Intelligent Design

[rossum]

Your prepared script is showing.
I stated no questions.

I stand corrected, thank you for pointing out my error. You didn’t ask any questions in that post. Nor did you provide any positive evidence for ID.

Where is the positive evidence for ID?

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Anyone following my posts know my claims. Evo supports denied it. (kbachler, rossum and others)

Well what have we here? An ardent evolutionary biologist agrees with me.

Interview WIth Lynn Margulis

And you don’t believe natural selection is the answer?

This is the problem I have with neo-Darwinists: They teach that what is generating novelty is the accumulation of random mutations in DNA, in a direction set by natural selection. If you want bigger eggs you keep selecting the hens that are laying the bigger eggs, and you get bigger and bigger eggs. But you also get hens with defective feathers and wobbly eggs. Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create. (just what I claimed)

and…

I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change — led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence. … (just what I claimed)

There is no gradualism in the fossil record… ‘Punctuated equilibrium’ was invented to describe the discontinuity. … (just what I claimed)

The critics, including the creationist critics, are right about their criticism. It’s just that they’ve got nothing to offer but intelligent design or ‘God did it.’ They have no alternatives that are scientific. (rossum agrees)

The evolutionary biologists believe the evolutionary pattern is a tree. It’s not. The evolutionary pattern is a web… (just what I claimed)

Now what does IDvolution posit?

Abrupt appearance
Complexity right from the beginning
Life is front loaded with information.
Stasis

 

[rossum]

Anyone following my posts know my claims. Evo supports denied it. (kbachler, rossum and others)

Well what have we here? An ardent evolutionary biologist agrees with me.

Interview WIth Lynn Margulis

This is science, and argument from authority is not the way to proceed. Where is your data? Opinion is merely opinion.

And you don’t believe natural selection is the answer?

This is the problem I have with neo-Darwinists: They teach that what is generating novelty is the accumulation of random mutations in DNA, in a direction set by natural selection. If you want bigger eggs you keep selecting the hens that are laying the bigger eggs, and you get bigger and bigger eggs. But you also get hens with defective feathers and wobbly eggs. Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create.

There is more to evolution than natural selection. Evolution is a mixture of processes, some of which increase variation while others decrease variation.

I fail to see how Margulies’ example of artificial selection is relevant here. Artificial selection usually selects on a very narrow spectrum of characteristics, or even a single characteristic; egg size in this case. Natural selection selects on a much wider range of characteristics. Her example is not relevant to natural selection.

I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change — led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence.

Margulies is wrong here. Random mutation is only one part of the process.

There is no gradualism in the fossil record… ‘Punctuated equilibrium’ was invented to describe the discontinuity.

Margulies is wrong here. Gould showed gradualism in Cerion snails. There are other examples. Remember also that punctuated equilibrium is over thousands of generations; it is evolution but at a faster speed. It is fast in geological terms but very far from instantaneous.

the periods, during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured by years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form.

• Darwin, On the Origin of Species, Chapter Eleven

The critics, including the creationist critics, are right about their criticism. It’s just that they’ve got nothing to offer but intelligent design or ‘God did it.’ They have no alternatives that are scientific. (rossum agrees)

Partly. Creationist and ID criticisms are usually wrong. They certainly do not have an ID alternative.

The evolutionary biologists believe the evolutionary pattern is a tree. It’s not. The evolutionary pattern is a web

Partly correct. The root of the tree is a web, due to HGT. I am not sure how much HGT goes on among the unicellular eukaryotes. For the rest of the tree, once you get to multicellular organisms, the amount of HGT is minimal and there is a good, and very well established tree.

Now what does IDvolution posit?

Abrupt appearance

Falsified by the fossil record.

Complexity right from the beginning

Complexity can arise from chemistry.

Life is front loaded with information.

No evidence provided.

Stasis

Is only seen very rarely.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

This is science, and argument from authority is not the way to proceed. Where is your data? Opinion is merely opinion.

There is more to evolution than natural selection. Evolution is a mixture of processes, some of which increase variation while others decrease variation.

I fail to see how Margulies’ example of artificial selection is relevant here. Artificial selection usually selects on a very narrow spectrum of characteristics, or even a single characteristic; egg size in this case. Natural selection selects on a much wider range of characteristics. Her example is not relevant to natural selection.

Margulies is wrong here. Random mutation is only one part of the process.

