Is intelligent design a plausible theory?

[greylorn]

Part 2.

ID merely points to the existence of intelligence working in nature. The design that even some atheists can recognize can only be the product of purposeful intelligence. For the reasons you gave, chance mutations and natural processes could not create even the diversity we see in the insect world. The so-called “simplest” and first known multicellular creatures are an enigma to science because they are vastly more complex than Darwinism predicted. DNA itself could not have evolved for reasons which are obvious to an impartial observer. Once present, the information that DNA carries also cannot be the product of mutations since it is precise, complex, ordered and purposeful.

Here, we are not only on the same pages, but we can read them out loud. This is good. Seems like we should have encountered one another on other threads.

ID is merely the first step in a path for understanding the nature of God. Honest atheists need to look at that evidence as the first step towards accepting the presence of an Intelligent Designer in nature. After that, the journey needs to move towards philosophical paths. Science can really do little more.

Here I understand your meaning, and admit that I might have used your very words years ago. Now, I would not, despite the essential truth in what you write. Here is why.

The history of science shows patterns of paradigm invention, acceptance, and collapse. (“The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” Kuhn.) A good paradigm solves problems, is accepted, which leads to enhanced observations. These eventually disclose flaws in the paradigm. The flaws are ignored, and ignored, and ignored by those within the paradigm’s field of inquiry, despite the data.

They remain ignored until someone (most often someone outside the field of inquiry) invents a new paradigm which explains things better. The new paradigm is initially rejected, but finally accepted. And the cycle of paradigm birth, life, hanging onto life, and finally dying kicking and screaming begins anew.

The problem is that with respect to the question of religion vs. science, this cannot happen. I’ve been wondering why for the last 40-odd years, and thanks to this conversation, finally understand it. I’ll try to explain, but since this in a new idea and it is past my bedtime, don’t expect a lucid explanation.

The paradigm shifts which have made differences have come from individuals working outside the field needing the shift. Galileo tried to introduce science within the Church and was nearly killed for his trouble. His ideas came to fruition thanks to Newton, whose scientific pursuits came under the purview of the Church of England instead of the papacy.

Darwin’s ideas affected religious thinking, but from the perspective of science. It seems noteworthy that both Newton and Darwin were products of the Church of England.

The conflict between religion and science began with the separation of science from religion, first under the protective wing of a religion happy to compete with the Catholic Church, but soon becoming a power onto itself— science is the cute little 4-pound baby that grew up to become a middle linebacker.

We have reached the point whereby a great body of evidence says that in the matter of explaining the beginnings of things, religion and science are both wrong. If this evidence is as valid as I think it is, a serious paradigm shift is clearly in order. But it cannot happen, for there is no shelter for it.

Consider your own position. To you it is obvious that I.D.must be part of any paradigm which explains the beginnings of things. But if I say to you, “well, yes, but the Designer is not the omnipotent God in Whom you believe, but a different kind of intelligent entity altogether, one who thinks, makes mistakes, is shy of the omnipotence and omniscient attributes, and who actually did not always exist,” your brain will reject such ideas.

Similarly before I propose to an ardent Darwinist, “Look, you can solve all the problems regarding probabilities, and you can make Michael Behe go away, and still keep the core ideas Darwin was proposing by simply accepting the notion that life was engineered by a rather large number of disincorporated minds acting at the behest of a logic-limited God,” I’d want to be sure that the Darwinist was not carrying a gun.

My point is, simply, that an alternative theory is needed, but there is no home for it. It is an ugly, deformed, unwanted baby. Neither religion nor science has a home for the little bugger, and by the time philosophers could figure out if the baby was real, or a figment of their existential imagination, it will have died of terminal diaper rash.

 

[greylorn]

Let’s give this poor horse a pint of whiskey and put it to bed…

You’re judging the theory for something that it does not attempt to provide evidence for. It is not required to give a description of the Designer but only to show that Darwinism is impossibly wrong and that Intelligent Design is the only rational and satisfactory answer we have.

I simply answered the O.P by declaring that I.D. is NOT a plausible theory, and is not because it really doesn’t provide a hook for its own hat.

Cast your mind back to the days of Copernicus. Imagine what would have happened if instead of describing a new theory in which the sun was the center of the solar system, he had simply declared that, based upon his considerations, the earth cannot be the center of the universe. Nothing would have changed, and Copernicus would have earned a place in obscurity.

What would he have been noted for? The theory that the earth is not the center of things?

Expand the argument to other notable thinkers. If Darwin had shied away from proposing a mechanism for evolution, he’d be known as, “the guy who figured out that maybe God didn’t really create every critter.”

Einstein would be known, following similar principles, as the patent clerk who proclaimed that our ways of measuring motion should be rethought.

I.D. is not a plausible theory. It is an invention by thoughtful and educated religious people to justify their beliefs on the grounds that opposing beliefs cannot be correct. It does not even invite alternative ideas. Worse, its proponents oppose alternatives.

