Intelligent Design, most scientific

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
No. It’s merely that those with a somewhat better phenontype tend to leave more offspring than those lacking such features. And even a tiny change can be acted upon by selection.

It sure can. But it doesn’t necessarilly have to be this way though.

The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. But that’s where the smart money is. A while ago, one scientist showed that the difference between sparrows surviving a winter and not making it, was about one millimeter in the length of the breastbone.

You are applying a “explanation” over the process of life’s origins which might simply not be true to full extent you claim it to be true–

The evidence is overwhelming. It’s not just that we see this in the genes and eyes of each organism, from which we can show phylogenies that match those obtained by other methods, we can also show that such intermediates still exist. To deny such evidence, from numerous independent sources of biological information, is not logically possible.

and you are effectively berating any suggestion of “design” because you simply find it intellectually unappealing in your theodicy of God’s creative act.

Demoting God to a “designer” is, of course a major sin. But the fact that we can’t find evidence for design in nature is much more damning from a scientific POV.

For example, if I say that life was intially “designed” right from the most primitive cells to have eventually gradually metamorphosized via succesive evolutionary pressures toward the emergence of humanity, you cannot actually use science to prove this claim wrong.

If you claimed the Design Fairy did it, science can’t prove that wrong, either. Science can’t evaluate religious beliefs, because they are untestable.

Many IDers originally claimed that their “calculations” had shown that this could not have happened on its own. But it did. And anyone who looks at the evidence can see that there is no need for “intelligent design.”

I guess at this point I have to ask you what you mean by “design” in the first place?

In this case, we probably should use Behe’s meaning, that of a God who figures out things, and then has to go back from time to time, to tinker with the system to get it to work.

Barbarian observes:
In fact, such a thing could not have been produced by an intelligent designer.

Saying that “perceived randomness” proves that God did not act within his creation

Maybe you’d be better served by arguing against what I did say. God acted within His creation, you just aren’t comfortable with the way He did it.

(conflation of science with atheism deleted)

Barbarian observes:
But it was no problem for an Almighty Creator, who produced a universe in which such things evolve.

So he did “design” the intial parameters then, didn’t he?

Nope, unless you water down “design” to “intent.” God is no mere designer. Fallible creatures design. God is the Creator. And IDers are uncomfortable with a God that great.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Archaeologists regularly separate artifacts from those that appear intelligently designed from those that actually were intelligently designed. Forensics is another good example where patterns are analyzed to determine how they got there.

Humans are very good at distinguishing natural objects from designed ones. It’s why Paley used a watch when he was trying to show that nature was designed. If he had used an example from nature, no one would have gotten it.

For obvious reasons.

Probability and information theory also play roles in that Intelligently Designed systems imply an order and probability beyong natural occurrences.

Sounds good. Let’s see your numbers.

 

[reggieM]

Humans are very good at distinguishing natural objects from designed ones. It’s why Paley used a watch when he was trying to show that nature was designed. If he had used an example from nature, no one would have gotten it.

He compared human design with the design of nature. Clearly, millions of people understood and accepted the comparison.

On what basis do you think that humans are able to distinguish designed objects from those which were not designed? Have you read or done any studies on this topic?

I’d be interested to know what specific criteria you would use to determine design vs non-designed things. Stonehenge, for example, versus a random collection of rocks.

 

[reggieM]

God is the Creator.

What, precisely, do you believe that God created?

 

[reggieM]

You suggest that there are designed systems

You’re saying that there is no such thing as a “designed system”? That’s interesting. I wouldn’t call it much of a precise statement of science, but I wonder how you arrived at that conclusion.

I would assume that you looked at a wide number of systems, tested them against a definition of design, and then concluded that there is no such thing as a “designed system”.

What criteria did you use to determine whether something was designed or not?

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Humans are very good at distinguishing natural objects from designed ones. It’s why Paley used a watch when he was trying to show that nature was designed. If he had used an example from nature, no one would have gotten it.

He compared human design with the design of nature.

No, he compared it to a watch. For obvious reasons. If he used a tree, no one would have seen design.

