Is intelligent design a plausible theory?

[tonyrey]

No. Frankly, it’s just silly.

Just because Darwinian natural selection has flaws does not mean that “Intelligent Design” is remotely close to being an intellectually valid alternative, any more than me coming up with The Tinkerbell Creation Theory is a valid alternative.

An intellectually valid explanation presupposes confidence in the power of the intellect. Since Darwinian natural selection attributes the origin of the intellect to random combinations of atomic particles it undermines confidence in the power of the intellect. An explanation that explains the power of the intellect is obviously superior.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

An explanation that explains the power of the intellect is obviously superior.

Yes, Einstein himself was in awe of the power of the human intellect to grasp the laws of nature. He found in this fact alone some conviction of a superior intelligence at work in the universe … that is, an Intelligence superior to our own, which made it possible for us to grasp the idea of a power so great and so mysterious that Einstein himself was content to call it God.

True, Einstein found no more than the Deist god, unless at the approach of death he made a private confession of faith and reconciliation. We’ll never know.

 

[JDaniel]

The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex: youtube.com/watch?v=K_HVrjKcvrU

The flagellum, minus the whip part, is a “poison injector” of sorts.

I would like some help here. I watched Mr. Miller’s excellent presentation. But, why did he go backward to minus 40 parts? From a counter viewpoint, one could say that going back any further might have strengthened the irreducible complexity argument. Irreducible complexity would surely be refuted if we knew that a combination of the first one, two, or, three parts would have produced some mechanism of some import for the critter. In fact, irreducible complexity might be totally destroyed if he had gone back 49 steps. My question, for the bacteriologists is, “Do we have that historical gradient”?

My second question is, “Were each of the precursors to the bacterium harboring the flagellum of similar type?” IOW, did the bacterium with the flagellum appear to directly descend from a precursor that is/was closely related to it - with a 49 part mechanism, then a 48 part mechanism, etc.? You see my dilemma: if any step remains unexplained, we have not disproved irreducible complexity.

My third question is: "Do we have proof that there exists an historical heritage (preferably, time-wise) that those precursors with fewer parts than 50 were, in fact, prior in time than than each succeeding bacterium prior to the bacterium with the flagellum? If, on the other hand, any were subsequent to the bacterium possessing the flagellum, we have another problem.

jd

 

[Charlemagne_II]

JDaniel

Welcome back!!!

Your point is well taken.

There is, of course, no record at all to prove the evolution of the inanimate to the animate. It would be as if there were a record to show how the Big Bang began, which there certainly isn’t. Darwin didn’t even pretend to show such a record, since he was concerned about the origin of the different species evolving out of each other as opposed to the origin of life itself.

Again, I’ll ask the question I asked earlier in the thread and which no evolutionist has been willing or able to answer. What are the odds that the first micro-organism formed by by chance?

If odds cannot even be assigned because we don’t know the exact conditions surrounding the first appearance of life, then life forming by chance is just as speculative as life forming by design. If, on the other hand, current laws of probabilities and statistics are assigned to the event, it seems highly improbable, considering irreducible complexity, that life formed itself by chance. Moreover, any attempt to duplicate conditions for a chance formation of a molecular life form would be frustrated by the fact that such an attempt was intelligently designed.

There being no possible concrete evidence that life formed by chance, it is as valid, perhaps more valid, to speculate on the only alternative solution: that life began by intelligent design.

Science should not shrink from what it cannot prove either way. If there is an alternative to chance or intelligent design, science must produce a third possibility or allow those two possibilities to be considered side by side.

Aliens planting life on this planet is no third alternative.

 

[JDaniel]

JDaniel

Welcome back!!!

Your point is well taken.

There is, of course, no record at all to prove the evolution of the inanimate to the animate. It would be as if there were a record to show how the Big Bang began, which there certainly isn’t. Darwin didn’t even pretend to show such a record, since he was concerned about the origin of the different species evolving out of each other as opposed to the origin of life itself.

Again, I’ll ask the question I asked earlier in the thread and which no evolutionist has been willing or able to answer. What are the odds that the first micro-organism formed by by chance?

If odds cannot even be assigned because we don’t know the exact conditions surrounding the first appearance of life, then life forming by chance is just as speculative as life forming by design. If, on the other hand, current laws of probabilities and statistics are assigned to the event, it seems highly improbable, considering irreducible complexity, that life formed itself by chance. Moreover, any attempt to duplicate conditions for a chance formation of a molecular life form would be frustrated by the fact that such an attempt was intelligently designed.

