Is intelligent design a plausible theory?

[Michaelo]

Rossum, I would stop indulging Charlemagne II’s red herring if I were you

 

[rossum]

A lot of supposition and faith in future inquiries here.

Less supposition than there is for ID. Abiogenesis has gone further from its initial hypotheses than ID has. I have never seen anything from the ID side with as much positive detail for the ID position as there is in the Powner et al piece in Nature. Abiogenesis has at least made some progress, so it is reasonable to expect that there will be some more progress in future. I have not seen any scientific progress in ID since Behe came up with IC and Dembski came up with CSI, and those were both last century. I can cite work from this year to show progress in abiogenesis. You say that abiogenesis is not ready for the classroom. ID is even less ready because it has even less detail and even less research to back it up.

that the odds are highly against it.

What are the odds against a designer? If evolution and design are the only possibilities then either your designer evolved (against the odds) or the designer was itself designed.

They cannot recreate the conditions on earth present at the first sign of abiogenesis, and therefore would only be speculative,

ID researchers cannot recreate the conditions on earth present at the first moment of design, and therefore would only be speculative. Your argument cuts both ways.

ID is much further away from being science than abiogenesis. ID is much further away from being a plausible theory than abiogenesis.

rossum

 

[rossum]

No scientist can pretend to **objectively recreate **the conditions on earth at the time of the creation of life.

What part of “prebiotically plausible conditions” do you have a problem with? I look forward to an objective recreation from the ID side of the conditions on earth at the time the designer started his/her/its/their work. If you require abiogenesis to meet some criterion to be teachable in the classroom, then ID also has to meet the same criterion.

Entirely unscientific, you must think, since it is an *intelligently designed *experiment!

Science has no intrinsic problem with intelligent design, see LGM-1 for an example. Science does have a problem with hypotheses that have insufficient evidence to back them up.

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum

If evolution and design are the only possibilities then either your designer evolved (against the odds) or the designer was itself designed.

Is it possible you’ve misunderstood my argument all along. With respect to abiogenesis, I never said evolution and design are the only possibilities. Evolution is not even a possibility! Do you understand evolution? Evolution is a theory of life evolving from life. It is not a theory of life evolving from inanimate matter by accident.

Again, for the umpteenth time, any progress in the experiments (and there has been pathetically little over the course of the last ifty years) only show that more and more intelligence is required to design experiment after experiment. You can’t seem to distance yourself from the laboratory and see that all experiments of this sort are really experiments in intelligent design. :banghead:

What are the odds against a designer? If evolution and design are the only possibilities then either your designer evolved (against the odds) or the designer was itself designed.

Not if the Designer existed before the existence of the universe, as Newton, Darwin, and Einstein believed.

 

[rossum]

Evolution is a theory of life evolving from life. It is not a theory of life evolving from inanimate matter by accident.

Thank you for pointing out my mistake. I should have said “If abiogenesis and design are the only possibilities then either your designer arose through abiogenesis (against the odds) or the designer was itself designed.” My apologies for the error.

Not if the Designer existed before the existence of the universe, as Newton, Darwin, and Einstein believed.

And what scientific evidence do you have to support this hypothesis? The opinions of a Unitarian alchemist (Newton), a formerly Protestant Deist (Darwin) and a formerly Jewish Deist (Einstein) do not constitute scientific evidence.

The whole problem with ID is the almost complete lack of supporting scientific evidence for the ID hypothesis. The best ID seems to be able to come up with are attacks on evolution; for instance IC is not positive evidence for ID but a failed attempt to show that evolution cannot account for all that we observe.

The reason that Intelligent Design is not a plausible scientific theory is the almost total lack of scientific evidence supporting it. There is more scientific evidence for abiogenesis than for ID, and vastly more scientific evidence for evolution. To quote Philip Johnson:I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove… No product is ready for competition in the educational world.