Clearly, millions of people understood and accepted the comparison.

No one doubts a watch is designed. But then, a watch isn’t a natural object.

On what basis do you think that humans are able to distinguish designed objects from those which were not designed?

Observation. Even stone age people, when they see a modern device, know it is an artifact. We are very, very good at seeing the difference. And there is a science of knowing artifacts; a branch of archaeology is devoted to finding and analyzing very primitive stone tools.

Have you read or done any studies on this topic?

Yes. A very accessible and readible discription of such a science can be found in Making the Silent Stones Speak well worth your time.

I’d be interested to know what specific criteria you would use to determine design vs non-designed things.

Sure. Let’s use your example:

Stonehenge, for example, versus a random collection of rocks.

First, of course, is that there are numerous signs of being worked on all the stones in Stonehenge. Hammer marks, used to smooth them by percussion, marks were wedges were used to split the bluestones from their matrix. Then there is the fact that these are hundreds of kilometers from deposits of such stones, and in the absence of glaciation or catastrophic flooding evidence, stones that big don’t get transported by natural means. And there is no such evidence.

Then the fact that they are in a circle within circles, with astronomical significance. (the chalk pits around the edge of the great circle, for example, can be used to calculate eclipses, by moving a stone from one to the other each year)

No less an artifact that a watch, for those who care to study it.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
God is the Creator.

What, precisely, do you believe that God created?

The universe, for one. He’s the Creator, not some little designer.

 

[edwest2]

Numbers? It’s not quite math. Start with a piece of rock. Observe the number of functional and nonfunctional attributes. Using a large subset of all available rocks, both on land and those found in water, how does this rock differ? If after examination, it consists of mostly nonfunctional attributes, is irregular in shape and has randomly placed marks, it is most likely just a rock. However, if it shows bilateral symmetry, regular markings or chips along one or both sides, and/or other repetitive marks, there is a high probability that the rock was modified by an intelligence.

A cell can be likened to a factory with an assembly line, a series of timed and precise interactions allows the cell to grow, absorb energy/food and eliminate waste products. Most spectacularly, it contains instructions detailing how to duplicate itself. The probability of this happening on its own is extremely high. All of the parts are necessary.

God bless,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

Then there is the fact that these are hundreds of kilometers from deposits of such stones, and in the absence of glaciation or catastrophic flooding evidence, stones that big don’t get transported by natural means.

As I see it, you’ve just used the claims of intelligent design to test and validate observations in nature.

In your estimation, “natural means” cannot transport and (more importantly) arrange stones that big.

You observed something in nature, applied a theory about design, and reached a conclusion that the rock formations were designed.

This was testable based on your definitions.

You merely applied a general sense of probability to the situation. Out of a million instances where nature moves stones, how many times do stone fall in a pattern like Stonehenge?

A mathematician could develop the probability. It could happen. But the odds would be astronomically so large, that they would conclude – agreeing with you – that it “doesn’t happen”. In other words, it’s impossible.

This is just a matter of using probability.

Is it possible that Stonehenge was arranged by nature accidentally? Yes, there is a possiblity. But that possibility is so remote in terms of mathematical probablity that we say it is “impossible”.

That same method can be used to test evolutionary theory and the effect of random mutation and natural selection.

 

[reggieM]

The universe, for one. He’s the Creator, not some little designer.

Ok, I see a number of issues here.

If God created the universe, then He acted and created “something”. We could define “create” as to “make out of nothing”.

So, God “made out of nothing” – this thing we call the “universe”.

The “universe” could be understood as the galaxies and planets and stars.

If God created the universe, then the universe did not evolve itself, right?

There are many parts of the universe. If God created the whole universe, then He created all the parts. The earth is a part of the universe. Life on earth is a part of the universe. Human beings are a part of the universe.

Another point you raise is that God is the creator and not a “little designer”. I don’t know anybody who would call God a “little designer”.

Do you believe that God created the universe without having a design or plan for it?

The last point I’d raise on this (there are many others) is what role God had in evolution. Did God create the laws of evolution?

