Is intelligent design a plausible theory?

[Touchstone]

What’s your understanding, by the way, of why Darwin didn’t mention the Creator in the first edition of Origin, and put it into the second edition?

You have a significant edge on this point. The point I was making was remembered from a comment by Gerald Schroder in his The Science of God. Have just gone through my science books and can’t find it. Must have loaned it out and didn’t get it back. In any case, Schroder is quite emphatic that the phrase had been suppressed in later editions since Darwin’s death. It’s possible my memory is faulty … unless you have a copy of Schroder’s book and you can find the passage by the index. If I find the book later I’ll try to resurrect my point. You might also look under Dawkins in the index, just out of curiosity.

I have that book (I have all the books on this subject and just pulled it down from the shelf. The section you are referring to in Schroeder’s The Science of God, is Chapter 2 (“The New Convergence”), page 38 at the bottom and the top of page 39, in my trade paperback edition (©1998). I’ll type up the relevant passage for you:
Schroeder:

The reference to the “fixed law of gavity” reflects Darwin’s belief that his theory of evolution would suffer a similar fate as Newton’s Laws of planetary motion. At first it would be attacked as sacrilegious. But eventually it would seem to fall within the religious paradigm.

It would, but with no thanks to Gould and his misquote. Here is how Darwin, not Gould, closes The Origin of Species (including the sixth edition, 1872, the last edition of Darwin’s life): “There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful have been, and are being, evolved.”

To accomplish this ruse with no hint to the reader, Gould put a period after “life” and capitalized “Whilst”, neatly leaving out any hint of God. It seems that Gould has a problem with Darwin as well as with God. Although Gould stats “Charles Darwin my hero and role model”[34], he is desperate to change Darwin’s worldview into Gould’s.

OK, so that’s the relevant passage from Schroeder. Looking at the text of the various editions, though, it’s clear Schroeder is simply mistaken, unaware for the text of the first edition. Here is the text of that section from the first edition (see here for pictures of a real copy of that first edition’s page):
DarwinFirstEdition:

There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful have been, and are being, evolved."

I do not have the essays by Gould published in *Natural History *magazine that Schroeder quotes from on page 34, but you can see for yourself that assuming Schroeder’s quote is correct (letter for letter), then all Gould has done is left out a section of the opening sentence and replaced it with an ellipsis. In other words Gould gave this representation:

There is a grandeur in this view of life… Whilst this planet has gone cycling

Which is this in the first edition:

There is a grandeur in this view of life**, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms into one; and that, **whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful have been, and are being, evolved.

(bold text indicates what got left out by Gould)

and this in subsequent editions:

There is a grandeur in this view of life**, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms into one; and that, **whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful have been, and are being, evolved.

(bold text indicates what got left out by Gould)

Schroeder only has a possible point if Schroeder has some knowledge of what edition of *Origins *Gould was quoting from. If Gould was quoting the first edition of Origin, there was no “Creator” reference to leave out.

It’s odd, and a bit telling, I think that Schroeder makes a mistake like this, or commits his own deception, in making such a technical, nitpicky point against Gould. On Darwin’s original text, Schroeder’s point completely collapses.

-Touchstone

 

[Touchstone]

Einstein is certainly an authority on some subjects, as are Dawkins and Darwin. Each of them have demonstrable expertise in some domain or another (or several). But none of them have a whit of authority on the subjects you are invoking them for, it’s blatantly fallacious as a bit of reasoning.

I did not represent them as authorities on ID, for example, and certainly not as theologians. Darwin admitted his theology was a “complete muddle” and Einstein can hardly be called a theologian in the traditional sense. My reason for quoting them is to present an alternative to Dawkins’ interpretation of what science tells us.

Yes, but it seems you think Darwin or Einstein is somehow more authoritative, or otherwise polemically useful than Yogi Berra is on the subjects you quoted them on. Do you suppose they are? If so, Why?

You rightly point out that all three have no particular expertise as theologians, but that is precisely why Einstein and Darwin may be fairly used to sweep away the non-sequiturs of Dawkins. Why do you object to a level playing field? Why is Dawkins allowed to say this and that nonsense against God and pretend that the theory of evolution made him say it, but we are not able to cite Einstein and Darwin as antidotes? Do you really think the rules of debate were made to favor atheists only?