Evidence that Theory A is false does not prove and is not evidence for Theory B, unless it has been first proven that Theory B is the only possible alternative.

Now again, the support for the nature of the Designer comes from other sources.

Yes. And they are all religious in nature. All supporting the omnipotent God of Christianity, and proving the point I just tried to make.

Before I answer this (and many others here can also) – what Catholic answers to this question have you evaluated so far? You have concluded that there is no credible answer so I hope you have looked at the answers that Catholicism gives. Beyond this, we are talking about the Intelligence that created, designed, invented and developed nature, its laws, its structure and it’s plan as it unfolds. I think we have to be careful about thinking that we’re going to receive an “absolutely irrefutable” reason on demand. Nature itself teaches us about the Designer.

I am a graduate of an excellent Catholic high school taught by Norbertine priests, and I got straight A’s in all my religion classes. I can recite the Baltimore Catechism’s answer to, “Why did God create man?” verbatim, and I’ve looked up the new answer, which I do not find worth memorizing. I’ve spent nearly a half-century integrating ideas such as concepts of God and soul with physics. I’ve worked in the fields of physics, astronomy, space astronomy, and biology, building and controlling instruments. On the side, I’ve trained psychics and merged psychology with past-life regression techniques, to positive effect. In the process I’ve done a little reading, including other religious beliefs, channeled stuff, and highly alternative theories and beliefs. I’ve even read the Bible, years ago.

If you can offer a clear, logical, and cogent explanation for the creation of mankind by an omnipotent entity capable of doing a lot better, go for it. You’ll likely just reiterate some dogma, but if you have some notions of your own they cannot be worse. .

I’ll do you the courtesy of not implicitly requesting credentials, since it is clear from your writing that you have a mind and have considered the subjects on which you write. Most of them,anyway. I’m willing to help with the others.

continued…

 

[rossum]

I appreciate Michael Behe particularly because he limits himself to his field of expertise. He disproves Darwinism, and implicitly makes his case for ID in the process.

I also appreciate Professor Behe, and his attempt to disprove Darwinism was interesting and generated much valuable research. However, his attempt was in the end a failure, an interesting failure but a failure nevertheless.

Behe seems to have started with Darwin:If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

Origin, Chapter Six
Starting from this point Behe seems to have independently come up with the concept of Irreducible Complexity, which was an independent rediscovery of Muller’s idea of “Interlocking Complexity” from 1918, see here for more detail. The irony is that Muller predicted the existence of IC as a consequence of evolution.

Behe’s original version of IC was:* IC systems cannot evolve.

• Some biological systems are IC.
• Hence some biological systems cannot have evolved.

This was shown to be incorrect, the first premise fails since IC systems can evolve. Behe was correct that IC systems cannot evolve directly, but they can evolve by indirect means such as co-option or scaffolding. This was where Behe’s idea was useful, it prompted a lot of interesting research on indirect methods of evolution. We now understand this area a lot better thanks to Professor Behe. As just one example I would point out Lenski’s paper The Evolutionary Origin of Complex Features. The supporting materials for this paper include a complete mutation by mutation description of the evolution of an IC feature from a non-IC precursor.

Realising his error, Behe changed his argument. This is not a criticism, it is the correct scientific response to new data that contradicts an old argument. Behe’s new argument from IC is:* IC systems are unlikely to evolve.

• Some biological systems are IC.
• Hence some biological systems are unlikely to have evolved.

This has shifted the argument onto exactly how likely or unlikely it is that IC systems can evolve. Behe himself has done some work in this area, Behe and Snoke (2004) Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues. To quote from the abstract of that paper:We conclude that, in general, to be fixed in 10[sup]8[/sup] generations, the production of novel protein features that require the participation of two or more amino acid residues simply by multiple point mutations in duplicated genes would entail population sizes of no less than 10[sup]9[/sup].
This paper was part of the evidence at the Dover trial. Behe was questioned about his conclusion and he agreed that his own figures, as quoted, showed that a population of a billion bacteria could evolve a simple IC feature in about 20,000 years. He also agreed that naturally ocurring bacterial populations have sizes considerably larger than one billion. With a larger population the timescale for the evolution of IC is likely to be reduced. It appears from Behe’s own work that IC systems are reasonably likely to evolve. Hence even the revised version of Behe’s argument fails, it merely slows down evolution a little.

So I pronounce Intelligent Design an implausible theory, for lack of any coherent description of the Designer.

Here we can agree. The complete lack of detail about the designer is a major scientific flaw in ID theory. Science is about the detail.

Yes, Darwinism sucks, and its theoretical paradigm does not work in the real world.

You are incorrect here. Go here for a list of places where genetic algorithms are used in the real world. Some examples are using genetic algorithms to design the acoustics of a concert hall or an antenna for NASA.