 

[reggieM]

If after examination, it consists of mostly nonfunctional attributes, is irregular in shape and has randomly placed marks, it is most likely just a rock. However, if it shows bilateral symmetry, regular markings or chips along one or both sides, and/or other repetitive marks, there is a high probability that the rock was modified by an intelligence.

I would like to hear objections to your method of scientific analysis. As I see it, you observed nature, applied rules and definitions of design, and you were able to draw a conclusion through a scientific process.

If you studied enough rocks, you could eventually create a more precise definition on the difference between naturally formed rocks and those modified by intelligence.

Eventually, you would be able to notice the probability of some things occuring in nature vs other things which are so improbable that we call it impossible.

 

[reggieM]

Just to look at this again in more detail.

[if the rock] has randomly placed marks, it is most likely just a rock…

The reason we conclude that is that through observation and testing, we can see that the markings on rocks occur through random movements. There is no purposeful movement of the rock itself or even of the environment around it. Everything happens by random natural processes. The random environment, with no intelligence or design – creates only random markings, not detailed patterns.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian asks for the numbers on the “probability and statistics”:

Numbers? It’s not quite math.

Probability and statistics are entirely math. So now you tell me it’s not probability and statistics?

Start with a piece of rock. Observe the number of functional and nonfunctional attributes. Using a large subset of all available rocks, both on land and those found in water, how does this rock differ? If after examination, it consists of mostly nonfunctional attributes, is irregular in shape and has randomly placed marks, it is most likely just a rock. However, if it shows bilateral symmetry, regular markings or chips along one or both sides, and/or other repetitive marks, there is a high probability that the rock was modified by an intelligence.

Hmm… you think this was "modified by an intelligence?



It is a lot more interesting than that.

A cell can be likened to a factory with an assembly line,

Only in that things go in and things come out. What goes on inside is unlike anything in a factory.

a series of timed and precise interactions allows the cell to grow, absorb energy/food and eliminate waste products. Most spectacularly, it contains instructions detailing how to duplicate itself. The probability of this happening on its own is extremely high. All of the parts are necessary.

No. There are many things in almost all cells that can be removed, with no harm to the organism. Would you like some examples?

 

[The_Barbarian]

As I see it, you’ve just used the claims of intelligent design to test and validate observations in nature.

Nope. “Godmustadunnit” isn’t a claim. It’s a religious belief. And while God did it, the details are important, and the way He did it, is objectionable to IDers.

In your estimation, “natural means” cannot transport and (more importantly) arrange stones that big.

The fact, is they don’t, barring glaciation or scablands-style floods.

You observed something in nature, applied a theory about design, and reached a conclusion that the rock formations were designed.

Nope. Unless “ID” is merely what scientists have always done. But IDers are constantly outraged about what scientists have always done. I see a disconnect here.

You merely applied a general sense of probability to the situation.

Nope. Very specific facts. “A general sense of probability” is what got IDers in the ontological fix they are in now.

That same method can be used to test evolutionary theory and the effect of random mutation and natural selection.

Or we could simply observe it. For example, we could note the directly-observed instance of the evolution of an irreducibly-complex enzyme system. And that is better than speculation on a “general sense of probability.”

The former doesn’t let you fool yourself, as the latter often will.

 

[The_Barbarian]

If God created the universe, then the universe did not evolve itself, right?

God created the universe. It developed from there, as He intended. While astronomers do refer to “stellar evolution” (and in the strict sense, “evolution” must means “change”) we should be careful to keep in mind biological evolution is not mere change.

Another point you raise is that God is the creator and not a “little designer”. I don’t know anybody who would call God a “little designer”.

If you demote Him to designer, yes. That’s what you’re calling Him. Design is not the attribute of an omnipotent Creator.

Do you believe that God created the universe without having a design or plan for it?

Being omniscient, He had no need to design or plan.

The last point I’d raise on this (there are many others) is what role God had in evolution.

Same as He has (not had) in any natural process. Nature is the way He does almost everything in our world.

Did God create the laws of evolution?