Margulies is wrong here. Gould showed gradualism in Cerion snails. There are other examples. Remember also that punctuated equilibrium is over thousands of generations; it is evolution but at a faster speed. It is fast in geological terms but very far from instantaneous.the periods, during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured by years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form.

• Darwin, On the Origin of Species, Chapter ElevenPartly. Creationist and ID criticisms are usually wrong. They certainly do not have an ID alternative.

Partly correct. The root of the tree is a web, due to HGT. I am not sure how much HGT goes on among the unicellular eukaryotes. For the rest of the tree, once you get to multicellular organisms, the amount of HGT is minimal and there is a good, and very well established tree.

Falsified by the fossil record.

Complexity can arise from chemistry.

No evidence provided.

Is only seen very rarely.

rossum

You do remember my exchanges with kbachler?

Predictable. No dissent is allowed. Anyone who does, now even in the evo community, is wrong, ignorant, etc… We will let the followers of these threads judge for themselves as time goes on.

Typical.

 

[rossum]

You do remember my exchanges with kbachler?

Predictable. No dissent is allowed. Anyone who does, now even in the evo community, is wrong, ignorant, etc… We will let the followers of these threads judge for themselves as time goes on.

Typical.

Evidence in favour of ID presented: zero.

Typical.

rossum

 

[meltzerboy]

In my view, the position advocated by intelligent design was not initially meant to be scientific. The only reason why scientific support–meager as it is–has been presented by ID proponents is to attempt to gain more credibility among the general population (if not the scientific community) for their theory. The ID theory is really a faith-based one, which (as another poster pointed out) begins not with a hypothesis but with a belief (in G-d). Therefore it is only half-heartedly trying to play catch-up by engaging in the scientific method for the purpose of justification of its belief, but cannot deny its pre-fixed starting point. I tend to believe (but cannot say for sure) that there is also a political agenda to the ID movement in its attempt to introduce G-d in the likeness of science into public school institutions. The rationale for this agenda is to combat what the movement sincerely believes to be an atheistic agenda advocated by evolutionists. Perhaps the scientific attempt at justification was devised after the failure of the creationist movement as a better approach to appeal to the masses by means of a more solid, scientific footing. The mistake of the ID approach, in my view, is to confound religion and science. Once religion becomes part of a scientific theory, this weakens the appeal of faith, which by its very nature retains an aura of mystery unanalyzable by scientific measures. Scientists and social historians have also, at times, gone too far, in my opinion, in their analysis of the truth of biblical events by determining scientifically whether a particular event or personage really occurred or existed and what the historical sequence of events truly was. Not that this is uninteresting, but if the agenda is to nullify faith, I think that approach is misguided just as much as the ID approach is to enlarge the scope of science to fit its religious beliefs.

 

[buffalo]

Evidence in favour of ID presented: zero.

Typical.

rossum

Natural selection as a creative process - neutralized.

Accumulation of random mutations in DNA, in a direction set by natural selection. - neutralized.

So for 150 or so years and billions spent in research - nada. To be fair give ID 150 years and billions.

 

[buffalo]

In my view, the position advocated by intelligent design was not initially meant to be scientific. The only reason why scientific support–meager as it is–has been presented by ID proponents is to attempt to gain more credibility among the general population (if not the scientific community) for their theory. The ID theory is really a faith-based one, which (as another poster pointed out) begins not with a hypothesis but with a belief (in G-d). Therefore it is only half-heartedly trying to play catch-up by engaging in the scientific method for the purpose of justification of its belief, but cannot deny its pre-fixed starting point. I tend to believe (but cannot say for sure) that there is also a political agenda to the ID movement in its attempt to introduce G-d in the likeness of science into public school institutions. The rationale for this agenda is to combat what the movement sincerely believes to be an atheistic agenda advocated by evolutionists. Perhaps the scientific attempt at justification was devised after the failure of the creationist movement as a better approach to appeal to the masses by means of a more solid, scientific footing. The mistake of the ID approach, in my view, is to confound religion and science. Once religion becomes part of a scientific theory, this weakens the appeal of faith, which by its very nature retains an aura of mystery unanalyzable by scientific measures. Scientists and social historians have also, at times, gone too far, in my opinion, in their analysis of the truth of biblical events by determining scientifically whether a particular event or personage really occurred or existed and what the historical sequence of events truly was. Not that this is uninteresting, but if the agenda is to nullify faith, I think that approach is misguided just as much as the ID approach is to enlarge the scope of science to fit its religious beliefs.