I don’t think anything like that. I said in my previous post that all that applies JUST AS MUCH TO DAWKINS as Einstein or Darwin. Theology is indistiguishable from foolishness from start to finish, Aquinas to Dawkins, in terms of performance and validation. Yogi Berra’s as authoritative as Aquinas or you or me or Dawkins. I can’t think what’s more fair or egalitarian than that: all theology is folly, and it doesn’t matter if you are trying to prove for or against, unless there is a matter than can be settled empirically and objectively (and an invisible, supernatural God cannot be disproven this way), we are just as well off exchanging witty Yogi Berra quips as we are thinking that Dawkins is a theological “antidote” to Darwin, or vice versa.

I don’t think it’s possible to treat all parties any more equally than that. When it comes to theology, noone knows nothin’ in objective, empirical terms.

-Touchstone

 

[Touchstone]

O.K. Found the book. My mistake. The reference in Schroeder’s book is to Stephen J. Gould’s quote from *Origin of the Species. * Gould suppresses Darwin’s original language in two articles he published in Natural History magazine.

The original quote is as cited above.

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”

Gould cites it as follows:

“There is grandeur in this view of life … Whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”

Gould eliminates the key phrase blackened above, then puts a period after “life,” then upper cases “w” on “Whilst,” thereby obscuring any possibility that Darwin wanted to give credit to a higher power.

It seems that Gould and Dawkins, both influential evolutionists, have had a problem with God.

Those two essays were later published in an anthology of Gould’s writings titled Bully for Brontosaurus, and in both cases the relevant phrase was again left out.

Schroeder’s account is on page 38 of The Science of God. And from pages 104-109 there is an interesting treatment of Dawkins and the statistics of probability.

Heh. You found yours about the time I pulled mine down off the shelf. See my previous post for an extended quote from the book, and analysis of the matter. Apparently, Schroeder was unaware that “Creator” didn’t appear in the first edition of Origin! That’s the charitable answer. If he did, it’s a bit of deception and misleading on Schroeder’s part.

-TS

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Touchstone

It’s odd, and a bit telling, I think that Schroeder makes a mistake like this, or commits his own deception, in making such a technical, nitpicky point against Gould. On Darwin’s original text, Schroeder’s point completely collapses.

Look at Gould’s quote again. There’s an ellipsis. Is there an ellipsis in the first edition? Doubtful. Obviously he is quoting the edition with the full wording.

No mistake for Schroeder.
*
Heh. You found yours about the time I pulled mine down off the shelf. See my previous post for an extended quote from the book, and analysis of the matter. Apparently, Schroeder was unaware that “Creator” didn’t appear in the first edition of Origin! That’s the charitable answer. If he did, it’s a bit of deception and misleading on Schroeder’s part.*

Wrong again for the same reason given above.

 

[Touchstone]

Touchstone

It’s odd, and a bit telling, I think that Schroeder makes a mistake like this, or commits his own deception, in making such a technical, nitpicky point against Gould. On Darwin’s original text, Schroeder’s point completely collapses.

Look at Gould’s quote again. There’s an ellipsis. Is there an ellipsis in the first edition? Doubtful. Obviously he is quoting the edition with the full wording.

No mistake for Schroeder.

An ellipsis is a common device to indicate elisions of part of a quote for brevity. It should not change the semantics of the text that is not removed, but it’s used all the to concentrate focus on the part of the text the writer deems to be salient. In the case of *Origin, *the original is readily available for checking and verification, and to a great many members of Gould’s audience, a passage they are immediately familiar with (if they don’t know it by heart), as it’s one of the more famous paragraphs in the history of science.

In any case, consult whatever English style guide you like, the ellipsis is who you provide a quote with indications of parts left out. See this page from the University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill on the subject, for example.

Heh. You found yours about the time I pulled mine down off the shelf. See my previous post for an extended quote from the book, and analysis of the matter. Apparently, Schroeder was unaware that “Creator” didn’t appear in the first edition of Origin! That’s the charitable answer. If he did, it’s a bit of deception and misleading on Schroeder’s part.*

Wrong again for the same reason given above.

See above.