The scientific odds against random DNA changes producing all the insect species on this planet are 1 in 10-with-an-exponent-greater than the number of electrons in the universe.

The numbers coming out of a calculation are as good as the numbers going in and the correctness of the mathematical model. I strongly suspect that the model your source used includes the chance element of random mutations but fails to include the non-chance element of natural selection. I have done a similar calculation muself using a model that does include natural selection and the figures are a lot different. You can see my calculation at The Evolution of Boojumase. I suspect that the source you got your figure from is a case of GIGO.

Darwinists have not even a theory as to how the first cell might have arisen from natural processes.

Nor do electrical engineers have even a theory as to how hurricanes form. The origin of life is a separate field, called abiogenesis. Abiogenesis involves a lot more chemistry than evolution and is much less well understood though we do have some ideas and working hypotheses such as the RNA world and liposomes. Evolution describes how the first living organisms developed into the great variety we see today.

rossum

 

[greylorn]

For one thing, messages that we receive from nature are extremely complex, very subtle and while being intelligible and comprehendable by highly sophisticated, yet precise, mathematical formulas – they come from a Mind that we may not be able to fully capture in a few minutes on a web-forum, or even after years of study.

We’ve been riding along the same trail for awhile, but we’ve reached a fork. And we’re on different horses, Twilight, they’ll each be heading for their own stable.

The art of science has nothing to do with gathering data. While that is part of the process, most of the data gathering is done by science drones. Real science comes out of the art of distilling fundamental principles from the data. Your talk of extremely complex and subtle messages from nature is the conversation of someone who knows, or knows of, the data. I suspect that “knows of” is closer to the mark (take no offense, please) because anyone who’d actually done science would know, for example, that the equations supporting quantum mechanics, big bang theory, and astrophysics in general are horrid kludges. They are about as precise as a politician’s convictions are real. Most results must be approximated because the equations are so ugly that they cannot be solved by a Cray II in a hundred years.

The truth of the matter is that the data from science, and from the history of religious experience, and our general knowledge of human nature, plus psychic phenomena not accepted as real by either science or religion, has already been distilled into a clear understanding of the nature and origin of God. There was no real difficulty in doing so. Anyone with an open mind and a basic understanding of classical physics could have done it.

Certainly, yes I think atheistic materialism is a lot simpler, clearer and easier to deal with than theistic philosophical systems. Darwinism is likewise. Unfortunately, Darwinism does not fit the real universe of life and beings such as they really are. It’s an imaginary world – and like all storybook tales, it’s very powerful and attractive on the imagination because the story moves along and everything is wrapped up nicely at the end. All the problems are swept away and Cinderella gets Prince Charming in the end and everybody is happy.

Did you read a copy of “Origin of Species” annotated by Lewis Carrol just after he’d read the Grimm brothers?

This is the first thing you’ve written with which I totally disagree. Atheistic materialism is simplistic, but far from simple. Darwin’s observations about the development of critters and conclusions about inter-species change are clear and correct. He never got around to explaining intra-species change, and his hand-waving assertions on the subject fit no evidence. His theory has no predictive value and his explanatory paradigm, “survival of the fittest,” is a meaningless tautology.

Darwinism is successful only in the wake of Christianity’s abject refusal to address the questions outside of its ancient, illogical paradigm.

But when we truly search for the nature of the Designer, we have to put aside Darwinian fairy tales.

I’ll wager that you expect to hang onto some divinely revealed religious truths, however. Pretty insightful, yes?

Sit yourself down and get ready for a shocking revelation. Darwinists figure that in order to understand the origin of the universe, people must set aside their silly religious beliefs.

And I feel pretty much the same way about both of your houses.

The creation of human beings has to do with the communication of intelligence and being on creatures. It’s the expansion of the glory of God via intelligent, free beings that are capable of finding and embracing the presence of God. We could look at the beauty of the earth itself – its something communicated and given.

You were doing okay, but here you’ve sung a song I’ve grown bored of. Why don’t you run down to a local biker bar, have a few beers, maybe some of the other wonder drugs these people live by. Get to know the bar people. Wake up some morning next to a wrinkled 20-year old woman with tattoos and black teeth, and discuss religious philosophy over a beer and Captain Crunch breakfast while her dog goes whizz on your foot. Then go help some meth addicts, and explain to welfare mothers why their kids would be better off with books than a new 40" flat screen TV, and while you’re at it, explain the value of monogamy. See if you can find some ideas these people hold which they did not get from the 'hood, TV, or their whining neighborhood organizer. List the books they’ve read, except comic books.

You will probably want to attribute these human failures to some psychological issues or other hooey, but there is a more scientific approach. It is to note that half of the people on the planet have two-digit IQ’s and little imagination. The majority of human failures come from within this group. Yet, God could have chosen to give everyone of these people a mind as good as Einstein’s or better. Can you, with intellectual honesty, integrate that information into your notions of intelligent free beings reflecting and embracing the glory of God?

