Is intelligent design a plausible theory?

[tonyrey]

No, ruthlessness does not mean we all go extinct because everything doesn’t evolve at once.

I have never stated or implied that we all go extinct because everything doesn’t evolve at once. Extinction could have occurred, and still can, because of a catastrophe like a collision of this planet with another object.

Abiogenesis and evolution are separate, and although typically both supported by scientists, do not act like they support or falsify one another.

It would be very odd if an atheist maintained that abiogenesis was due to Chance and evolution was due to Design, or vice-versa. For the atheist they mutually support each other as evidence of non-Design.

Evolution is geared towards other things apart from survival, although survival (reproduction specifically) is the major influence.

Thank you for conceding that survival is the ultimate factor. Even if genetic drift occurs only the fittest survive.

Maybe I don’t know what you mean by “personal development”… do you mean like learning math for instance? That is not evolution in the strict sense because it is not inherited genetically.

Do you believe the self, the power of the mind, personality, the power of abstract reasoning, free will, the ability to distinguish between good and evil, the appreciation of beauty, unselfish love, the principles of liberty, equality, fraternity, and the right to life are inherited genetically? If not how have they originated? By memes?

 

[rossum]

Arguing definable concepts with a Buddhist is like trying to grab an eel in a bucket of snot.

In this case you are right. I have learned that Buddhists approach reality differently to those following the Abrahamic religions. You have no equivalents of sunyata, samsara, nirvana, dharma and other essential concepts. Hence I generally avoid discussions of philosophy and theology - there are not enough shared concepts to make for a worthwhile discussion.
Nagarjuna’s philosophy represents something of a watershed not only in the history of Indian philosophy but in the history of philosophy as a whole, as it calls into questions certain philosophical assumptions so easily resorted to in our attempt to understand the world. Among these assumptions are the existence of stable substances, the linear and one-directional movement of causation, the atomic individuality of persons, the belief in a fixed identity or selfhood, and the strict separations between good and bad conduct and the blessed and fettered life.

Source: Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Nagarjuna
Nagarjuna is one of the major figures of Mahayana Buddhism, roughly equivalent to Saint Augustine in the Western Church.

It is for that reason that I have confined my side of this discussion to ID as science, and avoided ID as theology or ID as philosophy.

rossum

 

[rossum]

But you would agree that evolution is not by design?

Agreed. In scientific terms it is a mixture of chance and regularity.

So it is with the atheist’s view of the origin of life and evolution.

How is this relevant to me? I have more gods in my scriptures than there are in yours. In numerical terms you are closer to being an atheist than I am.

There is no reason why the particular combinations of molecules occurred.

Why do you continue to ignore chemistry? Chemistry is not a chance process, but a regular process. It can explain why particular combinations of molecules happen without resorting to chance. Chemistry is especially important in abiogenesis - the Powner paper I referred to earlier is basically a chemistry paper dealing with a facet of the chemistry of the RNA world hypothesis within abiogenesis.

I have already stated that evolution is **internally **not a chance process, i.e. when considered in isolation from everything else but in the context of the universe it occurred fortuitously. It depended on an accident, i.e. a fortuitous event: abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis is separate from evolution, and was a lot less fortuitous than you seem to think. Again, chemistry is not a chance process but a regular one.

And reproduction is geared towards survival…

No, only such survival as is required for successful reproduction. Survival is a means, not an end. Reproduction is the end.

That is because you reject your own experience of your intelligence as unscientific even though you rely on your intelligence to reject it as unscientific.

I am not a disembodied intelligence. I have never seen any scientific evidence of any disembodied intelligences. Why should I not reject disembodied intelligences from science? Such entities may exist in theology, but I am talking about what is taught in science class, not in theology class.

No. The case for ID should be presented because not to do so distorts children’s concept of human beings as “naked apes” which have no inalienable right to life, i.e. undesigned products of physical processes which lack intelligence and purpose.

By all means present the case for ID in school, just keep it out of science classes. ID is not yet science.

rossum

 

[liquidpele]

I have never stated or implied that we all go extinct because everything doesn’t evolve at once. Extinction could have occurred, and still can, because of a catastrophe like a collision of this planet with another object.
It would be very odd if an atheist maintained that abiogenesis was due to Chance and evolution was due to Design, or vice-versa. For the atheist they mutually support each other as evidence of non-Design.

Thank you for conceding that survival is the ultimate factor. Even if genetic drift occurs only the fittest survive.