No, it was much more fundamental (pun intended) than that. He created the four laws (or maybe just one) from which everything else came to be. He remains intimately involved in it, but does not arbitrarily deflect nature from its normal laws, unless He does so to teach us something.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. But that’s where the smart money is.

Then why did the mighty dinosaurs die out while the lesser primates began to prosper?

Evolution is not about the survival of the fittest.

Evolution is about the path of least resistance.

A while ago, one scientist showed that the difference between sparrows surviving a winter and not making it, was about one millimeter in the length of the breastbone.

Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of our Father, correct?

Consequently, are you saying that it’s totally impossible that this man’s research was not in any way compromised by his own thoughts about the methods of how life came about on earth?

The evidence is overwhelming. It’s not just that we see this in the genes and eyes of each organism, from which we can show phylogenies that match those obtained by other methods, we can also show that such intermediates still exist. To deny such evidence, from numerous independent sources of biological information, is not logically possible.

I think convergent evolution alone can pose a serious problem to the matter of “common descent” when one realizes that similar phenotypes can be produced in species that are not at all “directly related”.

Besides that, if one beliives that God can and does miraculously interceed on his creation, it is very much logically possible.

Demoting God to a “designer” is, of course a major sin. But the fact that we can’t find evidence for design in nature is much more damning from a scientific POV.

And yet many people do see design in nature notwithstanding any scientific recognition of its status.

If you claimed the Design Fairy did it, science can’t prove that wrong, either. Science can’t evaluate religious beliefs, because they are untestable.

Then why is there biological rhythms of roughly seven days ingrained within the chronobiology of life itself?

In his chapter “The Importance of Time,” Jeremy Campbell reports:

These circaseptan, or about weekly, rhythms are one of the major surprises turned up by modern chronobiology. Fifteen years ago, few scientists would have expected that seven-day biological cycles would prove to be so widespread and so long established in the living world.

They are of very ancient origin, appearing in primitive one-celled organisms, and are thought to be present even in bacteria, the simplest form of life now existing." (20)

One of Franz Halberg’s amazing discoveries is that of an innate rhythm – about seven days – occurring in a giant alga some five million years old on the evolutionary time line. Because this microscopic cell resembles a graceful champagne glass, the alga (plant) is popularly known as mermaid’s wineglass (Acetabularia mediterranea).

When this “primitive” alga is subjected to artificial schedules of alternating light and dark spans of varying length over many days, this single intact cell is somehow able to translate all that manipulation of light and darkness into the measurement of a seven-day week!

How does evolution explain this?

More importantly, why didn’t evolution “predict” this?

This isn’t a jab. I’m simply honestly curious to know how so many lifeforms acquired this seven day rhythm ingrafted into their very biological being when no “naturally occuring” seven day rhythm appears to synchronize with this circaseptan rhythm found in things like “primitive” algae, rats, plants and face flies?

Many IDers originally claimed that their “calculations” had shown that this could not have happened on its own. But it did. And anyone who looks at the evidence can see that there is no need for “intelligent design.”

I’m sorry, but you’re just presenting “tautological” arguments, presuming that they are “self-evident” by virture of your interpretation of the data.

I think if someone says that God “needed” to design in order to bring forth life, then ID is going too far-- and I’ll agree with you on this.

But I also think that if God indeed constantly designed life out of divine love, this wouldn’t necessarilly reduce him by any means either. At the very least, I don’t think you’ve presented a convincing argument away from design.

In this case, we probably should use Behe’s meaning, that of a God who figures out things, and then has to go back from time to time, to tinker with the system to get it to work.

So God as the “Great Experimenter” is considered a more glamorous view than Behe’s view?

I don’t see much difference to be honest.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

In fact, such a thing could not have been produced by an intelligent designer.

So now it is considered a “fact” that life could not have been intelligently designed?

Why exactly is this so?

Maybe you’d be better served by arguing against what I did say. God acted within His creation, you just aren’t comfortable with the way He did it.

Actually, this is wrong. I am open to God using evolution to speciate life on earth. I’m actually more open to it now than I’ve ever been.

