Intelligent Design

[rossum]

The very fact that we are here testifies to the fact of the occurance and the intelligence behind the designer.

You are assuming what you have to prove. “The very fact the we are here testifies to fact of the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn.” Does the existence of the designer indicate the presence of a designer designer who designed the first designer? If we are complex then our designer must be more complex still and hence require a second designer by your own arguments.

And it suits much better then random actions of random chemicals.

Personal incredulity is not a scientific argument. I am aware that it is pretty much all you have to support ID, but that is not my problem. I have a mass of scientific data to refer to, while all you have is political propaganda from the Discovery Institute.

rossum

 

[vz71]

Still the obsession with randomness. Chemical processes are not random. Natural selection is not random. They are subject to causal relationships. This is not that difficult to grasp.

Of course it is not difficult to grasp.
But one must ask themselves where exactly any mutation comes from in the process of natural selection.
According to the natural selection theory, some organism acquires a trait that better suits it to the environment then its brothers, so it stands a better chance of surviving and passing on whatever trait made it better suited.
And the process of acquiring this trait in the first place is…random mutation.

It is not I that is fixated upon randomness.
ID addresses that everything that we are cannot be a random chance.

And actually, reading further down the thread, I find others have addressed this more eloquently then I.

According to those who reject Design genetic mutations are random, chemical processes are purposeless, abiogenesis was** fortuitous **and life is accidental. That is not difficult to grasp…

 

[vz71]

However, my script has references to the scientific evidence supporting my position. Your script has no references and no evidence to back up your position.

Well, I am providing unscripted and unrehearsed logic and reason.
There is no script on this end (as you have admitted there is on your end.)

Someone reading a Papal Encyclical is reading a script. Does that make what they are reading incorrect? Scripts can be true, and since ID never comes up with anything new all I need is a script.
rossum

As long as we are clear that you are not doing your own thinking.

 

[vz71]

Does the existence of the designer indicate the presence of a designer designer who designed the first designer? If we are complex then our designer must be more complex still and hence require a second designer by your own arguments.

It requires a designer more complex then the design.
But there is no endless seccession of designers.
Logic would dictate that at some point we arrive at an uncreated being outside of creation itself.

Personal incredulity is not a scientific argument.

It is not incredulity.
It is an observation that randomness cannot explain what is.

I have a mass of scientific data to refer to, while all you have is political propaganda from the Discovery Institute.
rossum

And we are back to the script…
At some point you need to step away from it. Your script is failing.
I have not heard of this ‘Discovery Institute’ other then your own rambling about it.
Your arguing up the wrong page.

 

[rossum]

It requires a designer more complex then the design.
But there is no endless seccession of designers.
Logic would dictate that at some point we arrive at an uncreated being outside of creation itself.

Or alternatively logic would dictate that you are in error when you declare, without real evidence, that a designer is required. You acknowledge that the process has to stop at some point, why not stop it before the first step? You are quick enough to dismiss the requirement that your proposed designer has a designer. Science shows that ordinary chemical and biological processes are capable of increasing complexity.

It is not incredulity.
It is an observation that randomness cannot explain what is.

And I agree with you. Chemistry is not randomness, nor is natural selection. It is your personal incredulity about chemistry and natural selection that I have a problem with.

And we are back to the script…
At some point you need to step away from it. Your script is failing.
I have not heard of this ‘Discovery Institute’ other then your own rambling about it.
Your arguing up the wrong page.

I am arguing against the organisation that is pushing ID as a political agenda. Professor Behe and Dr Dembski are CSC Fellows in the DI. Do you have so little knowledge of ID that you don’t realise this?

rossum

 

[vz71]

Or alternatively logic would dictate that you are in error when you declare, without real evidence, that a designer is required. You acknowledge that the process has to stop at some point, why not stop it before the first step? You are quick enough to dismiss the requirement that your proposed designer has a designer.

No I have not dismissed that at all.
I encourage you to step away from the script and start thinking for yourself.
If you had read my comments, you would have known what I was saying.

It is your personal incredulity about chemistry and natural selection that I have a problem with.

