretation (actually close to the view held by al-Ghazali, ...)

Al-Ghazali was opposed to philosophy (and science) if it didn't confirm Islam. Basically, according to Ghazali, if philosophy impinged on Islam in any way, then it should be forbidden.

Al-Gahzali: “The source of [Muslims’] infidelity was their hearing terrible names such as Socrates and Hippocrates, Plato and Aristotle…. [the followers of the philosophers] relate of the how, with all the gravity of their intellects and the exuberances of their erudition, they denied the scared laws and creeds and rejected the details of the religions and faiths, believing them to be fabricated ordinances and bedizened trickeries.”

"As a consequence of these ‘impieties’, ‘exuberances’ and ‘trickeries’, Ghazali demanded the death penalty for anyone practising philosophy; for anyone holding the opinions of ‘the philosophers’; and even for anyone holding opinions derived from the philosophers." Box

CuriousCat, ID is not drawing distinctions about God and His involvement in all aspects of His creation. ID is limited by the ability of we humans to detect design. There are areas where it is obvious and areas that it is, even if present, entirely undetectable by us. How you integrate the limited abilities of ID into your theology is entirely up to you. I integrate it as "the invisible attributes of Him are clearly seen" by what ID is able detect in the world around us. Further, by faith, I accept His declaration that He "operates the all (universe) in accord with the counsel of His own will" as meaning that there is His design in all that happens, even where I cannot detect it. Stephen SteRusJon

My personal theory is that biological evolution of life on Earth results from the brainwaves of Regis Philbin acting on the past. This theory, of course, is not "anti-evolution." LarTanner

Good post, Joe. Definitions and distinctions are vitally important in this era of Darwinian misrepresentation. StephenB

Joe:

Also, the reason for this post is because most, if not all of TSZ regulars, from Lizzie on down, especially petrushka, love to equivocate and use every instance of evolution as evidence for darwinian/ neo-darwinian evolution. It’s as if they just cannot help themselves and they refuse to understand their opponents’ positions. It is really annoying that they behave this way and getting it out in the open should help it go away.

I think it's a sign of desperation. Their position is weak and so they use every dishonest and stupid trick in the book. They are digging their own grave because intelligent and honest people can easily see through the cr*p. Mapou

Brilliant post, JoeG. I need to sink my teeth into it to try to understand the consequences of these unorthodox ideas. I must say that I have a weakness for ideas that challenge established doctrines and dogmas. Although I believe that common descent is true in most cases, there are many instance of evolution involving lateral gene transfers between distant species (e.g., echolocating bats and whales) that cannot be explained by common descent. Lateral gene transfer is certainly a case of genetic engineering whereby one or more genes are extracted from one species, slightly modified and then grafted onto a different species. Mapou

gpuccio: Thank you for the very informative response. I think the following paragraph sums up the reason for my deviation from ID.

IOWs, designed things are special. Maybe everything is designed by God. But, in that case, most things designed by God do not exhibit complex functional information. IOWs, even if they are designed, design is not detectable in them by a simple inference from complex functional information.

I believe that everything is designed (maybe not in the sense proposed by ID) by God, so a distinction between creations as designed (having complex functional information) and non-designed (result of random processes obeying some universal laws) seems to be in contradiction with my views about God. So my position may seems like a strange one: Being a researcher who is into modeling protein dynamics, I am inclined to accept ID solely because of scientific reasons (I find it implausible for natural selection+mutation to produce the observed complexity, perfection and information in nature), while classifying creations as designed and non-designed is not an attractive idea from a religious point for a Muslim (I hope that this is not a problem for this discussion board. If it is, I may leave. No problem, no hard feelings). Hence, I'm into ID for scientific reasons, but skeptic about it for religious reasons :) BTW, I do not think Islamic theology is generally opposed to ID, it is just my interpretation (actually close to the view held by al-Ghazali, the philosopher responsible from the theory called "occasionalism", later heavily influencing Malebranche and Hume). CuriousCat

Lewontin gave the reason that, as long as it is in their power to withhold it, the materialists will never allow ID a seat at the table of orthodox science (italics in the orginal; bold emphases added):

...The primary problem is not to provide the public with the knowledge of how far it is to the nearest star and what genes are made of, for that vast project is, in its entirety, hopeless. Rather, the problem is to get them to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth... ...Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen... -Richard Lewontin in "Billions and Billions of Demons" New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997 Review of The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan

The above is not unfamiliar here at UD, I know. But my point is, if the metaphor of a "culture war" is accurate -- and it is -- then it ought to be self-evident. Especially in the face of an enemy who, time and again, has proven that he will accept nothing less than unconditional surrender. Namely, that there is no table at which to sit down and reason with these people. Their religion is "Science." A word aptly capitalized mid-sentence by the reviewer -- doing all he can in his self-appointed role as midwife to the most-holy "begetter of truth" -- to highlight that fact. A religion to which, like Nebuchadnezzar's image, all must bow or burn. Count the cost. And if it is war, then let it be war. Realizing that ID will be able to overrun its enemies, forcibly unseat them, and relegate to the dustbin of history by one thing, and one thing only. Overwhelming. Scientific. Evidence. There is no other way. jstanley01

CuriousCat: I believe that you understand well the central point of ID, even if you have difficulties in accepting it. The fact is exactly that there is a fundamental difference between recognizably designed things and things that could be designed, but can very well not be designed (unless we believe that everything is designed). The operation of laws can be the result of design, if the law is designed by God (which I believe). But when we look at the results of law, we can explain them by the law, and only the law remains to be explained. The evolution of a random system obeys the laws of probability that can best describe that system. Again, even the laws of probability could be designed, but their effects are however in accord with those laws. Designed things (things that receive their form from a conscious purposeful agent) are the result of natural laws as they are shaped by the action of the conscious agent, who has the purpose to imprint in the object (the designed thing) some form that he has cognized, before, in his consciousness, and that he wants to imprint into an outer object (meaning and purpose). Objects with complex functional information always result to be designed, when we can ascertain their origin. IOWs, designed things are special. Maybe everything is designed by God. But, in that case, most things designed by God do not exhibit complex functional information. IOWs, even if they are designed, design is not detectable in them by a simple inference from complex functional information. To quote your example, the weather or the wind have no detectable complex functional information. The same can be said of molecular diffusion. It can be beautiful, but it has not the property of complex functional information. Language, software and genes all exhibit the property of complex functional information, indeed of digital complex functional information. We can infer design for those things. A new protein gene comes into existence at a definite time, in a definite place. Its information was not there before. It is not like the wind, or like molecular diffusion. It cannot be explained by laws. It cannot be explained as the result of a random system. It clearly bears the mark of intentional, conscious arrangement to obtain something. Something recognizable, something objectively definable. Something that need a very high number of bits of configuration, just to exist and to be working. This is ID. Designed things with detectable design (IOWs, exhibiting complex functional information) are special. They are different from all other things. They can be explained only as the result of an explicit intervention, in time and space, of a conscious intelligent purposeful agent. gpuccio

Also, the reason for this post is because most, if not all of TSZ regulars, from Lizzie on down, especially petrushka, love to equivocate and use every instance of evolution as evidence for darwinian/ neo-darwinian evolution. It's as if they just cannot help themselves and they refuse to understand their opponents' positions. It is really annoying that they behave this way and getting it out in the open should help it go away. Joe

butifnot- That is my point- evolution is defined so broadly that only the fixity of species, ie no change at all, would be anti-evolution. Joe

It is interesting that A - F above are approximately meaningless. 'Things change' wow. This self evident observation is given as the foundation of all evolution! The 'definition' given is 'change'! Really? Any change is evolution? butifnot

Joe, welcome. KF kairosfocus

CuriousCat- The problem is lack of evidence for natural selection being a designer mimic. Joe

I posted a couple of times before, and they were mainly pro-ID. This time it's going to be about the single weakness I find in ID paradigm. The last statement summarizes it all, IMO:

As Dr Behe et al., make very clear, it just argues about the mechanisms- basically design/ telic vs spontaneous/ stochastic."

Actually, one can hear the same argument (from the opposite perspective) in what Darwin said:

There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows.

Now, being a theistic person, I believe that the processes that WE define as stochastic is NOT stochastic to God. And I also know that our information about the wind is and will be limited (due to Chaos theory), but I believe that God has perfect information about the wind. So it seems to me ID lumps these imperfections in our knowledge (and most of these imperfections are not temporary gaps in our knowledge, but will likely remain as unfilled) as "undesigned acts of God", and defines intelligent act as an secons (alternative) branch of God's acts. As I said, I value the ID movement, and find their critisicms to Darwinian evolution theory well based, but the very basic premise of ID, that is the separation of design component from the so-called random (random to us bot not to God) processes seems to me difficult to absorb. One last example. Diffusion is a result of "random" molecular motions in a solution. Hence it is not "designed". However, from a macroscopic point of view, it is a well organized and even a "beautiful" process. For a theistic person (like me), it has a purpose, thus it is designed (but not maybe the way ID defines it). For someone into ID, it is just a stochastic process, I suppose. CuriousCat

Thank you Kairos Focus and UD Joe

A guest post for JoeG, on “Intelligent Design is NOT Anti-Evolution.” kairosfocus