And by the way, I’m not arguing against evolution.

I’m arguing against the philosophical materialism that you use to attack the ID movement, something which you appear to be oblivious of when you defend theistic evolution.

(conflation of science with atheism deleted)

I’m not conflating science with atheism. I’m not conflating evolution with atheism either-- especially since I peronally do believe that God used evolution (cf., both micro- and macro-evolution) to speciate life on earth.

At least pay attention to what I’m asking you, okay?

Let’s try this again…
Mr. Ex Nihilo:

Saying that “perceived randomness” proves that God did not act within his creation is really not much of a different argument than those who say the “existence of evil” proves that God does not exist at all.

If the second part above is wrong, then why is the first part assumed true?

Now could you please answer the question without simply dodging it as an insult. It’s not an insult. It’s a valid question that you need to be able to answer if you want people to respect your theodicy of God.

But it was no problem for an Almighty Creator, who produced a universe in which such things evolve.

So exactly how did God produce a universe without designing it?

Nope…

Yep…he did design it.

See how easy it is to dismiss other people’s arguments when you ignore the points they’re making?

…unless you water down “design” to “intent.” God is no mere designer. Fallible creatures design. God is the Creator. And IDers are uncomfortable with a God that great.

So perhaps you could explain this distinction between “design” and “creation” in more detail so that we can examine you theodicy of God more clearly.

And perhaps you could also explain why you’re so uncomfortable with my assertion that the one who claims “perceived randomness” proves that God did not act within his creation is really not much of a different argument than those who say the “existence of evil” proves that God does not exist at all.

Thank you.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Then why did the mighty dinosaurs die out while the lesser primates began to prosper?

See above. Besides, most of them weren’t all that mighty. Very large animals are relatively fragile things. If a T-rex stumbled while moving quickly, it was probably crippled by the fall, a fatal thing for a predator. Turns out that moderately-sized animals are more successful

But the real competition for primates were the smaller dinosaurs. Fortunately for us, some sort of disaster killed off all land animals larger than a few kilograms.

Evolution is not about the survival of the fittest.

Survival of the fit. That is testable, and verified.

B. observes:
the difference between sparrows surviving a winter and not making it, was about one millimeter in the length of the breastbone.

Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of our Father, correct?

I believe you’re starting to get it.

Consequently, are you saying that it’s totally impossible that this man’s research was not in any way compromised by his own thoughts about the methods of how life came about on earth?

Not unless he forgot how to use a ruler. Do you know how experiments are designed to deal with human expectations?

I think convergent evolution alone can pose a serious problem to the matter of “common descent” when one realizes that similar phenotypes can be produced in species that are not at all “directly related”.

That’s the point. Analogous structures (produced by convergent evolution) demonstrate common descent because the details of these structures clearly show that they were descended from different organisms. Hence, the “carnassal teeth” and wolflike appearance of thylacines superficially look like those of a carnivore, but the teeth are the wrong ones, and the bones are those of a marsupial, and the animal has a pouch. And, of course, the DNA of thylacines is marsupial DNA. This is powerful evidence for evolution.

Nothing in Scripture or the Magesterium generally supports ID. And all the evidence goes the other way. God does not do miracles because He has to tinker with creation to get it to work. He does it to teach us something important.

B. observes:
Demoting God to a “designer” is, of course a major sin. But the fact that we can’t find evidence for design in nature is much more damning from a scientific POV.

And yet many people do see design in nature.

Many people have seen all sorts of things, when their faith demands that those things exist.

B. observes:
Science can’t evaluate religious beliefs, because they are untestable.

Then why is there biological rhythms of roughly seven days ingrained within the chronobiology of life itself?

These circaseptan, or about weekly, rhythms are one of the major surprises turned up by modern chronobiology. Fifteen years ago, few scientists would have expected that seven-day biological cycles would prove to be so widespread and so long established in the living world.

Interesting things, apparently (at least in algae) medated by something in the nucleus. The only thing remotely fitted to this, would be the multiplicity of spring and neap tides, suggesting that it evolved in the oceans a long time ago.