Berkley Science Review (Spring 2006)
Unless and until the ID scientists can present a comparable ID theory complete with supporting evidence, then ID will not be seen as a scientific theory.

rossum

 

[JDaniel]

For those who don’t think that “we don’t know” is a valid option, watch this video from about 0:16-1:50

I believe that there is, in most cases, an insidious nature to the motives of scientistic-atheists. Why? By the deified use of the phrase, “We don’t know”, and, by positing a superior stance to it above all other stances – especially as is witnessed in many of the posts, herein, especially when dealing with the subjects of belief, faith and the natural reasoning of rational believers.

To the scientistic-atheist, it appears that the most useful scale is not the scale of less to more knowledge about the causal conditions for, or, causal determinates of, a study subject, but rather, the scale of “We don’t know” down to the poorest knowledge about the subject. One might think it should be the other way around. But, it isn’t.

What I mean by the “deified use of the phrase” is that, as it is used by scientistic-atheists, it is something that can be, more often than not, pushed down the throats of rational believers to render their reasoning impotent. It is made out to be, somewhat sanctimoniously, better than, smarter than, more cordial than, or a more rational way to behave one’s self when one is attempting to evangelize. By “evangelize” I mean, defending by apologetics and dialectical demonstrations, for example, the existence of God, from logic, revelation, and natural reason. The scientistic-atheist self-righteously says, “When the scientist doesn’t know something, at least he is willing to admit it and it is better to do that than to irrationally hold to a “belief” that can only be supported by fiction.”

However, usually, science does not say, “We don’t know” - Period, in an unqualified sense. Science usually says, “We don’t know, but, we think that…“ To say that “We don’t know” - Period is to stop the dialectic – to stop hypothesizing. Scientific investigation is an ongoing dialectical process. Investigations proceed from a myriad of hypotheses, most of which will be discarded along the way, but still, are nevertheless present and meaningful throughout the process. The scientistic-atheist wants the rational believer to fully stop hypothesizing, but, is unwilling to stop science’s, under the same guise.

When the rational believer does not stop but continues to present hypotheses he is not merely hypothesizing, he is telling (or, re-telling) the story. The scientistic- atheist, selectively regarding ever earlier man as relatively less and less intelligent, institutes further attacks that, for example, attempt to invalidate the methodology of the dialectic process available to the rational believer. For example, the scientistic-atheist says, “Show me laboratory (or, empirical) evidence for the existence of God.” Or, “Show me mathematical evidence for the existence of God.” Or, “Show me something supra-physical as though it was physical.” Or, “Show me something not self-evident.” Or, “Show me something that is not mere intuitiveness.” Or, “Aristotle and Aquinas have been long since regarded to be completely wrong.” In every case, these are thrown into the mix to be quasi-Godwin’s (Law) arguments.

But, why would the scientistic-atheist want to stop the rational believer’s process of dialectical consideration? I have my own suspicions, however, I don’t think it is true that “scientists”, in general, insidiously want the demise of a dialectic with regard to man’s continued investigations into God and revelation. In fact, we know that many real scientists are at least deists. Rather, I think that it is something intrinsic to the profound atheist.

For the theist, we are commanded to evangelize, harboring our doubts notwithstanding. God has required evangelizing from the very beginning of man. When Adam and Eve were sent out to populate the world, the story of the man’s creation by God was expected to be passed along to subsequent generations. We were expected to pass the story on even though there would not exist any verification (or falsification) of the evidence for it, at least not until Christ’s time (which is still regarded as insufficient by a number of people). For, if God is absolutely powerful in some kind of equilibrium with absolutely good, then mankind is left with only one physically real path to, or from, God: and that is his ability to choose 180° left or right. And, the choice is not simply to “believe” in Him, or, not; rather, it is a choice of loving Him. Enough digression.

So, then, what is the reason, or, cause, for the insidious need for inverted evangelizing by the profound atheist?

jd

 

[tonyrey]

Currently evolution is the better scientific explanation.

You are assuming Design is incompatible with evolution. Why? Because you believe evolution is ultimately based on random combinations of molecules and random mutations of genes. A far more adequate explanation is that evolution is the result of Design.