ID the science says nothing on who the designer is, although the implications are obvious. Does design exist? Youbetcha. Is it detectable? Youbethcha.

So you can believe in designer or you can believe in the god of naturalism. The odds are highly in favor of God.

 

[meltzerboy]

ID the science says nothing on who the designer is, although the implications are obvious. Does design exist? Youbetcha. Is it detectable? Youbethcha.

So you can believe in designer or you can believe in the god of naturalism. The odds are highly in favor of God.

I can also believe in both: the theory of evolution and G-d, as G-d created natural law, including randomness. And I don’t see natural selection as meaning only random mutation. Just as I can believe in free will and predestination, or rather G-d’s knowing our choices based on our free will, and just as I can believe in the truth of one faith and the truths of other faiths, in both time and eternity, G-d’s justice and mercy intertwined, and so on.

 

[buffalo]

Now get this: Another juicy tidbit from the same interview.

Population geneticist Richard Lewontin gave a talk here at UMass Amherst about six years ago, and he mathematized all of it - changes in the population, random mutation, sexual selection, cost and benefit. At the end of his talk he said, “You know, we have tried to test these ideas in the field and in the lab, and there are no measurements that match the quantities I’ve told you about.” This just appalled me. So I said “Richard Lewontin you are a great lecturer to have the courage to say it has gotten you nowhere. But then why do you continue to do this work?” And he looked around and said “It’s the only thing I know how to do, and if I don’t do it I won’t get my grant money.” So he is an honest man and that’s an honest answer.​

Wow.

 

[buffalo]

I can also believe in both: the theory of evolution and G-d, as G-d created natural law, including randomness. And I don’t see natural selection as meaning only random mutation. Just as I can believe in free will and predestination, or rather G-d’s knowing our choices based on our free will, and just as I can believe in the truth of one faith and the truths of other faiths, in both time and eternity, G-d’s justice and mercy intertwined, and so on.

What do you think of IDvolution?

 

[rossum]

Natural selection as a creative process - neutralized.

Natural selection reduces variation in a population, as Margulies correctly pointed out. Nobody proposes that natural selection alone is a crative process. You are fighting a strawman here.

Accumulation of random mutations in DNA, in a direction set by natural selection. - neutralized.

No. You have an erroneous opinion quotemined from a single scientist. You have no data. In science it is data that wins, not opinions.

So for 150 or so years and billions spent in research - nada. To be fair give ID 150 years and billions.

You are being lied to but you creationist websites again. Drug therapies, Tiktaalik and all the rest show that evolution produces results.

Intelligent Design has been around for over 2,000 years and has produced no data at all. No doubt that explains why you cannot produce any data in favour of ID but are reduced to s(name removed by moderator)ing at a strawman version of evolution using a quotemine from a biologist, not an ID researcher.

Remember what Margulies said in the article you referenced:all scientists agree that evolution has occurred — that all life comes from a common ancestry… The critics, including the creationist critics, are right about their criticism. It’s just that they’ve got nothing to offer but intelligent design or “God did it.” They have no alternatives that are scientific.

Elsewhere she has said:Although I greatly admire Darwin’s contributions and agree with most of his theoretical analysis and I am a Darwinist, I am not a neo-Darwinist. One of Darwin’s major insights is the recognition that all organisms are related by common ancestry. Today direct evidence for common ancestry — genetic, chemical, and otherwise — is overwhelming.

• Source.
  You are trying to enlist the support of someone who says that the evidence for common ancestry is “overwhelming”. If that is the best support you can find then ID is in a sorry state indeed. But we could already tell that from the failure of the ID side to produce any supporting data at all.

rossum

 

[meltzerboy]

What do you think of IDvolution?

As I stated, I think IDvolution is on shaky ground as a scientific theory largely due to its method of proof. It might stand as a faith-based belief, however, without feeling the need to resort to a scientific explanation. In the domain of science, the theory of evolution is presently more valid; but, as with all theories, that may change if new evidence is evaluated that the theory cannot explain. Render unto Caesar…and so forth.

 

[buffalo]

Remember what Margulies said in the article you referenced:all scientists agree that evolution has occurred — that all life comes from a common ancestry… The critics, including the creationist critics, are right about their criticism. It’s just that they’ve got nothing to offer but intelligent design or “God did it.” They have no alternatives that are scientific.Elsewhere she has said:Although I greatly admire Darwin’s contributions and agree with most of his theoretical analysis and I am a Darwinist, I am not a neo-Darwinist. One of Darwin’s major insights is the recognition that all organisms are related by common ancestry. Today direct evidence for common ancestry — genetic, chemical, and otherwise — is overwhelming.