There being no possible concrete evidence that life formed by chance, it is as valid, perhaps more valid, to speculate on the only alternative solution: that life began by intelligent design.

Science should not shrink from what it cannot prove either way. If there is an alternative to chance or intelligent design, science must produce a third possibility or allow those two possibilities to be considered side by side.

Aliens planting life on this planet is no third alternative.

Thank you for welcoming me back.

Your points lead me to the conclusion that this whole thing seems very, sort of, one-sided. By that I mean, Christianity (especially, perhaps, Catholicism), generally, appears to be extraordinarily open to including theology - together with metaphysics - AND physical science in its search for the knowledge of first principles of things such as Being, God and Nature. This “openness” appears to have always been the case (again, at least with Catholicism).

Atheism, on the other hand, appears, generally, to be extraordinarily closed to including theology and/or metaphysics in any such search.

This is, frankly, quite amazing in that it is clear that neither side can be said to be in full possession of every bit of absolute knowledge (or proof) of first principles. The Christian relies on faith for a good portion of his/her reason(s) for believing what he/she believes. And, the atheist relies on faith for a good portion of his/her reason(s) for believing what he/she believes.

I am not implying that Christians are walking somewhere in the middle of the road. What I am implying is that Christians can find their impetuses for discovery from both science and religion. In fact, it seems rather plausible that the Christian’s search emanates, in some way, from his/her beliefs.

I would really like some help with reconciling this, as I’m sure you would, too.

jd

 

[Charlemagne_II]

I would really like some help with reconciling this, as I’m sure you would, too.

I wish it were possible, but I don’t know how such reconciliation is possible. When we see evolutionists like Dawkins using evolution to attack religion (he is only the most recent in a long line of his type) by arguing that evolution make atheism respectable, I see nearly a whole generation of immature budding young biologists follow his lead. This was the main issue of the Scopes “Monkey” Trial in 1925, and the issue simply will not go away. Biologists tend more than any other scientific group to be atheists. They are in the biology classroom “breeding” new generations of atheists every year.

The only alternative I can see is to provide at the start of every high school science book a chapter on the philosophy of science. That is, how the scientific method works; the limits of the scientific method; the relationship between science and mathematics; between science and technology; between science and religion; between science and the environment; etc. I see no reason why students studying the philosophy of science should not also be exposed to controversies in the scientific community, such as the debate between strict *evolutionists * like Dawkins and intelligent design advocates like Behe. To pretend in science textbooks that such disputes do not exist or are not important is to ignore part of a young person’s education.

But I am not optimistic that science educators would entertain such a proposal, that community being so dominated by atheists and agnostics. But even if this chapter on the philosophy of science was adopted, it might be loaded in such a way as to delight Richard Dawkins & friends.

 

[reggieM]

cambridgenetwork.co.uk/news/article/default.aspx?objid=58741

“Professor Miller will argue that the popularity of this movement, which is pitted against Darwinian evolution, points to a profound failure on the part of the scientific community to articulate its own message effectively,” said Katie Turnbull, Communications Officer at the Faraday Institute. “He believes that analysing the appeal of this concept [intelligent design] is central to developing an understanding of why evolution is still resisted a century and a half after the publication of On the Origin of Species.”

Kenneth Miller recognizes that the popularity of Intelligent Design theory is something that should be “analyzed”.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Kenneth Miller recognizes that the popularity of Intelligent Design theory is something that should be "analyzed.

And it has been analyzed. The “failure” is precisely because many scientists have made it clear that evolution is a way of explaining God out of the picture. This will never be accepted by right thinking people. Even the Church has no problem with the theory of evolution as a theory, so long as it is not used to bludgeon religion.

Beyond that, Darwin professed at the end of his life that he was a Theist, making it clear that his own theory was not to be used against religion. He believed there is a First Cause whose intelligent design of the universe is reflected by analogy to the human mind. Evolution and Intelligent Design are not incompatible. The atheists just don’t want them to be compatible, just as they didn’t want the Big Bang and initially opposed that theory because it was eerily reminiscent of Genesis, a much despised account of Creation in the scientific community with people like Einstein and Fred Hoyle.

 

[Namesake]

Evolution and Intelligent Design are not incompatible.

Evolution and Intelligent Design are 100% incompatible. Evolution is science and ID is religion.

Check out the Dover trial.

pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/

 

[reggieM]

Evolution is science and ID is religion.

There are scientists who would disagree with your characterization of both ID and Evolution.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Namesake

Evolution and Intelligent Design are 100% incompatible.