Ah, then I just misunderstood you. I agree all life can go extinct, but not from evolution, which is what I thought you were implying.

Actually, there are atheists that believe in ID… for instance (this will make you laugh), the Raëlism people.

rael.org/rael_content/index.php

No, I am not endorsing their argument… they are pretty much crazy, but they meet the criteria.

Do you believe the self, the power of the mind, personality, the power of abstract reasoning, free will, the ability to distinguish between good and evil, the appreciation of beauty, unselfish love, the principles of liberty, equality, fraternity, and the right to life are inherited genetically? If not how have they originated? By memes?

It’s interesting… most such things do not come from genetics, but they are built upon a genetic foundation. We are social animals… just like a wolf pack, and such social rules (driven by instinct mostly) are genetic because the rules help us survive as a group, and as we said survival is the ultimate influence.

On top of that genetic base that wants us to survive as a group (social order, helping one another, etc), we build further things like government, equality, liberty, art, and modern day morality. These things are both a function of language and social upbringing though. If you would like proof, look at the horrific ordeal of Genie, who was locked in a room and never spoken to until she was 13 (parents were deranged).

yeeeeee.com/2009/01/03/genie-the-sad-story-of-living-13-years-in-a-room/

It literally is a case of “The child that was raised by wolves”, and it shows what we would be without society teaching us what we think we have naturally.

You can also look at things like the dark ages, when a lot of knowledge was lost… many previous ideas were not inherent in us, they had to be re-learned and developed again by society. Don’t discount the “meme” thing just because Dawkins coined it… I personally don’t agree with his arguments concerning religion, but such social knowledge is a real thing to be sure.

 

[liquidpele]

You dishonor men who have taken the trouble to acquire knowledge by refusing to follow their gentle suggestions to further your education. At your current level of knowledge, all you are bringing to this conversation is the all-knowing arrogance of youth.

We were there once. Print this and save it for the day when you’ll try to convince a fool to open a book instead of his mouth.

Hahahaha… it sounds like you were about to ask him to commit suppuku

It’s ridiculous for you to throw books titles at someone as evidence in an online forum conversation. Sure, you can suggest they read it, but it hardly gives leverage for your view here and now unless the person already respected the authors (otherwise they would be taking your word for it that the authors were legitimate and knowledgeable).

Arrogance hardly stops at youth.

 

[reggieM]

Easy there, in the essence of time, I’d prefer that reggieM summarize the salient points contained in those sources. Perhaps you can help? :bowdown2:

I gave you several links that you can read on the web as well as a list of books that you can take some time to read.
Now you’ve asked for a comprehensive summary of all of that information without wanting to investigate it yourself.
If you’re not interested in the topic, that’s up to you, but it doesn’t make sense to ask questions about something you’re not interested in.

If you’re interested in the topic, feel free to learn about it from the sources I provided and then come back here and ask any follow-up questions you may have.

 

[StAnastasia]

I am not a disembodied intelligence. I have never seen any scientific evidence of any disembodied intelligences. Why should I not reject disembodied intelligences from science? Such entities may exist in theology, but I am talking about what is taught in science class, not in theology class.rossum

rossum, what kid of class would you have ID taught in? It’s certainly not science, bit it’s not really theology either. It’s a philosophical presupposition – I suppose it could be explored in a philosophy class.

 

[reggieM]

The first of these is the aspect focused upon by ID proponents— proof of ID theory. This is being accomplished by arguments in favor of design, and others disproving elements of neo-Darwinism. But what about the neglected aspect?

Suppose that I accept the general principles of Intelligent Design (which I actually do). My next question is, who is the designer? An intelligent entity is implied. What are the properties of the entity, or entities? Equally important, what are his or their motivations?

ID proponents generally assume that the designer is necessarily the omnipotent, omniscient God of Christianity. The evidence in favor of design does not support such a conclusion.

What say you?

That was an excellent analysis and I agree with your conclusion. ID theory only opens the door to the issue by proving the presence of Intelligence and Design in the universe. But the follow-up to this proof has been neglected.

We talked about this a little on another thread. With bits and pieces of evidence, we can put together a picture of who the designer is. Thus far, we agreed that the designer possesses creative intelligence, immense power and a supreme ability for order, coordinating symmetry and “genius” arrangements as understood by mathematics.

Is this one designer or many? There’s a book on this topic which argues for one designer given the parallels in design, concept and function found in the cosmos down to the microbiological level. From electrons and the atom to solar systems.