How does evolution explain this?

Still not resolved. All sciences have unresolved things to study.

More importantly, why didn’t evolution “predict” this?

Because, I suppose, life is a lot more interesting and complicated than we thought.

This isn’t a jab. I’m simply honestly curious to know how so many lifeforms acquired this seven day rhythm ingrafted into their very biological being when no “naturally occuring” seven day rhythm appears to synchronize with this circaseptan rhythm found in things like “primitive” algae, rats, plants and face flies?

The key is “about” seven days. That suggests a changing environment, or possibly a pattern that varies in nature as a regular thing. Tides would fit nicely, but I don’t really know.

B. observes:
Many IDers originally claimed that their “calculations” had shown that this could not have happened on its own. But it did. And anyone who looks at the evidence can see that there is no need for “intelligent design.”

I’m sorry, but you’re just presenting “tautological” arguments, presuming that they are “self-evident” by virture of your interpretation of the data.

It happened. The data are very clear. And ID says it is impossible. Draw your own conclusions.

B. observes:
Behe’s meaning, that of a God who figures out things, and then has to go back from time to time, to tinker with the system to get it to work.

So God as the “Great Experimenter”

Can’t be. Omniscient, you know.

 

[edwest2]

Your argument is entirely wrong. You arbitrarily put God into human terms. He does not tinker as a human would. He moves infallibly by the power of His Word. This is Biblical.

Archaeologists do the natural/designed sorting I’ve
described all the time. Claims to the contrary are demonstrably false.

God is the ultimate designer.

Unfortunately, the current propaganda tries to move people away from thinking about ID. It’s not going away.

There is no known process to create living cells. Animals are similar not because they descended but because they live on the same planet with the same gravity, atmosphere, sunlight and other conditions.

God bless,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

So now it is considered a “fact” that life could not have been intelligently designed?

Hmm… do you have the context?

Barbarian suggests:
Maybe you’d be better served by arguing against what I did say. God acted within His creation, you just aren’t comfortable with the way He did it.

Actually, this is wrong. I am open to God using evolution to speciate life on earth. I’m actually more open to it now than I’ve ever been.

And by the way, I’m not arguing against evolution.

I’m arguing against the philosophical materialism that you use to attack the ID movement,

Then you’re beating a dead strawman, or you’ve somehow conflated methodological and philosopical naturalism. Big difference.

(conflation of science with atheism deleted)

I’m not conflating science with atheism.

Sure seemed like it. Would you like me to restore the context for you?

At least pay attention to what I’m asking you, okay?

That seems to be what gripes you.

Saying that “perceived randomness” proves that God did not act within his creation is really not much of a different argument than those who say the “existence of evil” proves that God does not exist at all.

Seems to be conflating atheism with science. Common error. Or maybe

If the second part above is wrong,

You think Catholics don’t accept miracles? Isn’t that God acting within His creation?

Now could you please answer the question without simply dodging it as an insult. It’s not an insult.

It’s an unfortunate confusion, perhaps unintentional on your part.

It’s a valid question that you need to be able to answer if you want people to respect your theodicy of God.

Well, I’m in good company, at least.

B. observes:
But it was no problem for an Almighty Creator, who produced a universe in which such things evolve.

So exactly how did God produce a universe without designing it?

Omniscient. Never did any planing or designing.

See how easy it is to dismiss other people’s arguments when you ignore the points they’re making?

You ignored the fact that an omniscient being does not plan, does not design. He is merely aware of His intent and of the consequences.

So perhaps you could explain this distinction between “design” and “creation” in more detail so that we can examine you theodicy of God more clearly.

“Design” requires consideration, something unnecessary for God.

And perhaps you could also explain why you’re so uncomfortable with my assertion that the one who claims “perceived randomness” proves that God did not act within his creation is really not much of a different argument than those who say the “existence of evil” proves that God does not exist at all.

It is, after all, a basic misrepresentation of what Catholics think of it. It is confusing God’s use of nature to serve Him, with deism.
Moreover, it is obvious that miracles are what you assume we don’t think exist.