Not according to Charles Darwin.

“… I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.” Charles Darwin

 

[reggieM]

Namesake

Evolution and Intelligent Design are 100% incompatible.

Not according to Charles Darwin.

“… I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.” Charles Darwin

There is also this:

“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…” (from Origin of the Species, 2nd ed).

But Darwin’s religious views are ultimately contradictory and unclear. Taking it on face value, he asserts that there was a “creator”. He adds this to his so-called scientific work, without explaining how or when the creator “breathed” into forms or what this means for evolution (did the creator ever breathe anything again, or was that the only time?).

What he really believed about God is not as certain.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Here is Chesterton’s view of the importance of evolution as a theory.

gilbertmagazine.com/page_02.html

Somewhat rambling, but still interesting.

 

[MindOverMatter]

My second question is, “Were each of the precursors to the bacterium harboring the flagellum of similar type?” IOW, did the bacterium with the flagellum appear to directly descend from a precursor that is/was closely related to it - with a 49 part mechanism, then a 48 part mechanism, etc.? You see my dilemma: if any step remains unexplained, we have not disproved irreducible complexity.
jd

Sorry for this long post but its important. I think that there is a fundamental error on both sides of the debate.

1. Science doesn’t have to disprove irreducible complexity. Science is not suppose to be about disproving intelligent design, and as soon as it claims to be able to, it becomes a tautological preference or philosophy, rather then an empirical based science. Science presupposes “natural processes”. But that a thing arises by a natural process does not in itself disprove intelligent design. A thing can be irreducibly complex and yet still arise by a natural process and at the same time point to a designer. A natural explanation does not rule out other explanations. A thing can have several explanations for its existence. I suggest you goggle John haught; he’s better at explaining this then me.
2. For example, if you think of nature, not just as a cause and effect relationship, but as a network of patterns that, by virtue of its being, gives rise to specific states and actualities which were determined or put in place by the first cause, then an irreducibly complex flagellum only requires the information that is inherent in a chemical pattern in order to be constructed. It does not have to go though an “evolutionary process” of graduation. It can still arise naturally by virtue of a particular combination of atoms and be at the same time irreducibly complex according to evolutionary processes. It seems evident to me that there is no evolutionary explanation for irreducible complexity, but that doesn’t mean however that an intelligence needs to interfere with natural processes in order to explain the event in question. It only means that the explanation for its existence cannot be found in the sum of its parts or the immediate and intermediate process of natural selection.
3. However, although science has its “natural explanation”, the problem does not end there for the philosopher, for the simple reason that the process involved appears objectively meaningful and is far too complex to be the chance result of meaninglessness. When we speak of objective reality, we are not talking about the chance illusions of meaning that can be generated by a computer, because the illusion itself is not an actual quality such a self. We are talking about real objective qualities and thus real meaning inherent in the Big Bang. In fact, chance, in respect of irreducible complexity, is a meaningless concept. There has to be irreducible complex information at the fundamental levels of physical reality in order for us to make sense of the potential states that we see at the macro level.

For instance, it can happen that my ability to “see” can arise by chance, but it would be ridiculous to say that the particular quality that is “sight” and the particular creative path that leads to sight, can be explain by chance processes, because the potential for sight has to have always been true of the universe in order so that its actualization could be made a possibility at some point by chance process. Thus chance is limited and superficial in its power to explain reality. Also the particular path that leads necessarily to the reality of sight has to be pre-determined by that which is outside the reality of physical processes and chance. In this respect we ought to realize that “sight” is an irreducibly complex nature. That there is any such thing as “sight” can only be explained by that which produces “physical nature” as a metaphysical whole. Thus the metaphysician can still ask, what is the nature of the first cause that a potential pattern or combination of atoms should give rise to particular complex and purposeful states of being quality and behavior? Any immediate natural explanation is ruled out from the outset because it is not a question of “process” or “causality” but rather “information”. What is the nature of the first cause that there ought to be any meaningful information at all; that any particular pattern should equal the emergence of self. What is the nature of the first cause that a particular pattern is decided as being that which gives rise to a particular state? In other words, why is there such a thing as the deterministic laws of chemistry? What created the map of physics?