I would be more convinced if you could address the inherent randomness of the process itself. Convince me that the mutations that allow one to survive over another are not random. Evolution theory dictates that somewhere along the way an organism will gain a trait that makes it better suited to the environment over the others of its species and pass it along until. If not random, then where exactly does this mutation come from?
Are you a closet ID follower?

I am arguing against the organisation that is pushing ID as a political agenda.
rossum

No, anyone reading this thread will be able to read your own comments and know that what you have just written is untrue.
You said

all you have is political propaganda from the Discovery Institute.

This is a direct argument against me, not the institute.
Otherwise you would not have directed the ‘you’ into the sentence.

 

[rossum]

I would be more convinced if you could address the inherent randomness of the process itself. Convince me that the mutations that allow one to survive over another are not random. Evolution theory dictates that somewhere along the way an organism will gain a trait that makes it better suited to the environment over the others of its species and pass it along until. If not random, then where exactly does this mutation come from?

The causes of mutations are not random. We know many causes: some chemicals, radiation, errors in DNA transcription and others. Mutations have known causes, and presumably some causes we don’t know yet.

The effects of mutations are not related to their causes. Any cause may bring about a neutral mutation, a deleterious mutation or a beneficial mutation. Some mutations are inherently neutral, synonymous mutations for example. Some mutations are inherently deleterious, any fatal mutation for example. Other mutations are dependent on the environment. Paler fur may be an advantage in the Arctic but a disadvantage in the tropics.

Given the extremely complex linkage between the various causes of mutations and the many possible effects of mutations it is currently not possible to make any worthwhile predictions about the exact effects of the known causes: “2.5 milli Rads will cause your baby to be a star Quarterback, Mrs Jones” is not possible. That is why we say “mutations are random with respect to their effect on the phenotype”. We abbreviate that to “random mutations”. The randomness is not in their causes but in their effects. We cannot predict their effects from their causes.

You also need to bear in mind the effects of population sizes. There are over six billion humans. Each of us has about 150 mutations. That is 900 billion mutations every generation in the human population. There are only 3 billion base pairs in the human genome. Pretty much every possible point mutations is going to appear somewhere every generation or two. If the mutation appears in a place where it is disadvantageous then it will disappear. If the mutation appears in a place where it is advantageous then it will spread. Simple statistics ensures that for any reasonably large population there will be a sufficient supply of new mutations. This is one of the problems with rare species, their population sizes are too small to ensure an adequate level of variation so they are very vulnerable to environmental change such as a new disease or changing climate.

This is a broad overview, there is a lot more detail available if you want it. I have never seen even this level of detail from the ID side.

rossum

 

[vz71]

The causes of mutations are not random. We know many causes: some chemicals, radiation, errors in DNA transcription and others. Mutations have known causes, and presumably some causes we don’t know yet.
rossum

OK, you have me convinced.
Mutations do not happen at random.
There are a multitude of factors within the organism as well as within the environment that can have an effect upon the genome of an animal causing a mutation of one type or another.

Of course, what exactly that mutation is would apparently be a random thing.

 

[vz71]

Given the extremely complex linkage between the various causes of mutations and the many possible effects of mutations it is currently not possible to make any worthwhile predictions about the exact effects of the known causes: “2.5 milli Rads will cause your baby to be a star Quarterback, Mrs Jones” is not possible. That is why we say “mutations are random with respect to their effect on the phenotype”. We abbreviate that to “random mutations”. The randomness is not in their causes but in their effects. We cannot predict their effects from their causes.
rossum

You cannot predict the mutation, you cannot predict the outcome, you cannot predict when it will happen.
But you also want to claim it is not random.
And you wish to claim there is no design to be found (I distinctly remember a claim that an SOS written in stones on the beach could be a naturally occurring event.)

Your position is growing tenuous.

Did your script lead you here?

 

[vz71]

This is a broad overview, there is a lot more detail available if you want it. I have never seen even this level of detail from the ID side.

rossum

Agreed. You do not see that much detail on the ID side.
But so what?

If a theory is wrong, it is wrong…no matter how detailed its proponents are.
It is merely more and more detail of an error.

 

[rossum]

YBut you also want to claim it is not random.

If I roll a fair die six million times it is not random that I will get each number coming up around 1 million times. Some details are random, whether it is 999,998 times or 1,000,003 times, but within limits I can accurately predict the outcome of random die rolls over a number of trials. With 900 billion mutations per generation in just one species a certain amount of statistical prediction is possible.