As for the beauty of the earth, and its awesome variety of critters past and present, yes! I see the hand of a Creator there. But not the hand of an omnipotent creator.

My opinions about humans and God’s relationship to them are another topic, not one suitable for CAF. Suffice to say that I’ll not blame God for creating me. I will blame the 3:30 am hour for contributing to a cranky post for which I’ll probably have to apologize when I return next week. Nothing personal, Reggie. I like your thinking, when it’s yours.

 

[tonyrey]

You will probably want to attribute these human failures to some psychological issues or other hooey, but there is a more scientific approach. It is to note that half of the people on the planet have two-digit IQ’s and little imagination. The majority of human failures come from within this group. Yet, God could have chosen to give everyone of these people a mind as good as Einstein’s or better. Can you, with intellectual honesty, integrate that information into your notions of intelligent free beings reflecting and embracing the glory of God?

As for the beauty of the earth, and its awesome variety of critters past and present, yes! I see the hand of a Creator there. But not the hand of an omnipotent creator.

What a ridiculous argument! You obviously regard high intelligence as the key to success. It is more reasonable to equate success with love, compassion and kindness rather than intellectual pride, contempt for more than half of mankind and the ability to design a superior universe to the one we inhabit. :bowdown:

 

[Charlemagne_II]

greylorn

*So I pronounce Intelligent Design an implausible theory, for lack of any coherent description of the Designer. *

As I suppose you would call the Big Bang an implausible theory because you can’t figure out a coherent description of what caused it?

• A God of infinite intelligence should have an absolutely irrefutable reason for creation. Such reasons are not found in any catechism or bible. The reasons for creation so far offered by religion would not make a decent afternoon soap opera plot, and wouldn’t convince Judge Judy. Or Judge Bill, or Ignatz. *

I detect in you a contempt not only for God but also for the human race, and Catholics in particular. God and Catholics do not measure up to your I.Q. apparently.

 

[miguel]

Most religions, certainly Catholicism, believe that God created man. Yet no religion has a credible answer for why an omnipotent God would have created human beings, That is an intolerable weakness in religious belief systems. Why?

That he did it out of pure, gratuitous love works for me. He created us because he knew we’d like it. Have you ever been to Yosemite? or paddled out with good friends to perfect, uncrowded surf on a cold morning in Baja? or experienced the thrill of little kids on Christmas morning? or visited their beautiful mom’s teepee?

 

[miguel]

…You were doing okay, but here you’ve sung a song I’ve grown bored of. Why don’t you run down to a local biker bar, have a few beers, maybe some of the other wonder drugs these people live by. Get to know the bar people. Wake up some morning next to a wrinkled 20-year old woman with tattoos and black teeth, and discuss religious philosophy over a beer and Captain Crunch breakfast while her dog goes whizz on your foot. Then go help some meth addicts, and explain to welfare mothers why their kids would be better off with books than a new 40" flat screen TV, and while you’re at it, explain the value of monogamy. See if you can find some ideas these people hold which they did not get from the 'hood, TV, or their whining neighborhood organizer. List the books they’ve read, except comic books.

You will probably want to attribute these human failures to some psychological issues or other hooey, but there is a more scientific approach. It is to note that half of the people on the planet have two-digit IQ’s and little imagination. The majority of human failures come from within this group. Yet, God could have chosen to give everyone of these people a mind as good as Einstein’s or better. Can you, with intellectual honesty, integrate that information into your notions of intelligent free beings reflecting and embracing the glory of God?

God wants us to love. The form love takes might be different for the meth addict, or the biker, or the 20 year old with black teeth, or the man with a 3-digit IQ. If he made us all perfect, there’d be no need for empathy.

 

[miguel]

That he did it out of pure, gratuitous love works for me. He created us because he knew we’d like it. Have you ever been to Yosemite? or paddled out with good friends to perfect, uncrowded surf on a cold morning in Baja? or experienced the thrill of little kids on Christmas morning? or visited their beautiful mom’s teepee?

And these are only a foretaste.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

I want to emphasize again that the question of this thread is whether intelligent design of the universe and of life is plausible. For an idea to be plausible it does not have to be proven absolutely. There may be sufficient evidence to regard the idea as certainly not impossible, or contradictory, or specious (intentionally false). Intelligent design is inferred from certain effects in nature that are observed. The observation of these effects leads us to believe that where we have seen considerable order, there is intelligent design as opposed to mere chance or randomness.

It is perhaps **possible **that the first life form assembled itself all at once by a chance mixing of atoms and molecules. However, that is not likely, and therefore not plausible. Evolution of the first living life form is *impossible *because that would amount to a contradiction of the theory itself, which is that one life form evolves from another life form.

