Intelligent Design is Self-refuting

[niceatheist]

The difference between ID and theistic evolution is that ID alleges to make specific claims (though it never really does) about what cannot be the product of evolutionary forces. Theistic evolution makes no such claim, but rather is a general statement that God is active in His creation. ID is fundamentally dishonest, a deceit built up after the Supreme Court in the US chucked Creationism out of public schools.

No matter how you splice it, God is not a variable in science. It can’t be, because invoking God explains every possible result or prediction, and thus explains none of them. Theistic evolution, by not asserting any specific point of intervention, is compatible with science. ID is not.

 

[niceatheist]

The structure of the spine is not perfectly adapted to bipedalism:

Human skeletal changes due to bipedalism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[o_mlly]

The difference between ID and theistic evolution is that ID alleges to make specific claims (though it never really does) about what cannot be the product of evolutionary forces. Theistic evolution makes no such claim, but rather is a general statement that God is active in His creation. ID is fundamentally dishonest, a deceit built up after the Supreme Court in the US chucked Creationism out of public schools.

No matter how you splice it, God is not a variable in science. It can’t be, because invoking God explains every possible result or prediction, and thus explains none of them. Theistic evolution, by not asserting any specific point of intervention, is compatible with science. ID is not.

As an op-ed piece, the post above might pass muster. But as factual journalistic reporting, not so much.

Meanwhile, I await the “Rossum Rebuttal.” Or are we finished? The thread is wandering to old themes.

 

[o_mlly]

The structure of the spine is not perfectly adapted to bipedalism:

Perfection is not the standard for good or intelligent design. Man’s design to its ends was good enough: “Tend the garden” and “Be fruitful and multiply.” Arthritis is not unique to bipeds; horses and dogs wear out too.

And now, back to our program: Rossum?

 

[niceatheist]

I think a reading of the Dover Trial transcripts ought to inform you pretty fully that ID’s few specific claims were trashed. The infamous exchange over the claim that the vertebrate immune system could not have evolved was rejected, because, guess what, there had been research going on for decades by that point in to evolution of the vertebrate immune system. The observation at the time was that either Behe had suffered some sort of memory loss (he is a molecular biologist) over the significant amount of literature on the topic, or was intentionally misrepresenting the research.

 

[niceatheist]

The problem is that there is no standard for Intelligent Design. Evolutionary theory predicts that many biological systems will be “good enough”. Intelligent Design could literally be invoked for anything, even tragically awful designs like immune systems that go out of control.

That’s the problem. As a philosophical position, ID may be supportable. As a scientific position, it has no utility whatsoever.

 

[niceatheist]

I’d just like to add that I think even as a philosophical position, ID is faulty. The idea that because science can’t currently explain a phenomena, the default should be an Intelligent Designer did it is obviously faulty. If we can’t explain say, a peculiar cloud formation, do you think the position of science should be “A Designer made that cloud” is useful?

 

[o_mlly]

I think a reading of the Dover Trial transcripts …

The problem is that there is no standard for Intelligent Design …

I’d just like to add that I think even as a philosophical position …

All interesting and challenging topics for discussion in new threads.

Let’s first conclude if ID is or is not self refuting.

Let me just add, “BUT IF I KEEP MY CORE AND BACK STRONG, THE SCOLIOSIS DOESN’T REALLY BOTHER ME”. The guy runs 9.58 seconds over 100-metres…and he has scoliosis.

Aren’t designs with redundant systems marvelous, even miraculous?

 

[niceatheist]

Marvelous maybe, miraculous no. An argument from aesthetics in and of itself isn’t all that compelling, and certainly isn’t how any scientist is going to determine the veracity of that claim (just look at the crisis physics is in right now because the very elegant theory of super-symmetry is getting harder and harder to justify due to a lack of a signal of any hypothetical super-symmetric particle).

I don’t think ID is self-refuting. It isn’t useful even in that perspective.

 

[rossum]

Christian philosophy avoids this conclusion by asserting that the ‘acts’ of God do not change Him.

Something changes. The sea is not parted, then it is parted then it is not parted again. That is change. If God does not change, then God did not part the sea, something else did it. Any action requires a mental change from “I will act” to “I am acting” to “I have acted”.

The Jewish Sephirot is an attempt to explain this. All action requires change; if God does not change, then He cannot change anything else.