Personally, I don’t think that physical nature can “surround” the Creator sufficiently to offer an accurate description.

But I’m interested in your explanation if you’d like to offer it.

 

[rossum]

rossum, what kid of class would you have ID taught in? It’s certainly not science, bit it’s not really theology either. It’s a philosophical presupposition – I suppose it could be explored in a philosophy class.

As I see it there are two versions of intelligent design:* ID1 - The universe is designed by a creator.

• ID2 - The universe is designed by a creator and we can scientifically detect this design in living organisms.

The first is a commonplace for the Abrahamic religions. The second is a recent construct by the Discovery Institute in response to various court cases in America, particularly Edwards v Aguillard.

The first has been taught in theology and religion classes for a long time, and has a legitimate place there. The second tries to look ‘sciency’ but fails to be science. The best place for it is probably a politics class, since its primary objective is political - to finesse a way round the US Constitution’s separation between church and state. Neither form of ID is science. The first does not claim to be and the second has failed to come up to the evidential and experimental mark and so currently cannot be considered to be science.

I notice that some of the discussions on this thread are hindered by a confusion between the two versions of ID. Every Catholic obviously adheres to ID1. Not every Catholic adheres to ID2. Rejection of ID2 does not automatically imply either a rejection of ID1 or a rejection of Catholicism.

rossum

 

[MindOverMatter]

rossum

Rossum. Why do you continue to post that same signature, when it is so flawed.

If there is no ultimate truth, then why do we exist?

 

[liquidpele]

Rossum. Why do you continue to post that same signature, when it is so flawed.

If there is no ultimate truth, then why do we exist?

Perhaps that is a discussion for a new thread?

 

[reggieM]

With considerable respect for much of your reasoning and appreciation for your arguments, I submit that these are basic beliefs, not necessarily truths. They are beliefs which I once held as deeply as you appear to, and back then, I too would have referred to them as “truth.”

greylorn – with these points:

God changes nature by raising the dead (as many saints did), healing, bringing supernatural life into nature, creating spiritual souls which are capable of making decisions (and rise above nature – not caused by or enslaved by it), free will overcomes “selection” and refutes evolutionism. Supernatural assistance is constant – God’s intervention never stops. These are basic truths.

I was appealing to the Catholic interest - for those who proclaim publicly that God is the Creator, but then privately state that there is no evidence of intelligence in the universe and that God does not intervene. These are impossible points for Catholics to hold.

But ID theory alone cannot explain how or when God intervenes in nature, but merely that there is evidence of design which permits the logical and reasonable inference of the work of Intelligence. I think the only case that can be viewed empirically in the examples above is that of the human capacity for choice. If that is “free” – then it cannot come from natural, deterministic laws.

If human choices are not free, but are determined by genetic, physical and environmental conditions alone – then there is no responsibility for actions. Humans cannot rise above their natural inclinations and can never be blamed for following them.

Atheists reveal their own contradiction here when we see outrage about the “atrocities” of history. If human choices are not free and are determined by evolution, then there can be no blame and no reason for outrage. Nobody had a choice – evolution just “is” and it will proceed by natural physical laws.

If there is free choice and humans can decide against nature, or to rise above nature – then this refutes evolution and gives evidence of powers beyond natural selection (conscious, intelligent selection).

I think that point can be seen in terms of reason alone and it doesn’t rely on revelation or doctrines of faith.

 

[tonyrey]

On top of that genetic base that wants us to survive as a group (social order, helping one another, etc), we build further things like government, equality, liberty, art, and modern day morality. These things are both a function of language and social upbringing though.

So you believe the self, the power of the mind, personality, the power of abstract reasoning, free will, the ability to distinguish between good and evil, the appreciation of beauty, unselfish love, the principles of liberty, equality, fraternity, and the right to life are all the product of our genetic inheritance, language and social upbringing?

 

[MindOverMatter]

So you believe the self, the power of the mind, personality, the power of abstract reasoning, free will, the ability to distinguish between good and evil, the appreciation of beauty, unselfish love, the principles of liberty, equality, fraternity, and the right to life are all the product of our genetic inheritance, language and social upbringing?

They are products of existence, not evolution. This is a common mistake made by those who think that evolution is an alternative to creation. They are not proposing true evolution as it really is as a theory, but rather they’re just making up a new creation myth.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Perhaps that is a discussion for a new thread?

Okay. But you start it. And i will finish it.

 

[rossum]

Rossum. Why do you continue to post that same signature, when it is so flawed.