-TS

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Theology is indistiguishable from foolishness from start to finish, Aquinas to Dawkins, in terms of performance and validation. Yogi Berra’s as authoritative as Aquinas or you or me or Dawkins. I can’t think what’s more fair or egalitarian than that: all theology is folly, and it doesn’t matter if you are trying to prove for or against, unless there is a matter than can be settled empirically and objectively (and an invisible, supernatural God cannot be disproven this way), we are just as well off exchanging witty Yogi Berra quips as we are thinking that Dawkins is a theological “antidote” to Darwin, or vice versa.

I see you are embracing your own folly!!! :extrahappy:

 

[Charlemagne_II]

n any case, consult whatever English style guide you like, the ellipsis is who you provide a quote with indications of parts left out.

Precisely. Gould left out the part he didn’t want his readers to see. It certainly wasn’t Darwin that used the ellipsis!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Touchstone

In 1953 George Wald, Nobel Prize winning biologist wrote the following in Scientific American:

*However improbable we regard this event (the start of all life) or any of the steps which it involves, given enough time it will almost certainly happen at least once. And for life as we know it, once may be enough.

Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time the “impossible” becomes the possible, the possible the probable, and the probable virtually certain. One only has to wait: time itself performs the miracles.*

But 25 years later Scientific American published the following retraction. (1979)

Although stimulating, this article [from 1953] probably represents one of the very few times in his professional life when Wald has been wrong. Examine his main thesis and see. Can we really form a biological cell by waiting for chance combinations of organic compounds? Harold Morowicz, in his book Energy Flow and Biology computed that merely to create a bacterium would require more time than the universe might ever see if chance combinations of its molecules were the only driving force.

Later British astronomer Fred Hoyle drew more or less the same conclusion, calculating that the chance formation of a single cell creature was as remote as a 707 being assembled by a tornado in a junk yard (Schroeder, p. 85).

Touchstone, what calculations by reputable scientists are you aware of that have argued the opposite?

 

[Namesake]

Touchstone

In 1953 George Wald, Nobel Prize winning biologist wrote the following in Scientific American:

*However improbable we regard this event (the start of all life) or any of the steps which it involves, given enough time it will almost certainly happen at least once. And for life as we know it, once may be enough.

Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time the “impossible” becomes the possible, the possible the probable, and the probable virtually certain. One only has to wait: time itself performs the miracles.*

But 25 years later Scientific American published the following retraction. (1979)

Although stimulating, this article [from 1953] probably represents one of the very few times in his professional life when Wald has been wrong. Examine his main thesis and see. Can we really form a biological cell by waiting for chance combinations of organic compounds? Harold Morowicz, in his book Energy Flow and Biology computed that merely to create a bacterium would require more time than the universe might ever see if chance combinations of its molecules were the only driving force.

Later British astronomer Fred Hoyle drew more or less the same conclusion, calculating that the chance formation of a single cell creature was as remote as a 707 being assembled by a tornado in a junk yard (Schroeder, p. 85).

Touchstone, what calculations by reputable scientists are you aware of that have argued the opposite?

I know full well that this isn’t going to fly, but you have passed from the sublime into the ridiculous. I mean that with all power and intent. Just fully ridiculous! There is no use whatsoever in continuing this discussion with you.

 

[Touchstone]

Theology is indistiguishable from foolishness from start to finish, Aquinas to Dawkins, in terms of performance and validation. Yogi Berra’s as authoritative as Aquinas or you or me or Dawkins. I can’t think what’s more fair or egalitarian than that: all theology is folly, and it doesn’t matter if you are trying to prove for or against, unless there is a matter than can be settled empirically and objectively (and an invisible, supernatural God cannot be disproven this way), we are just as well off exchanging witty Yogi Berra quips as we are thinking that Dawkins is a theological “antidote” to Darwin, or vice versa.

I see you are embracing your own folly!!! :extrahappy:

Yes, but at least I’m aware that it is folly!

