Intelligent Design, Edward Feser's views

[Dan123]

Darwin’s finches had a certain beak size and shape at the start. Then it changed. Then it went back. in the end the finches are still finches.

Okay but is the size he originally noticed the ‘normal’ or is the size they changed to the ‘normal’? When they changed back was it back to normal or back to the variation?

 

[buffalo]

No one claimed it’s a creative process,

What? That was a major Darwinist claim and still is despite the mounting evidence it is not. It is an evo killer.

 

[MikeInVA]

Since you claim a gliding species can’t even under go a small mutation that would let it glide slightly longer I’m not going to try and discuss even more complex adaptations.

I think these small mutations you describe would be limited by the species. For example, some humans are genetically larger, e.g. Samoans and some are smaller, e.g. Pygmies. However, neither has sufficiently deviated from the baseline to become their won separate species or sub-species.

The closest thing I can think of to a gliding non-bird is a flying squirrel. They survive because they still maintain mobility when not gliding. I doubt something as ungainly as a gliding proto-bird would survive long enough to evolve true wings.

 

[buffalo]

Okay but is the size he originally noticed the ‘normal’ or is the size they changed to the ‘normal’? When they changed back was it back to normal or back to the variation?

So here we butt up against the limits of evolution. Beak size and shape is slightly changeable within limits.

The fossil record shows abrupt appearance, stasis and limited variation within.

 

[buffalo]

How does this qualify as science?

Why doesn’t it? What is your definition of science?

 

[buffalo]

Definition of Intelligent Design

What is intelligent design?
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system’s components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

See New World Encyclopedia entry on intelligent design.
Is intelligent design the same as creationism?

No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.

Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he “agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement.” Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are “the easiest way to discredit intelligent design.” In other words, the charge that intelligent design is “creationism” is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.

 

[buffalo]

Is intelligent design a scientific theory?

Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

 

[Dan123]

Mutations and several mechanisms create the things which natural selection selects for. This is the basics and I refuse to believe you’ve discussed evolution as much as you have and somehow don’t understand that.

 

[buffalo]

create the things

Create? Did you just say create?

 

[Dan123]

Yes, are you going to twist that dishonestly pretending there’s only one conceivable meaning of my use of the word?

 

[buffalo]

Yes, are you going to twist that dishonestly pretending there’s only one conceivable meaning of my use of the word?

I certainly need clarification.

You just made the claim natural selection is not creative. (I agree)

Mutations are either neutral or deleterious and lead to loss of function.

Now you introduced other mechanisms but failed to describe them.

 

[MikeInVA]

Mutations and several mechanisms create the things which natural selection selects for.

As I understand it, mutations are atypical of the species, but the base DNA remains the same as for the typical population. How would this mutation be consistently passed on?

 

[Dan123]

Pick up an introduction to evolution book then. You’ve missed some of the basics. No not all mutations are neutral or deleterious, you’re either misinformed or lying.

 

[mVitus]

They have a much lower level of FSCI since they are naturally occurring. If you asking me if they are part of the total design of creation? Then yes they are designed too.

Species are naturally occurring too. So if mountains are just natural, why would species nit just be natural too?

 

[buffalo]

As I understand it, mutations are atypical of the species, but the base DNA remains the same as for the typical population. How would this mutation be consistently passed on?

It is even worse for evo. We now know DNA through several iterations attempts to repair the mutation. The repair and correction abilities are astounding.

 

[buffalo]

Species are naturally occurring too. So if mountains are just natural, why would species nit just be natural too?

Mountains are dead.

 

[Dan123]

Bob the Cat has 2 kids, now 3 people have that mutation. Bob’s 2 kids have 2 kids, now Bob, his 2 kids, and his 4 grandkids have it. Over time the Bob gene is providing the ever expanding lineage with some kind of increased likelihood of survival, so more and more of the population will have that mutation.

 

[Sophia]

Yes, are you going to twist that dishonestly pretending there’s only one conceivable meaning of my use of the word?

Don’t be surprised. Standard tactics of dishonest “arguments”.

The whole “ID” concept rests on one assumption: “some features” are too complicated to have evolved naturally, they require some “intelligent” creator. When we ask, what is that “magical” boundary, which separates the “natural” from the “unnatural” (created), we get a deafening silence. That is all you can expect. Waste of energy to try to argue with them.

Furthermore, looking at the collection of all the living organisms, we see an enormous amount of “stupid or unintelligent design”. Incredibly wonderful features appeared, and were NOT propagated into the next generation. Only an incredibly incompetent “designer” would create such a blundering mess of bad features.

 

[buffalo]

No not all mutations are neutral or deleterious, you’re either misinformed or lying.

In an earlier post I said any beneficial mutations are very rare and usually affect the organism elsewhere. Did you read it?

 

[MikeInVA]

You’re assuming that the mutation passes, which I don’t think is a given.