If we infer intelligent design, it is not necessary to identify the designer and all other attributes of the designer besides intelligence. It is enough to argue that a watch found on a desert floor was made by someone with the intelligence to design, whether we want to say anything else about that intelligence. Atheists are free to make what they want of this; and some have, looking for extraterrestrial life seeding life on our planet.

Others, like Darwin and Einstein, found the universe too well ordered to resort to such a subterfuge (who designed the aliens?) They opted instead to infer the plausible existence of a First Mover whose mind in one way or another was knowable by the thoughts of men. Einstein himself insisted that God does not play dice with the universe. The laws of evolution were in potency designed right from the start. First the universe had to evolve, then life had to evolve out of the universe. But irreducible complexity, that precious leap from inanimate to animate matter, was certainly not a matter of God playing dice with the universe.

 

[miguel]

…But irreducible complexity, that precious leap from inanimate to animate matter, was certainly not a matter of God playing dice with the universe.

And the simplest of animate critters, the single cell amoeba has DNA, food digestion, mobility, reproduction. What does inanimate matter know about these functions to design and assemble itself into an irreducibly complex, single cell amoeba? Not a thing. It’s inanimate remember? So yes, this points to outside intelligence. I’m an engineer BTW. Not that I think an engineering degree is needed to grasp this.

 

[rossum]

And the simplest of animate critters, the single cell amoeba has DNA, food digestion, mobility, reproduction.

You need to find a better source. Amoebae are eukaryotes and are not the simplest organisms. The many bacteria and archaea are all are simpler than amoebae. Your source is obviously ignorant of some basic biology which does not give its arguments much credibility.

What does inanimate matter know about these functions to design and assemble itself into an irreducibly complex, single cell amoeba? Not a thing. It’s inanimate remember? So yes, this points to outside intelligence. I’m an engineer BTW. Not that I think an engineering degree is needed to grasp this.

A great deal of work still needs to be done of abiogenesis, but science is slowly making progress in this area. Fundamentally the answer to your question comes down to chemistry. What are the odds that each oxygen atom in a glass of water teams up with exactly two hydrogen atoms? Not one, not three but always exactly two. That fact does not need an outside intelligence, it merely needs chemistry.

rossum

 

[Touchstone]

I want to emphasize again that the question of this thread is whether intelligent design of the universe and of life is plausible. For an idea to be plausible it does not have to be proven absolutely. There may be sufficient evidence to regard the idea as certainly not impossible, or contradictory, or specious (intentionally false). Intelligent design is inferred from certain effects in nature that are observed. The observation of these effects leads us to believe that where we have seen considerable order, there is intelligent design as opposed to mere chance or randomness.

A scientific theory is not just an idea. It is an idea that explains phenomena in a way that accounts for the evidence, makes predictions and is falsifiable. It’s not just “something that might be true”. The intelligent design conjecture is conspicuously “non-theory”, in light of that. If you doubt this, read through the whole thread, or go anywhere else, and point two the entailments of the theory and explain how it might be falsified.

The current status of ID is not “theory”, but “anti-theory” – it’s anti-evolution, or more precisely “anti-naturalism”, the latter being a kind of philosophical opposition than the former which is more scientific (cf. Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box). Behe’s IC is not a theory of its own, but a critique of evolution, which is problematic in terms of falsification, but which may not have to carry that burden as it is just an objection to existing theory, rather than a theory in its own right.

CSI has now been abandoned by Dembski, never even formally defined, in favor of “active information” as advanced in the new “Law of Conservation of Information” paper he and Marks just released. In this mutation of Dembski’s evolving critique of evolution, he returns to a remodeled version of his No Free Lunch search arguments of years past. But LCI is no more theory than CSI – no mechanisms or explanations are advanced, but only questions raised about “where the active information comes from”.

All of which is to say that various ideas in the heads of ID thinkers may be true, but there’s no theory to consider as a theory.

It is perhaps **possible **that the first life form assembled itself all at once by a chance mixing of atoms and molecules. However, that is not likely, and therefore not plausible. Evolution of the first living life form is *impossible *because that would amount to a contradiction of the theory itself, which is that one life form evolves from another life form.

“Unlikely” does not mean “implausible”. It’s quite unlikely that I will win the lottery if I buy a ticket, but it’s utterly plausible. It’s maximally plausible – some tickey will be chosen, and mine is as qualified as any other.

For the 3,245,707th time, the theory of evolution does NOT cover abiogenesis, precisely for the reason you layout – biological evolution begins with the already extant means of life replicating with the possibilty of variation in that process of replication. Evolution as a theory is perfectly compatible with the idea of those first cells being designed by aliens, or any other way they may come about, not just through physical catalysis form raw chemical components.

To the extent ID is a theory concerning *abiogenesis (*which is no extent currently, but could be in the future), it’s completely orthogonal to, and compatible with the theory of evolution.