-TS

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Sorry you feel that way. Then go in peace. :sad_bye:

 

[Charlemagne_II]

And here is Thomas Jefferson’s take on intelligent design … so obvious even to him. in the early 1800s. (From a letter to John Adams)

“The argument which they rest on as triumphant and unanswerable is that, in every hypothesis of cosmogony, you must admit an eternal pre-existence of something; and according to the rule of sound philosophy, you are never to employ two principles to solve a difficulty when one will suffice. They say, then, that it is more simple to believe at once in the eternal pre-existence of the world, as it is now going on, and may forever go on by the principle of reproduction which we see and witness, than to believe in the eternal pre-existence of an ulterior cause, or creator of the world, a being whom we see not, and know not, of whose form substance and mode or place of existence, or of action no sense informs us, no power of the mind enables us to delineate or comprehend. On the contrary, I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the Universe in its parts general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and infinite power in every atom of its composition. The movements of the heavenly bodies, so exactly held in their course by the balance centrifugal and centripetal forces, the structure of our earth itself, with its distribution of lands, waters, and atmosphere, animal and vegetable bodies, examined in all their minutest particles, insects mere atoms of life, yet as perfectly organized as man or mammoth, the mineral substances, the generation and uses, it is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe that there is, in all this, design, cause and effect, up to an ultimate cause, a fabricator of all things from matter and motion, their preserver and regulator while permitted to exist in their present forms, and their regenerator into new and other forms. We see too, evident proofs of the necessity of a superintending power to maintain the Universe in its course and order. Stars, well known, have disappeared, new ones have come into view, comets, in their incalculable courses, may run foul of suns and planets and require renovation under other laws; certain races of animals are become extinct; and, were there no restoring power, all existences might extinguish successively, one by one, until all should be reduced to a shapeless chaos.”

 

[Touchstone]

Yogi Berra on Intelligent Design;

If the world was perfect, it wouldn’t be.

-Yogi Berra

He had a death-grip on the obvious, what can we say?

-TS

 

[Shredderbeam]

I have a question to ask of ID proponents, since I am unable to find the answer elsewhere:

Which biological features exist that are demonstrably irreducibly complex?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Shredderbeam

*Which biological features exist that are demonstrably irreducibly complex? *

Michael Behe’s discussion in *Darwin’s Black Box * might be explored, pp. 69-73 where he treat the case of the bacterial flagellum. Depending on how much of Behe you have already read, you might want to first read pages 42-46 where he starts explaining irreducible complexity with the metaphor of the mousetrap.

To me, a question just as interesting as the one you asked is this:

Since evolution deals only with one life form evolving from another, what mechanism have evolutionists found that explains the likelihood there was a leap from inanimate matter to animate matter? And what are the mathematical odds that this would happen? We’d all like to know, wouldn’t we? Can you help with this?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Another interesting reflection on this matter can be found in former atheist philosopher Antony Flew’s last book, There Is a God. The whole book is fascinating as a story of conversion from atheism, but Chapter Six – “Did the Universe Know We Were coming?” was for me a scintillating recall of Jefferson’s remarks. More and more it seems modern biology and physics is returning to the pre-Darwinian scientific assumption that all reality is teleologically driven.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

I will not be posting in this thread again until after Easter Sunday.

Hope to see you then.

Charlie

 

[Touchstone]

Shredderbeam

*Which biological features exist that are demonstrably irreducibly complex? *

Michael Behe’s discussion in *Darwin’s Black Box * might be explored, pp. 69-73 where he treat the case of the bacterial flagellum. Depending on how much of Behe you have already read, you might want to first read pages 42-46 where he starts explaining irreducible complexity with the metaphor of the mousetrap.

I think he was asking you, and any other ID subscribers here. What do you believe to be an example of an IC biological system. If you say “bacterial flagellum”, or “clotting cascades”, that’s fine, you are piggybacking on Behe’s offering. If it’s something else, what is that something else?

More importantly, if your answer is “bacterial flagellum”, and that is shown to have gradual, step-wise biological pathways for its development, falsifying the claim of “irreducible complexity” for that falgellum, would that falsify the concept of “irreducible complexity” generally, in your view?

This is an important question, because if the answer is “no”, it announces the non-falsifiablility of Behe’s idea. If the flagellum is debunked as “IC” (and there’s a good argument to be made it is already substantially debunked – see Ken Miller’s review of the refutation of it in a court setting here, more commentary from him here, and see Dembski’s response to Miller here, which I say actually helps Miller make his case, too), Behe or any ID proponent can just say “Oh, well, never mind that case, then”, and move on to some other example – the human eye, say. Should that next one get knocked down, well, just find something else to suggest to keep the scientists busy! In that way, IC can neatly protect itself from falsification and discredit, so long as some biological structures remain that have not had their developmental pathways fully documented, which is to, indefinitely, for all practical purposes.