 

[rossum]

No it does not. You are still stuck in our own frame of reference.

If the designer was designed, then you have an infinite regress. If the designer was not designed then design is not required for a functional complex entity.

Either way ID loses.

 

[rossum]

ID appeals to the fact that we know only intelligent beings generate and manipulate information.

This is incorrect. Many processes can generate and manipulate information without intelligence. Radiation can ‘manipulate’ the information in DNA. Other mutations can generate information, such as a duplication mutation. Have you ever looked at how many variants of hemoglobin a human uses during its lifetime, particularly in the womb? Those variants are all due to duplication mutations with subsequent variations.

 

[Aquinas11]

Let’s first conclude if ID is or is not self refuting.

Let’s go with the logic of the thread title:

(1) Iphones are pretty complex
(2) Iphones have a designer (humans)
(3) Humans are even more complex than Iphones
(4) Yet, humans have no designer!
(5) Therefore ID is self-refuting

How sick is that? We are more complex than something that has a designer!! Yet we have no designer! My mind is blown.

 

[Aquinas11]

Something changes.

Correct, some thing changes, and God is not a thing, hence God is not changed.

The sea is not parted, then it is parted then it is not parted again. That is change. If God does not change, then God did not part the sea, something else did it.

Nothing you’ve said excludes God causing the “something else” to part the sea.

Any action requires a mental change from “I will act” to “I am acting” to “I have acted”.

False, the doctor tapping your knee with that rubber hammer disproves that.

All action requires change; if God does not change, then He cannot change anything else.

If God changed, then he is contingent, in which case he is not God since God is non-contingent cause.

 

[niceatheist]

The problem is that we know iPhones are designed. Complexity as a measure is only really useful when we have at least some notion that an object is designed.

 

[o_mlly]

Many processes can generate and manipulate information without intelligence.

No process alone generates new information. In all cases, the intelligent living being’s existence precedes the processes. Radiation on a rock does not generate new information intrinsic to the rock.

Yes, extrinsic processes can affect the manipulation but the living being remains the manipulator.

Radiation can ‘manipulate’ the information in DNA.

The radiation does not manipulate, the living cell does so in replicating. The radiation affects the cell’s manipulation but does not cause the cell to replicate.

Other mutations can generate information …

Mutation does not generate information. Mutation is not an independent being but refers to the living cells management of its own information.

Have you ever looked at how many variants of hemoglobin a human uses

The living human being generate its hemoglobin variants.

In all cases above, an intelligent being that can store and manipulate generates and manipulates information. Processes act on that being but do not generate new information. Processes affect the being’s manipulation of its information but do not do the manipulating.

Is niceatheist correct?

 

[Aquinas11]

Great point. The extent of complexity of a design is not an objective criteria but instead a subjective criteria based on whether or not said design is known to have a designer. Mind further blown.

 

[mhmtas63]

Aaargh! It’s not random!

Yes. It is not random. Cannot be random. We both repeat that. Then which mind or conscience provide and ensure that system and orderliness? Does nature provide that by itself? Which force or energy has conscience to make that?

A machine look like as if run by itself. But a machine cannot be formed by itself and do not work without a programme.

We suppose a very orderly running machine. We both look at machine. You say that machine were made by an intrinsic system or mind and an intrinsic programme support it’s running. I say that machine was made by a conscious outside effect(maybe an engineer) and that engineer provide it’s running by a programme.

I do not know if I could formulate the two different concepts!

 

[rossum]

Nothing you’ve said excludes God causing the “something else” to part the sea.

Indeed. If God caused the ‘something else’ to act, then God’s causation was not active before the sea was parted. God’s causation was active while the sea was parted and then God’s causation ceased to act. Hence God’s causation changes. you may repeat your argument if you wish, but you will still end up in an infinite regress.

Causation requires change if the effect is not permanent. The parting of the sea was not permanent, so its cause must have been changing: active at one time, not active at others.

 

[rossum]

The problem is that we know iPhones are designed. Complexity as a measure is only really useful when we have at least some notion that an object is designed.

Which is a major problem with ID. They have to assert design. They have tried to come up with a way to objectively detect design, but have failed. Instead they have fallen back on asserting design: “It sure looks designed to me.”

That is a subjective measure, so science will not give it the time of day. Science requires objective measures.