In contemplating this, we find out that we exist in a reality that is fundamentally “particular” in its distribution of qualities and states and how those states ought to be actualized, and by realizing this we also become aware that physical reality is ordered to particular ends outside of the natural processes of chance. Thus reality is fundamentally ordered. When we approach intelligent design from the “Aquinian” direction, we find ourselves on much stronger ground, since evolution, as an absolute explanation, not only becomes void as an explanation of irreducibly complex information, but is allowed to be co-existent with an overall explanation of reality that produces a much more potent and logical description of the meaning and the order that we find nature. And in so far as we are trying to explain the meaning that is inherent in the potential patterns of the natural order, we can say that a mind intellect and will is the best explanation for the existence of physical reality and design that we see in living organism.

Tell me what you think. Peace.

 

[reggieM]

It does not have to go though an “evolutionary process” of graduation. It can still arise naturally by virtue of a particular combination of atoms and be at the same time irreducibly complex according to evolutionary processes.

An important point here is that if it didn’t happen by evolutionary processes, then that is an important refutation of Darwinian theory.

It seems evident to me that there is no evolutionary explanation for irreducible complexity, but that doesn’t mean however that an intelligence needs to interfere with natural processes in order to explain the event in question. It only means that the explanation for its existence cannot be found in the sum of its parts or the immediate and intermediate process of natural selection.

According to evolutionists, there is “no alternative theory” to compete with evolution and evolutionary theory itself “has no flaws”. Certainly, if you’re right (and I think you are) that there is no evolutionary explanation for irreducible complexity then this is a revolutionary finding. I think it’s premature to move the conversation to the next logical points before considering the implications of this first point – namely, that Darwinian theory cannot explain irreducible complexity as being a result of gradual changes. It’s too early to simply assert that IR systems result through self-organizing, blind, unintelligent natural processes. It may be true that only an intelligent agent can explain this kind of feature in nature – if true, then there would be some evidence of intelligent design in nature.

1. However, although science has its “natural explanation”, the problem does not end there for the philosopher, for the simple reason that the process involved appears objectively meaningful and is far too complex to be the chance result of meaninglessness.

But the natural processes are meaningless and they operate on accidents and chance. There is no plan or purpose in those processes and yet they are claimed to be the cause of what we see as plan and purpose in nature.

There has to be irreducible complex information at the fundamental levels of physical reality in order for us to make sense of the potential states that we see at the macro level.

Could you explain that further. You may well be correct, but I don’t really follow the connection here.

For instance, it can happen that my ability to “see” can arise by chance, but it would be ridiculous to say that the particular quality that is “sight” and the particular creative path that leads to sight, can be explain by chance processes, because the potential for sight has to have always been true of the universe in order so that its actualization could be made a possibility at some point by chance process.

In this respect we ought to realize that “sight” is an irreducibly complex nature. That there is any such thing as “sight” can only be explained by that which produces “physical nature” as a metaphysical whole.

I think another way to look at this, perhaps simpler and more closely tied to the science itself is that “sight” not only requires the chance-development of the irreducibly complex organ, “the eye” (and it is absurdly-claimed that eyes have evolved simultaneously in different, unrelated species), but the function of the eye has to evolve along with the parallel connections to the brain, as well as to the nervous system and all bodily responses to “seeing”.

Thus the metaphysician can still ask, what is the nature of the first cause that a potential pattern or combination of atoms should give rise to particular complex and purposeful states of being quality and behavior?

Yes, definitely. But this question becomes more profound and essential once chance, evolutionary processes are rejected as possible causes.

In contemplating this, we find out that we exist in a reality that is fundamentally “particular” in its distribution of qualities and states and how those states ought to be actualized, and by realizing this we also become aware that physical reality is ordered to particular ends outside of the natural processes of chance.

While I agree with your conclusion, I didn’t see the logical steps that lead there. Could you provide more detail on this?

When we approach intelligent design from the “Aquinian” direction, we find ourselves on much stronger ground, since evolution, as an absolute explanation, not only becomes void as an explanation of irreducibly complex information, but is allowed to be co-existent with an overall explanation of reality that produces a much more potent and logical description of the meaning and the order that we find nature. And in so far as we are trying to explain the meaning that is inherent in the potential patterns of the natural order, we can say that a mind intellect and will is the best explanation for the existence of physical reality and design that we see in living organism.

I think intelligent design theory is basically the same thing here – using St. Thomas’ teleogical argument to observe and analyze the design that can be found in nature. The presence of design is evidence that mind and will (a free, intelligent agent) was the cause of the design and purpose that is evident. But I’m not sure how that approach is different than what you’re proposing.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

At the time of the Big Bang, any number of possible universes could have come into being if the theory of evolution was applied to the birth of the universe. The universe at first could have come into being as pure chaos. However, it did not. It came into being and immediately began to program all kinds of results, the existence of which, if chance alone was operating at the time of the BB, would hardly have happened. Why are hydrogen and helium the dominant elements of the universe? Without them, life and evolution would not even be possible. If the universe was a random event, at evolution is considered random, why did the universe immediately program itsdelf to be capable of evolution?