The best available working explanation.

How can “I don’t know” be the best available working explanation? Your analogy with Einstein’s theory is unsound. Your “I don’t know” alternative to Design does not exist within the context of a more comprehensive explanation.

It does have problems with ID as currently constituted because ID has insufficient detail to allow falsification.

In a previous post I have listed several ways in which ID can be falsified. Obviously the most effective falsification would be a computer simulation of the origin of life by random combinations of molecules and a computer simulation of the development of intelligence by random mutations of genes within the timespan available.

“Some designer did something at sometime” is not exactly precise or falsifiable.

Nothing can be more precise than the moment at which the Designer brought the universe into existence, i.e. in our present state of knowledge, the Big Bang.

Tell me what ID theory tells us about when the designer operated? Is the designer operating now?

Design of the universe implies that the Designer constantly sustains it in existence and that the laws of nature are not random variables.

I can show you experiments that demonstrate evolution operating now.

Can you show us an experiment that demonstrates the origin of life as the result of random combinations of molecules? Or the development of complex organisms from a simple cell as the result of random combinations of molecules? Or the origin of consciousness? Or rationality? Or autonomy? Or responsibility?

Currently evolution is the better scientific explanation.

I entirely agree. Evolution by Design. :clapping:

 

[tonyrey]

So, then, what is the reason, or, cause, for the insidious need for inverted evangelizing by the profound atheist?jd

Amongst other reasons atheists are motivated by hostility to religion and doubts about the truth of atheism. After all agnosticism is understandable but atheism is logically untenable.

 

[greylorn]

This thread is a fine example of how easy it is for people to create a pretense of relevance from a subject which is not, as each participant continues to refute one another, as if both the refuter and refutee have anything worth arguing about.

The proposition of I.D. is irrelevant until the Designer is identified. By identified I do not mean named. The Designer’s properties must be listed and described.

Even that is insufficient to bring relevance to this thread. After all, using common language, a “designer” is no big deal. He is simply someone who proposes arrangements of existing components. An interior designer simply determines where to put walls, windows, doorways, and plumbing fixtures. An architect selects arrangements of bricks, concrete, glass, etc. so as to form a building.

A designer is several steps lower on the scale of accomplishment than an engineer, who in turn is lower than a creator.

Most of the folks posting to this thread are really babbling about a Creator while calling him a designer. Are any of you philosopher wanna-be’s willing to engage real issues and relevant concepts, using common language and clear logic without interjecting religious or atheistic beliefs?

The real issues are simple:

Define the nature and properties of the creator or creators of the universe.

Devise a suitable motivation for the accomplishment of that project.

Determine whether or not is is reasonable for such a creator to exist.

This seems worth starting another thread to deal with. I invite all the participants on this thread to stay right here and continue their irrelevant quibbling.

 

[liquidpele]

greylorn,

Why would you want to start a thread over discussion of something that no one can possibly know? The ID people constantly stay away from calling the designer God so they can claim that it’s science, so what in the world would they talk about except what their imaginations could come up with? That sounds worse than what was being discussed here.

 

[JDaniel]

This thread is a fine example of how easy it is for people to create a pretense of relevance from a subject which is not, as each participant continues to refute one another, as if both the refuter and refutee have anything worth arguing about.

The proposition of I.D. is irrelevant until the Designer is identified. By identified I do not mean named. The Designer’s properties must be listed and described.

Even that is insufficient to bring relevance to this thread. After all, using common language, a “designer” is no big deal. He is simply someone who proposes arrangements of existing components. An interior designer simply determines where to put walls, windows, doorways, and plumbing fixtures. An architect selects arrangements of bricks, concrete, glass, etc. so as to form a building.

A designer is several steps lower on the scale of accomplishment than an engineer, who in turn is lower than a creator.

Most of the folks posting to this thread are really babbling about a Creator while calling him a designer. Are any of you philosopher wanna-be’s willing to engage real issues and relevant concepts, using common language and clear logic without interjecting religious or atheistic beliefs?