• Source.You are trying to enlist the support of someone who says that the evidence for common ancestry is “overwhelming”. If that is the best support you can find then ID is in a sorry state indeed. But we could already tell that from the failure of the ID side to produce any supporting data at all.

rossum

No surprise here - that is the standard talking point when they say something controversial.

The crumbling takes a while and comes in bits and pieces. Connect the dots and the paradigm is changing.

 

[tonyrey]

As I stated, I think IDvolution is on shaky ground as a scientific theory largely due to its method of proof. It might stand as a faith-based belief, however, without feeling the need to resort to a scientific explanation. In the domain of science, the theory of evolution is presently more valid; but, as with all theories, that may change if new evidence is evaluated that the theory cannot explain. Render unto Caesar…and so forth.

You are assuming that there cannot be evolution by Design…

 

[buffalo]

As I stated, I think IDvolution is on shaky ground as a scientific theory largely due to its method of proof. It might stand as a faith-based belief, however, without feeling the need to resort to a scientific explanation. In the domain of science, the theory of evolution is presently more valid; but, as with all theories, that may change if new evidence is evaluated that the theory cannot explain. Render unto Caesar…and so forth.

IDvolution is philosophy - an attempt to correctly reason science illuminated by Revelation.

Have you studied the resource page ? And it is being added to continuously as new science is coming in.

Remember the diagram.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=639&pictureid=7720

 

[meltzerboy]

You are assuming that there cannot be evolution by Design…

I cannot believe in ID as it currently stands because Intelligent Design is masquerading as a scientific theory. By its very nature, it cannot be such because what you call evolution by Design is code for evolution by G-d. When G-d is brought into a theory, the theory loses its scientific validity because one would first have to prove the existence of G-d, explain what the intentions of G-d may be in creating the universe, and describe which G-d one is talking about. That’s why I prefer to call ID a faith-based belief regarding the origin of species rather than a scientific theory. Making it a scientific theory is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole; it results in damaging both the peg (faith) and the hole (science).

 

[meltzerboy]

Buffalo, what you describe as a philosophy to reason science illuminated by Revelation is hardly a scientific theory. It is, I repeat, a faith-based belief, as you yourself suggest in this diagram. Why “demean” this belief by transforming it from the metaphysical to the physical?

 

[buffalo]

Buffalo, what you describe as a philosophy to reason science illuminated by Revelation is hardly a scientific theory. It is, I repeat, a faith-based belief, as you yourself suggest in this diagram. Why “demean” this belief by transforming it from the metaphysical to the physical?

Hello, I stated it was philosophy! IDvolution is not Intelligent Design.

Here is ID the science:

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](http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Intelligent_design) 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. 					
                     	        
           
                                                **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.

 

[meltzerboy]

ID the science says nothing on who the designer is, although the implications are obvious. Does design exist? Youbetcha. Is it detectable? Youbethcha.

So you can believe in designer or you can believe in the god of naturalism. The odds are highly in favor of God.

My mistake; I apologize for confusing the two. But after reading the description of Intelligent Design that you provided, I think the philosophy and science are certainly connected, and perhaps by…design. You say so yourself here. It is no wonder that believers (although I question why this theory is mainly defended by Christians and not so much by other faiths) tend to favor Intelligent Design. It still seems to me similar to Creationism, except for a twitch here and there, mainly dropping the word G-d and substituting intelligent design. Again, as you suggest, where there is a Design, there is likely to be a Designer. So, be honest now, isn’t this so-called scientific theory really a religious belief in sheep’s clothing? Your response, perhaps (just guessing): isn’t the theory of evolution really a disguise for atheism? The answer is no, because evolutionary theory is a scientific theory, which means G-d cannot possibly be discussed due to the issues I brought up in another post: one would have to first prove G-d’s existence, describe which G-d one is talking about, and say something about G-d’s possible intentions with regard to the creation of the universe. That would take us out of the realm of science (and, as such topics tend to gravitate toward, politics) and back into philosophy (metaphysics), theology, and faith. And it is in these realms, my friend, which are no less significant than science, that I believe Intelligent Design belongs.