If we infer intelligent design, it is not necessary to identify the designer and all other attributes of the designer besides intelligence. It is enough to argue that a watch found on a desert floor was made by someone with the intelligence to design, whether we want to say anything else about that intelligence. Atheists are free to make what they want of this; and some have, looking for extraterrestrial life seeding life on our planet.

Paley’s argument doesn’t work for ID, for the simple reason that Paley could point to the available and capability of known “watch designers”. Paley’s design inference was predicated on the knowledge of humans and their design capabilities. ID is conspicuously NOT like this, and the ID “inference” is no inference at all, without some knowledge about the existence and capabilities of the putative designer. Where Paley “matched” his observations of the features and characteristics of the watch found on the moor with his knowledge of humans, ID is not similarly balanced; Paley’s basis for inference is missing in ID with the designer conspicuously missing from the picture as even extant, let alone available and capable.

Others, like Darwin and Einstein, found the universe too well ordered to resort to such a subterfuge (who designed the aliens?) They opted instead to infer the plausible existence of a First Mover whose mind in one way or another was knowable by the thoughts of men. Einstein himself insisted that God does not play dice with the universe. The laws of evolution were in potency designed right from the start. First the universe had to evolve, then life had to evolve out of the universe. But irreducible complexity, that precious leap from inanimate to animate matter, was certainly not a matter of God playing dice with the universe.

Irreducible Complexity is not a concept of abiogenesis as far as I know. The “irreducibility” points at the idea that evolution (reproduction with variation) cannot account for n-way steps that Behe supposes must happen simultaneously, or in some other coordinated fashion.

As for how you’ve established certainty on that as you’ve claimed… well, that’s enough for now.

-TS

 

[reggieM]

Thank you for the feedback. I’ll trust you and put Dembski on my discretionary “agreeable-reading” list.

I made that recommendation before knowing about your background on this topic. You might find some value in Dembski’s ideas on information and specified complexity. He is an original thinker, as Michael Behe is. But I think you’re looking in a different topic area for information on the nature of God.

I am conversant with Catholic theology and once believed it absolutely. It contains several critical internal contradictions. I find it to be inconsistent with the very Bible which birthed it, as well as with the evidence provided by the universe which God created.

One point of correction – from the Catholic view, Catholic theology was not really birthed from the Bible since some primative theology pre-dated the written word, and the Bible itself contains Catholic theology. What contradictions do you find in Catholic theology?

 

[reggieM]

Your statement, “…the Designer transcends the physical world…” exemplifies the problem. Behe himself seems to have been sucked in by this assumption. There is no reason to believe that, except that it is part of Catholic teaching.

In the same way that metaphysical studies are on a higher order than the natural sciences, the designer is higher than the world that was designed. This is a necessary characteristic of the organizing principle. In order to capture and coordinate all of the parts of the system and move them to various positions, one cannot be a part in the system. I suppose you could have a self-organizing system (and this is a Darwinian escape hatch), but once intelligence and a designer are involved, then the parts do not organize themselves or give themselves direction and purpose.

Consider the designers in our world. Each is not only a part of the world, but intimately engaged in the details of their design area. An electrical engineer must know the mathematical rules of electrical behavior, and must be able to derive solutions for complex electrical geometries from basic principles. The really fine engineers have a feel for the way electrical energy moves which cannot be taught in any lecture hall or explained in any book.

I follow this entirely except for the line “Each is a part of the world”. I can’t see it that way. The engineers are outside of the world of electrical energy. They understand and use the rules (imagine if they could create the rules by which energy had to operate), but they are not subject to them.

An architect must know not only the rules of mechanics which determine whether a building will stand or topple,but must have a feeling for form and style, and effective use of space.

Yes, absolutely. The Designer must know the rules of the nature he designed – he is intimitely familiar with all of the details. He communicates his own ideas to the design. He is involved with it and it bears the marks of his mind and ideas. But ultimately, he is “above” the creation itself in order to move the parts around. The architect must be outside the entire building in order to design and arrange for all of the details. He does not use an accidental process to create, but he uses intelligence and planning. It’s a very good analogy for the universe and the design of human life.

“Since it is impossible to find a thing in a place where we cannot look, why not seek the source of creation in a place where we might actually be able to find it? Our minds, senses, and instruments operate only within this matter and energy universe— therefore doesn’t it make sense to seek the creator within the universe on the chance that He might have been lurking there all along?”

If you’re looking beyond simple or dogmatic answers, I think you have to keep an open mind for the possiblity of for mysticism, though. If true, then we can transcend the matter and energy universe. At the same time, the universe itself gives evidence about the nature of the designer. I think you’ve pointed so some already.

For example, you wondered how an all-powerful intellect could avoid making it clear why he created human beings. Here, in the first place, you recognize one aspect that must be part of the nature of the designer – namely, that he has an all-powerful intellect. That is something that is inferred from the nature of the design that we can see.