I have always indicated that chemistry is not random. I have always indicated that natural selection is not random. Nor is sexual selection for that matter.

And you wish to claim there is no design to be found

My claim is that the evidence for design so far provided is grossly inadequate to support the conclusion. The evidence for the insufficiency of evolution is grossly deficient also. The evidence in favour of evolution is amply sufficient. ID lacks evidence.

I distinctly remember a claim that an SOS written in stones on the beach could be a naturally occurring event.

That was merely an exercise in showing that the appearance of design may merely indicate a failure of imagination on the part of the person noting that appearance.

Yet again, you have failed to provide any evidence at all for ID. All you can do is to assert, again without evidence, that normal scientific processes are insufficient.

In science an assertion made without supporting evidence fails.

rossum

 

[meltzerboy]

Design is not a scientific theory but a philosophical explanation based on scientific facts.

That is putting the cart before the horse because science presupposes that we live in a rational rather than an irrational universe. It need not be intelligible but it is. We need not be intelligent but we are! Why? Because both intelligence and intelligibility are signs of a rational origin. We are made in the image of God but our physical nature requires a physical world created by God.
Science is also based on faith! It wouldn’t have developed if no one had faith in the power of reason and the rational system we call the universe.

Unless I missed something, I thought Intelligent Design was supposed to be a scientific theory and IDvolution, the philosophy attached to it. Isn’t the whole argument here about whether Intelligent Design is truly science and whether it follows the scientific method? If Intelligent Design is instead a “philosophy” based on scientific facts, as you define it, then you consider it a scientific theory. Your second paragraph beginning with “That is putting the cart before the horse” I am not capable of deciphering. Either the statement lacks intelligibility, or it is very profound and I lack the intelligence to interpret it, or both. Yes, science presupposes logic and reason as tools of discovery; however the “faith” aspect of science can be tested whereas the faith aspect of religion, that presupposes Intelligent Design theory, cannot. Final note: I am not an atheist, but, at the same time, I believe Intelligent Design does not belong as a scientific theory; it is a faith-based philosophy. Evidently, according to what you stated previously, you partially agree with me.

 

[rossum]

Agreed. You do not see that much detail on the ID side.
But so what?

If ID wants to be philosophy or theology then the lack of detail is not a problem. If ID wants to be science, and to insinuate itself into science classrooms, then it is a big problem. Without that supporting detail ID doesn’t make it as science.

If a theory is wrong, it is wrong…no matter how detailed its proponents are.
It is merely more and more detail of an error.

Your first sentence starts with an “If …”. If 1 + 1 = 3 …

You assert that the theory is wrong but you provide no supporting evidence.

Take a specific case. Is it right or wrong to say that humans and chimps evolved from a common ape ancestor? If it is wrong then what is the ID evidence to show that it is wrong? If it is correct then what is the ID evidence to show that it is correct? That is a legitimate scientific question, so if ID is science then it should be able to provide an answer, together with supporting evidence.

rossum

 

[vz71]

If I roll a fair die six million times it is not random that I will get each number coming up around 1 million times. Some details are random, whether it is 999,998 times or 1,000,003 times, but within limits I can accurately predict the outcome of random die rolls over a number of trials.

You must have a lot of fun at the Craps tables.
But beyond your quite possibly unrealized income as a dice player, one should note that DNA sequnces are not dice.
A single die has only 6 possible numbers per roll.
Each roll ends with a random number between 1 and 6.
Did everyone catch that…each roll generates a **random **number between 1 and 6.
So how does this apply to a genome with many hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions or even billions) of possible combinations?
Your numbers and probability game falls apart.
Face up to it…evolution is driven by random events.

That was merely an exercise in showing that the appearance of design may merely indicate a failure of imagination on the part of the person noting that appearance.

That exercise showed that there are many unwilling to see an intelligent design no matter how blatently obvious the design and the intelligence behind it are.
More to the point, I find delicious irony in someone that wants to claim no randomness in a gene mutation that cannot be predicted but also wishes to claim stones arranged on a beach that spell out SOS could be a random event.