If there is no ultimate truth, then why do we exist?

You are not the first to notice my sig. I have a standard reply to those who do.

The original source of my sig is Mark Siderits, “Thinking on Empty: Madhyamika Anti-Realism and Canons of Rationality” in S Biderman and B.A. Schaufstein, eds, Rationality In Question (1989). Dordrecht: Brill.

I have not read Siderits but saw the quote in a piece on Nagarjuna. The “Madhyamika” in Siderits’ title refers to the religious and philosophical school of Buddhism that Nagarjuna founded. I have seen the same quote again in other places in reference to the Madhyamika and Nagarjuna - it seems quite popular. The quote is intentionally paradoxical; paradox is necessary to remind us that words are insufficient when trying to describe the fundamental nature of reality.

For a philosophical discussion of Nagarjuna and reality see the web article Nagarjuna and the Limits of Thought. The Siderits quote is at the end of section four of the article:

There is, then, no escape. Nagarjuna’s view is contradictory. The contradiction is, clearly a paradox of expressibility. Nagarjuna succeeds in saying the unsayable, just as much as the Wittgenstein of the Tractatus. We can think (and characterize) reality only subject to language, which is conventional, so the ontology of that reality is all conventional. It follows that the conventional objects of reality do not ultimately (non-conventionally) exist. It also follows that nothing we say of them is ultimately true. That is, all things are empty of ultimate existence; and this is their ultimate nature, and is an ultimate truth about them. They hence cannot be thought to have that nature; nor can we say that they do. But we have just done so. As Mark Siderits (1989) has put it, “the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.”

By all means discuss it if you want to, though as liquidpele points out, that is a discussion for a different thread. Please also read my post #678 in this thread. You will have to be prepared to argue for the existence of some things that you may have taken for granted that I will not allow you to just assume.

rossum

 

[liquidpele]

So you believe the self, the power of the mind, personality, the power of abstract reasoning, free will, the ability to distinguish between good and evil, the appreciation of beauty, unselfish love, the principles of liberty, equality, fraternity, and the right to life are all the product of our genetic inheritance, language and social upbringing?

Let me adjust that just a little…

So you believe the self, the power of the mind, personality, the power of abstract reasoning, free will, the ability to distinguish between good and evil, the appreciation of beauty, unselfish love, the principles of liberty, equality, fraternity, and the right to life are all the product of our genetic inheritance, language and social upbringing, and needs/wants generated by our current environment?

Yes. I wanted to add that touch because social upbringing implies we couldn’t develop on our own, which is obviously not the case, so while many things are from social upbringing, others are from us teaching ourselves by trying to do stuff (due to needs and wants).

You might ask why I believe that? I certainly don’t have proof for all of it. The reason is because from the evidence I’ve seen, it makes the most sense to me. You might be tempted to call it faith then, but I would be willing to adjust with new evidence if it was provided, so instead of “faith” lets call it “the idea that currently makes the most sense to me given the evidence”.

 

[StAnastasia]

As I see it there are two versions of intelligent design:* ID1 - The universe is designed by a creator. * ID2 - The universe is designed by a creator and we can scientifically detect this design in living organisms.
The first is a commonplace for the Abrahamic religions. The second is a recent construct by the Discovery Institute in response to various court cases in America, particularly Edwards v Aguillard.rossum

rossum, I agree with your distinction, but I don’t understand whether you would distinguish between ID1 and Theistic Evolution… If you do, what is the distinction?

 

[StAnastasia]

They are products of existence, not evolution. This is a common mistake made by those who think that evolution is an alternative to creation. They are not proposing true evolution as it really is as a theory, but rather they’re just making up a new creation myth.

No, this is not accurate. You are right that evolution and creation are not alternatives, but the reason is that they stand in entirely different categories. Creation is a theological and philosophical concept; evolution is a scientific theory, like gravity or plate tectonics. They can’t compete any more than sphericity and color compete with respect to a basketball.

StAnastasia

 

[Michaelo]

I gave you several links that you can read on the web as well as a list of books that you can take some time to read.
Now you’ve asked for a comprehensive summary of all of that information without wanting to investigate it yourself.
If you’re not interested in the topic, that’s up to you, but it doesn’t make sense to ask questions about something you’re not interested in.

If you’re interested in the topic, feel free to learn about it from the sources I provided and then come back here and ask any follow-up questions you may have.

Fair enough, I will at least evaluate the arguments made by the internet sources and then return with questions. Thanks again for the links