The so-called “progressive” theologians seem to like the idea that God is dead. They have no answers capable of connecting any God-concept with physical reality.

I full agree with that.

 

[reggieM]

We have reached the point whereby a great body of evidence says that in the matter of explaining the beginnings of things, religion and science are both wrong. If this evidence is as valid as I think it is, a serious paradigm shift is clearly in order. But it cannot happen, for there is no shelter for it.

Actually, I think you’re right in many ways about this.

Consider your own position. To you it is obvious that I.D.must be part of any paradigm which explains the beginnings of things. But if I say to you, “well, yes, but the Designer is not the omnipotent God in Whom you believe, but a different kind of intelligent entity altogether, one who thinks, makes mistakes, is shy of the omnipotence and omniscient attributes, and who actually did not always exist,” your brain will reject such ideas.

Before rejecting them outright, I would really like to know how you supported those conclusions. I don’t think I just adopt ideas on a dogmatic basis alone.

Similarly before I propose to an ardent Darwinist, “Look, you can solve all the problems regarding probabilities, and you can make Michael Behe go away, and still keep the core ideas Darwin was proposing by simply accepting the notion that life was engineered by a rather large number of disincorporated minds acting at the behest of a logic-limited God,” I’d want to be sure that the Darwinist was not carrying a gun.

That is actually a reasonable solution which ID theory supports (and there are some ID theorists who propose such things about the Designer). In Catholic theology, we wouldn’t say “logic-limited” but rather a God that transcends logic – a God who created logic for a limited, non-absolute purpose. We know of logical paradoxes and life itself does not conform to logic (poetry, music, art, romance, inspiration, love) in many important aspects. So, it’s not God who is illogical but rather logic which is too limited to handle the expanse of God’s perfections. Logic and science are tools. Science actually can only look at the most superficial aspects of reality – matter and energy. This is why science cannot peneterated the origin of consciousness or the spiritual nature of mankind. But science also cannot create great literature by reducing works to their component parts and analyzing the words used.

 

[reggieM]

I.D. is not a plausible theory. It is an invention by thoughtful and educated religious people to justify their beliefs on the grounds that opposing beliefs cannot be correct. It does not even invite alternative ideas. Worse, its proponents oppose alternatives.

Well, I think you pointed out previously that an alternative theory would not fit in either science or religion – although I’d be very interested in your views on why Catholicism is not credible versus a better theory (concept of designer) that you favor.

Evidence that Theory A is false does not prove and is not evidence for Theory B, unless it has been first proven that Theory B is the only possible alternative.

That is true. There are some who consider Theory B, in this case, to be the only reasonable alternative. But I admit that if there was a strong enough culture supporting ID theory for what limited proof it offers now, then that culture could begin investigating the nature of the designer.

If you can offer a clear, logical, and cogent explanation for the creation of mankind by an omnipotent entity capable of doing a lot better, go for it. You’ll likely just reiterate some dogma, but if you have some notions of your own they cannot be worse.

Before getting into that, I’ll just reference your comment again here. You’ve concluded that the entity is “omnipotent” and is “capable of doing a lot better”. These are observations you’ve derived from nature alone (I would guess) and not from any religious teaching. Are there other characteristics of the intelligent entity that you’ve been able to discover through the same means? I would prefer knowing more about that first before answering your question. Additionally, what kind of humanity would you expect or want to be created and how do you reconcile that humanity with the classic Catholic teaching that God wanted creatures that were free, intelligent and capable of self-giving love, goodness and trust? In other words, where are the flaws that you see as incompatible with the nature of the intelligent designer that is given in classic teaching?

I’ll do you the courtesy of not implicitly requesting credentials, since it is clear from your writing that you have a mind and have considered the subjects on which you write. Most of them,anyway. I’m willing to help with the others.

With that previous question, I wasn’t asking for your credentials or questioning your competence at all. I just wasn’t sure how familiar you were with the Catholic teaching. We see a wide range of people in these discussions and some are quite ignorant of Catholicism – but it’s obvious that you’re not that at all. Thanks for giving your personal background.

 

[reggieM]

This is the first thing you’ve written with which I totally disagree. Atheistic materialism is simplistic, but far from simple. Darwin’s observations about the development of critters and conclusions about inter-species change are clear and correct. He never got around to explaining intra-species change, and his hand-waving assertions on the subject fit no evidence. His theory has no predictive value and his explanatory paradigm, “survival of the fittest,” is a meaningless tautology.

“Simplistic” is a better word that I should have used. But this makes it more attractive to people.

Darwinism is successful only in the wake of Christianity’s abject refusal to address the questions outside of its ancient, illogical paradigm.

That is probably true.