Yet again, you have failed to provide any evidence at all for ID. All you can do is to assert, again without evidence, that normal scientific processes are insufficient.
rossum

Another statement against a point I have not proposed.
Your reading from a script again.
Please assemble your straw men elsewhere.

 

[vz71]

Take a specific case. Is it right or wrong to say that humans and chimps evolved from a common ape ancestor? If it is wrong then what is the ID evidence to show that it is wrong? If it is correct then what is the ID evidence to show that it is correct? That is a legitimate scientific question, so if ID is science then it should be able to provide an answer, together with supporting evidence.

rossum

All this from a statement that evolution theory is incorrect.
So what is contained in the statement that it is wrong obligates the person uttering it to back anything else at all?

One need not provide evidence for ID to show evolution theory is incorrect.

 

[vz71]

Final note: I am not an atheist, but, at the same time, I believe Intelligent Design does not belong as a scientific theory; it is a faith-based philosophy.

Perhaps your definition of ID differs from my own.

As has been stated by a researcher of ID,
“Intelligent Design is . . . a scientific investigation into how patterns exhibited by finite arrangements of matter can signify intelligence.”

I would thiunk that would fall squarely within the realm of science.

 

[kbachler]

Perhaps your definition of ID differs from my own.

As has been stated by a researcher of ID,
“Intelligent Design is . . . a scientific investigation into how patterns exhibited by finite arrangements of matter can signify intelligence.”

I would thiunk that would fall squarely within the realm of science.

But since it doesn’t provide testable hypotheses, the claim for it is either mistaken or deliberately misleading.

 

[kbachler]

All this from a statement that evolution theory is incorrect.

Yes

So what is contained in the statement that it is wrong obligates the person uttering it to back anything else at all?

Huh? The above doesn’t appear to make any sense. Please clarify.

One need not provide evidence for ID to show evolution theory is incorrect.

That claim is not made.

First, evolutionary theory is correct, and has substantial evidence for it.

Second, because some here seem to support ID as a science, a separate question was asked for evidence. Your response was to avoid the question.

 

[kbachler]

You must have a lot of fun at the Craps tables.
But beyond your quite possibly unrealized income as a dice player, one should note that DNA sequnces are not dice.
A single die has only 6 possible numbers per roll.
Each roll ends with a random number between 1 and 6.
Did everyone catch that…each roll generates a **random **number between 1 and 6.
So how does this apply to a genome with many hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions or even billions) of possible combinations?
Your numbers and probability game falls apart.
Face up to it…evolution is driven by random events.

The above shows a great deal of misunderstanding. Just because a SINGLE EVENT is random, does not mean that a collection of random single events is also random.

This is known in probability theory, and in fact has a name - the law of large numbers. It is, in fact, what allows insurance carriers to operate and to provide insurance protection and be profitable.

In addition, CHAOS theory also shows that for chaotic events, the order of appearance of a mapping (for example, the points in a graph) may be random - even though the shape of the graph may not be. That is, the order of appearance of the dots could very every time, but the graph would be the same every time.

So no, your above statements don’t hold.

That exercise showed that there are many unwilling to see an intelligent design no matter how blatently obvious the design and the intelligence behind it are.

Brains (human and other animal brains) are wired to find patterns. This is such a drive for the brain, that it will find patterns even where no pattern exists. Furthermore, natural selection does drive efficiency, and so to some extent causes outcomes that have the appearance of pre-planned design.

So it is easily shown that the idea that design is “blatantly obvious” is in fact a trap for the foolhardy. It is impossible to show that there is a pre-planned design.

More to the point, I find delicious irony in someone that wants to claim no randomness in a gene mutation that cannot be predicted but also wishes to claim stones arranged on a beach that spell out SOS could be a random event.

Read “Personal Knowledge”

An INDIVIDUAL gene mutation is random. A collection of gene mutations, a rate of gene mutation, is not a random event.

Another statement against a point I have not proposed.
Your reading from a script again.
Please assemble your straw men elsewhere.

Again, its obvious from the above that you don’t grasp several of the key concepts - for example, railing against ideas that insurance companies have used daily for well over 100 years.

 

[kbachler]

It requires a designer more complex then the design.

Why does the degree of complexity of the designer enter into it?