In any case, what would be your example of irreducible complexity, Charlemagne, subject to falsification by investigation?

To me, a question just as interesting as the one you asked is this:

Since evolution deals only with one life form evolving from another, what mechanism have evolutionists found that explains the likelihood there was a leap from inanimate matter to animate matter?

The details are unknown, and unlikely to ever be known, due to the nature of the phenomena: it is “soft biology”, not given to fossil or other lasting forensic evidence, and it only needed to happen just once, somewhere, to ge the ball rolling. Even if it happened spontaneously hundreds or thousands of times, it’s hard to imagine any way we could expect to find empirical evidence of that chemical process occurring, billions of years removed. Even as we learn to create life from base materials, showing that it can be achieved through a series of step-wise, automatic steps, that would only suggest a model for how it really happened; we can’t say with any confidence what really did happen in the particulars, as no traces of that phenomena remain behjind. All we have is the enormous progeny of the process.

And what are the mathematical odds that this would happen? We’d all like to know, wouldn’t we? Can you help with this?

To do anything beyond hand-waving here, we would need to know what happened, as well as the background information (what resources were available in what amounts and proximites, what were the other environment factors like temperature or sunlight, etc.) which is similarly inscrutable. It’s a fools errand to attempt such a priori probability calculations, as we don’t have any of the (name removed by moderator)uts we need, even in crude approximation. You’d be a fool to pay heed to any answer you received, beyond the odds being precisely 1 as an a posteriori observation.

That we all would like to know doesn’t change the reality of it. We don’t have access to the controlling variables we would never for that answer, and we can’t even imagine how we would ever discover them, being as far removed as we are from them as we are. A fossil helps a lot, and is a key bridge across millions of years, forensically. But the formation of monomers into polymers is not a process subject to fossilization. Just in the lab, we can observe that process happening, but it doesn’t leave “tracks” that would remain for our discovery billions of years later.

-TS

 

[Leela]

Another interesting reflection on this matter can be found in former atheist philosopher Antony Flew’s last book, There Is a God. The whole book is fascinating as a story of conversion from atheism, but Chapter Six – “Did the Universe Know We Were coming?” was for me a scintillating recall of Jefferson’s remarks. More and more it seems modern biology and physics is returning to the pre-Darwinian scientific assumption that all reality is teleologically driven.

Teleological theories have failed to show that evolution has proceeded or is proceeding towards some end, but has the question ever been investigated whether evolution is moving away from something? Is evolution tending away from rigid conformity to physical laws and achieving greater freedom?

 

[tonyrey]

Teleological theories have failed to show that evolution has proceeded or is proceeding towards some end, but has the question ever been investigated whether evolution is moving away from something? Is evolution tending away from rigid conformity to physical laws and achieving greater freedom?

Leela, you have the answer within yourself You are a product of evolution and yet your thoughts, values and decisions are not completely determined by physical laws. This is the goal towards which biological development has proceeded - with a constant trend towards greater complexity, consciousness, sensitivity and autonomy. Survival value alone does not explain the progression from matter to mind. Not only has the increase in complexity never been explained but it is also a disadvantage from the point of view of survival. Simple cells have survived millions of years whereas many multicellular organisms have become extinct
because they are more vulnerable.

NeoDarwinism puts the cart before the horse. It attempts to explain life in terms of its lowest components rather than its highest. It is doomed to failure because it substitutes analysis for synthesis. It restricts our attention to the beginning of the process and ignores the outcome. It only looks backwards, assuming that the past is more significant than the present or the future. Yet any adequate account of evolution must consider the entire process. Life should be explained in terms of its highest aspects rather than its lowest. Rational, purposeful activity cannot be reduced to a fortuitous combination of molecules. To attribute our existence to chance, i.e. a succession of random, purposeless events, is a hopelessly inadequate explanation. The effect is not proportionate to the cause.

Greater freedom cannot emerge from that which has a mechanistic origin nor can the unity of the mind stem from “heterogeneous multiplicity”