The real issues are simple:

Define the nature and properties of the creator or creators of the universe.

Devise a suitable motivation for the accomplishment of that project.

Determine whether or not is is reasonable for such a creator to exist.

This seems worth starting another thread to deal with. I invite all the participants on this thread to stay right here and continue their irrelevant quibbling.

Ipso facto, only I, Greylorn, have anything even close to resembling relevance to argue about. :bowdown:

jd

 

[liquidpele]

Amongst other reasons atheists are motivated by hostility to religion and doubts about the truth of atheism. After all agnosticism is understandable but atheism is logically untenable.

This is off topic, but I felt compelled to correct this. Atheists are composed of people, just like any other group, and there are people in that group that are as immature and sure of themselves as you will find in any group. For atheists, in my experience the vast majority of them are very computer savy which makes online communities show a disproportionate number of them. I can easily see things going on in the real world and claim that religious people are this or that, but that is unfair. Please don’t lower yourself to generalizations just because you happen to meet someone that is incapable of conducting a civilized conversation.

 

[liquidpele]

To get this thread back on track, I would like to ask what any supporters of ID think lends credit to the theory? I’ve seen no (zero) evidence supporting it so far besides the “Evolution seems too improbable” argument, which even if you accept as true still doesn’t lend credit to any other theory.

Also, do you view ID as strictly a replacement for abiogenesis, evolution, or both? It seems that while some argue against abiogenesis, ID appears to be directly contradicting the classical understanding of how evolution works.

My thoughts are that abiogenesis, while possible and does have some evidence supporting it, does not have enough evidence to say that it is likely the origin of life on this planet. Evolution however, is both proven for all intensive purposes and does not require the probabilities and randomness that most people incorrectly attribute to it.

Thoughts?

 

[reggieM]

To get this thread back on track, I would like to ask what any supporters of ID think lends credit to the theory?

We can observe various artifacts which are the product of intelligence. They possess certain qualities. We see in nature and in the cosmos structures that possess the same characteristics that “designed systems” do. By inference, the idea that they also were created by an intelligent source is the most reasonable conclusion.

ID can thus be falsified by showing how unintelligent, random, accidental, unconscious physical laws can produce the design which is evident in nature.

When this falsification fails, ID remains the best explanation that we have thus far.

The fine-tuning of the universe already draws that conclusion from many in the scientific community. The inexplicable development of language, consciousness and the complexity of the cell draws the same conclusion.

There are several books on ID theory available today. The noted atheist, A.N. Wilson was converted to theism recently by reading a pro-ID book.

If you’re interested in the topic, there are a lot of titles you can read also.

Evolution however, is both proven for all intensive purposes and does not require the probabilities and randomness that most people incorrectly attribute to it.

Mutations occur randomly, as do environmental factors.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

JDaniel

Thank you for a fascinating digression. As to your final question, darned if I know.
Is there an atheist nearby who who like to answer?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

ReggieM

There are several books on ID theory available today. The noted atheist, A.N. Wilson was converted to theism recently by reading a pro-ID book.

The noted atheist Antony Flew experienced the same conversion after a close survey of recent scientific developments.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

liquidpele

*Also, do you view ID as strictly a replacement for abiogenesis, evolution, or both? *

It is not a replacement for either. Abiogenesis is a term that refers to the arrival of the first life form … period. There are only two ways that could have happened. By accident, or by intelligent design. There is no other way, since evolution is not in the equation. For the umpteen thousandth time , there is no decisive evidence that abiogenesis occured by accident. All the evidence that you pretend exists proves nothing of the sort. Moreover, this so-called evidence was accumulated by intelligenttly designing simulated conditions that MAY have existed at the time of the first life form’s birth (exactly how scientific is THAT?)

On the other hand, the likelihood that an irreducibly complex life form occurred by chance has a statistical probability of nearly zero. That’s the evidence *against * accidental abiogenesis. When a hypothesis has so much statistical evidence (math) going against it, you look elsewhere for an explanation. The elsewhere is intelligent design. There is no other elsewhere. If there is, you are welcome to propose it. Just don’t propose, as JDaniel noted earlier, the tired canard that someday science will find the evidence. That’s like saying that someday someone will know how the Big Bang happened.