Is there a Mind behind the universe? A Creative Intelligence at work? Newton, Darwin, and Einstein thought so. Atheists search with their imagination everywhere for an alternative explanation. Abandoning their precious *Occam’s Razor *(the simplest explanation should suffice), they conceive multiple universes, hoping thereby to restore infinity and the statistical probability that everything is going to happen sooner or later without intelligent design behind it. But there is no alternative in random theory to explain why the universe came into being in such a way as to contain the elements and the gravitation force necessary to expand the universe (the only universe we know) and give the planets sufficient time to complete the program … the creation of a creature able to understand something the universe as a whole cannot even begin to understand … itself … and even more than that … in wonder and awe … the Creator.

 

[tonyrey]

Is there a Mind behind the universe? A Creative Intelligence at work? Newton, Darwin, and Einstein thought so. Atheists search with their imagination everywhere for an alternative explanation. Abandoning their precious *Occam’s Razor *(the simplest explanation should suffice), they conceive multiple universes, hoping thereby to restore infinity and the statistical probability that everything is going to happen sooner or later without intelligent design behind it. But there is no alternative in random theory to explain why the universe came into being in such a way as to contain the elements and the gravitation force necessary to expand the universe (the only universe we know) and give the planets sufficient time to complete the program … the creation of a creature able to understand something the universe as a whole cannot even begin to understand … itself … and even more than that … in wonder and awe … the Creator.

I fully agree with your interpretation of the facts but it is important not to overstate our case. Darwin may well have lost his faith before he died and Einstein’s view of God is debatable. We cannot understand our fundamental nature, let alone that of the Creator

 

[Charlemagne_II]

I fully agree with your interpretation of the facts but it is important not to overstate our case. Darwin may well have lost his faith before he died and Einstein’s view of God is debatable.

Neither Darwin nor Einstein can be considered orthodox believers of any type. Darwin, not long before his death in his autobiography called himself a theist. Einstein at best can be called a deist. Neither can be called a deist, whatever that means. Einstein went out of his way on several occasions to disparage both the intellectual merits and the psychology of atheism.

We cannot understand our fundamental nature, let alone that of the Creator.

There are aspects of our fundamental nature we can understand, and aspects of God’s nature that we can understand in part, more by revelation than by reason. Why do so many deists stop short of thinking of God as anything but Reason? Reason is the thing that matters most to them, so it must be the thing that matters most to God. The many other dimensions of God and our relationship with God are dismissed as so much unnecessary emotional baggage. However, this is not true of all scientists. Many scientists who have not been completely seduced by Reason (and especially by their own genius) are open to the fundamental nature of God as something a good deal more interesting than mere Reason.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Several errors were made in the previous post. I tried to correct them but my time had run out. Here is the final version of what should have been in the previous post.

Sorry for the inconvenience. Mea culpa!

I fully agree with your interpretation of the facts but it is important not to overstate our case. Darwin may well have lost his faith before he died and Einstein’s view of God is debatable.

Neither Darwin nor Einstein can be considered orthodox believers of any type. Darwin, not long before his death in his autobiography called himself a theist, whatever that means. Einstein at best can be called a deist. Neither can be called an atheist. Einstein went out of his way on several occasions to disparage both the intellectual merits and the psychology of atheism.

We cannot understand our fundamental nature, let alone that of the Creator.

There are aspects of our fundamental nature we can understand, and aspects of God’s nature that we can understand in part, more by revelation than by reason. Why do so many deists stop short of thinking of God as anything but Reason? Reason is the thing that matters most to them, so it must be the thing that matters most to God? The many other dimensions of God and our relationship with God are dismissed as so much unnecessary emotional baggage. However, this is not true of all scientists. Many scientists who have not been completely seduced by Reason (and especially by their own genius) are open to the fundamental nature of God as something a good deal more interesting than mere Reason.

 

[rossum]

At the time of the Big Bang, any number of possible universes could have come into being if the theory of evolution was applied to the birth of the universe.

No. Theories of cosmology and physics apply to the time of the Big Bang. THe theory of evolution only applies to populations of imperfect replicators. The Big Bang was not a population of imperfect replicators.

Why are hydrogen and helium the dominant elements of the universe?

Ask a cosmologist.

rossum