Sit yourself down and get ready for a shocking revelation. Darwinists figure that in order to understand the origin of the universe, people must set aside their silly religious beliefs.

And I feel pretty much the same way about both of your houses.

That is a bold challenge and I trust you are up for it. In other words, you shouldn’t merely take a negative path where you’re saying that “neither religion nor science has the answer”. As with your ID analogy – I hope you’re proposing an alternative view (and that you’ll offer some explanation if you have the time to do so).

You will probably want to attribute these human failures to some psychological issues or other hooey, but there is a more scientific approach. It is to note that half of the people on the planet have two-digit IQ’s and little imagination. The majority of human failures come from within this group. Yet, God could have chosen to give everyone of these people a mind as good as Einstein’s or better. Can you, with intellectual honesty, integrate that information into your notions of intelligent free beings reflecting and embracing the glory of God?

God could have given them minds as good as Einstein’s or perhaps as good as Robert Oppenheimer’s who invented the atom bomb. And we could imagine that instead of the ordinary self-destructive behavior that these kinds of people have, they wanted to play with other kinds of destruction. I’d guess that planet earth would be gone by now.

As it stands, God gave them human intelligence and a free will. The goal of life, in the Catholic context, is not to invent great things but to become good through the choices we make. There are many people who are considered ignorant in the eyes of the world but who achieved great things. Certainly, St. Bernadette was illiterate. God could have made her as smart as Einstein – and perhaps that intelligence would have caused her to lose her soul.

So, it’s really looking at the “ends” of life – considering the final purposes first, and then judging the values you see in light of the final goals. As I see it, even the degraded individuals in a biker bar are seeking. For them, it’s transient pleasure and they don’t question the deeper matters. But we shouldn’t overgeneralize either. Some do find enlightenment. The goal remains the same – reflection and contemplation on the mysteries of God are available to everyone. But a key aspect of the nature of the Designer is that the path to knowing requires a decision from each person. It’s not something that is forced.

But there could be no freedom any other way. There could be no sense of achievement either. The greatest and most attractive things in life are mysteries. It is that way for a reason. You, yourself are probing mysteries. That’s what attracts and engages your attention. Some things seem perfectly intelligible and others are not.

Every day, 150,000 people die. Most men die when they’re 70 years old. The Designer could have made them live to 100. But does that provide an answer? Is that even a problem if the purpose of life on earth is, indeed, what Christ taught that it was?

As for the beauty of the earth, and its awesome variety of critters past and present, yes! I see the hand of a Creator there. But not the hand of an omnipotent creator.

The beauty of earth and the variety of creatures indicate the power and intelligence of a Creator. But that observation of nature alone may not indicate an omnipotent creator, as you say. Other arguments are needed to validate that point. The beauty and diversity and attractive of creatures that we see on earth indicate something about the nature of the designer. So, our knowledge is cumulative – and we can pick up insights and add them to what we know.

 

[reggieM]

Paley’s argument doesn’t work for ID, for the simple reason that Paley could point to the available and capability of known “watch designers”. Paley’s design inference was predicated on the knowledge of humans and their design capabilities. ID is conspicuously NOT like this, and the ID “inference” is no inference at all, without some knowledge about the existence and capabilities of the putative designer. Where Paley “matched” his observations of the features and characteristics of the watch found on the moor with his knowledge of humans, ID is not similarly balanced; Paley’s basis for inference is missing in ID with the designer conspicuously missing from the picture as even extant, let alone available and capable.

Actually, I think ID matches observations to what is already known about what intelligence produces. By analogy, it uses human intelligence and recognizes that only human intelligence can create the kind of ordered complexity that is evident in the universe (software languages, for example). So, it is very similar to Paley’s teleogical argument. Paley didn’t need to know which watchmaker created that watch – but that one did. True, his reference point was more well-defined, but his subject matter was far more limited also. ID theory proposes that the only known source of specified complexity and information is intelligence. This is both a critique of evolution and the proposal that intelligence was involved in the development of life and nature itself.

 

[miguel]

You need to find a better source. Amoebae are eukaryotes and are not the simplest organisms. The many bacteria and archaea are all are simpler than amoebae. Your source is obviously ignorant of some basic biology which does not give its arguments much credibility.

Sorry. I’m an engineer not a biologist. HS level was the extent of my training in biology. But what arguement about the amoeba would not also apply to the organisms you mentioned? Do they have DNA? Do they reproduce? Do they have other complex functions necessary to their existence?

A great deal of work still needs to be done of abiogenesis, but science is slowly making progress in this area. Fundamentally the answer to your question comes down to chemistry. What are the odds that each oxygen atom in a glass of water teams up with exactly two hydrogen atoms? Not one, not three but always exactly two. That fact does not need an outside intelligence, it merely needs chemistry.

I see. So a car is constructed of various atoms. By the same logic it doesn’t need an outside intelligence, it merely needs chemistry.