…ID appears to be directly contradicting the classical understanding of how evolution works.

Not at all. Explain why. God does play dice with the universe.

 

[Michaelo]

We can observe various artifacts which are the product of intelligence. They possess certain qualities. We see in nature and in the cosmos structures that possess the same characteristics that “designed systems” do. By inference, the idea that they also were created by an intelligent source is the most reasonable conclusion.

Can you provide examples of these “artifacts”?
Charlemagne II:

On the other hand, the likelihood that an irreducibly complex life form occurred by chance has a statistical probability of nearly zero. That’s the evidence against accidental abiogenesis. When a hypothesis has so much statistical evidence (math) going against it, you look elsewhere for an explanation. The elsewhere is intelligent design. There is no other elsewhere. If there is, you are welcome to propose it.

:doh2:

Yet again you result to false dichotomy

What is the specific probability that ID is responsible for the origin of life? Please identify all the variables you use in this calculation.

Just don’t propose, as JDaniel noted earlier, the tired canard that someday science will find the evidence…

sigh

In defense of the perfectly acceptable “I don’t know” response I’ll quote the relevant portion of the video I linked to earlier:

“There’s no shame in admitting you don’t know something. On the contrary, the only shame is in claiming you know when you don’t or can’t possibly know”

 

[tonyrey]

This is off topic, but I felt compelled to correct this. Atheists are composed of people, just like any other group, and there are people in that group that are as immature and sure of themselves as you will find in any group. For atheists, in my experience the vast majority of them are very computer savy which makes online communities show a disproportionate number of them. I can easily see things going on in the real world and claim that religious people are this or that, but that is unfair. Please don’t lower yourself to generalizations just because you happen to meet someone that is incapable of conducting a civilized conversation.

I did state “Amongst other reasons” I have never belittled atheists because I regard atheism as a healthy antidote to religious “primitivism” but on this forum there is a lot of unnecessary sarcasm…

 

[rossum]

You are assuming Design is incompatible with evolution.

No, I am going for the more parsimonious of the possibilities: Occam’s Razor. Evolution alone just requires evolution. Evolution with design requires both evolution and a designer. In the absence of direct evidence for the designer I will use the less complex of the two explanations.

How can “I don’t know” be the best available working explanation?

Because if I have a theory that gives me the wrong answer I will proceed on the basis of incorrect information. If I see “we don’t know” then I will not proceed and will avoid whatever consequences would have arisen from using the incorrect information. The designers of the Tacoma Narrows bridge used incorrect information and the bridge fell down. Had they seen “we don’t know” they would have had a better chance of avoiding their mistake.

In a previous post I have listed several ways in which ID can be falsified. Obviously the most effective falsification would be a computer simulation of the origin of life by random combinations of molecules and a computer simulation of the development of intelligence by random mutations of genes within the timespan available.

That is not a falsification of intelligent design. As Dembski has pointed out, an intelligent designer can mimic either regularity or chance so merely by showing that something could be due to regularity or chance does not imply that it is not due to design. What you need to do is to describe something that could not have been designer rather than something that might not have been designed. A Jackson Pollock painting contains a large element of chance, yet it is designed.

Design of the universe implies that the Designer constantly sustains it in existence and that the laws of nature are not random variables.

So what experiments can we perform to show the designer acting now? I can perform experiments to show evolution acting now. Where are the equivalent ID experiments? If you want ID to be a plausible scientific theory then you will need to be able to provide us with the same sort of experimental evidence that we have for evolution.

Can you show us an experiment that demonstrates the origin of life as the result of random combinations of molecules?

That is abiogenesis, not evolution. Currently abiogenesis is not a full theory but a large number of competing hypotheses. I can show you experiments that demonstrate evolution in the lab such as the Luria-Delbrück experiment.

rossum