Myth of evolution and new drug discovery

[itinerant1]

Actually, none of the above.
ID tells us that some kind of intelligence was involved. It says nothing about the nature of the designer.

ID just proposes that some intelligence was involved. Again, it does not directly study the intelligence or the nature of the designer(s). In the same way, SETI looks for intelligent communication from space. If the communication matches what they consider to be a non-random pattern – SETI concludes that some intelligence was involved in the communication. That does not require analysis of the nature or origin of the alien intelligence involved (at that point).

Previously, you said ID tells us that the designer is of great power and intelligence, etc. but now you say " It says nothing about the nature of the designer." You appear to contradict yourself. Even though ID does not study the nature of the designer, you first claimed that it does tell us something about the designer.

The inquiry here will go nowhere because ID theory really yields nothing of value. According to ID theory, there could be multiple designers and even competing designers. What use, then, is ID theory?

Let me organize my additional questions, to be addressed by ID advocates:

1. Why is the ID conclusion that something reveals itself to be intelligently designed not a philosophical or theological conclusion? Paley’s conclusion was not a scientific conclusion, even though it was accepted by many scientists, including Darwin himself, until the Origin of Species.
2. If ID is science, as commonly understood by the meaning of the term “science”, why does ID attempt to redefine science? For example, Philip Johnson has his own definition of science that includes theology within the natural sciences. Behe’s use of “science” includes astrology. Why do they feel the need to modify the accepted definition of science?
3. Why does ID theory, at least in Behe’s case, believe that some living things reveal intelligent design while others do not? The latter types are said by Behe to have evolved. In other words, what the heck does "intelligently designed" mean if I look at an organism or system that ID theory says evolved by natural evolutionary processes and is not intelligently designed, but I see that it clearly manifests rational design and purposiveness?
4. Why is Behe’s explanation of the production of IC systems, in the final analysis, so garbled? See Behe’s stumbling explanation. (I believe ID theory is garbled because ultimately ID theory does not make logical or ontological sense. It does not fully and properly recognize design for what it is.)
5. Do you think Cardinal Schonborn, and Thomist philosophers in general, have good reasons for distancing themselves from ID theory?

Well, I am off again to do more nature photography. I hope to find some good answers when I return.

 

[reggieM]

Previously, you said ID tells us that the designer is of great power and intelligence, etc. but now you say " It says nothing about the nature of the designer." You appear to contradict yourself. Even though ID does not study the nature of the designer, you first claimed that it does tell us something about the designer.

That’s right – I corrected myself. I was wrong with the first claim. ID does not study the nature of the designer since that is outside of what science can do.

Behe’s use of “science” includes astrology.

Of course, science can investigate claims of astrology. By using empirical data, science could determine if the movement of planets has the physical effects that astrology claims that it does. That’s a scientific investigation – not a philosophical one. In this case, science could falsify astrological claims. How else would those claims either be proven or falsified except through science?

Why does ID theory, at least in Behe’s case, believe that some living things reveal intelligent design while others do not?

A pile of rocks at the bottom of a hill after an avalanche is what would be expected from the power of a natural force. It doesn’t exhibit the complex, functional, intelligent design that something like DNA does exhibit – and it can be explained entirely by gravity and physics.

The latter types are said by Behe to have evolved. In other words, what the heck does "intelligently designed" mean if I look at an organism or system that ID theory says evolved by natural evolutionary processes and is not intelligently designed, but I see that it clearly manifests rational design and purposiveness?

Again, you’re using the other meaning of the term “design” by shifting the discussion to purpose and attainment of ends. You’re using a philosophical approach on that. In other words, natural laws exist – therefore there must be a lawmaker. This is not what ID is looking at. It’s compatible with ID and not rejected by any ID theorists – but it’s a different kind of teleological argument.

 

[rossum]

The science of ID doesn’t care. It is simply searching for intelligence. Why do you think it should move into philosophy? That is an objection to evolutionism, the philosophy.

The questions of when and how the designer/s operated are not part of philosophy but part of science. So far ID has not appeared to do any work on these questions.

rossum

 

[rossum]

ID theorist, Walter ReMine has a book-length study that attempts to show that the scientific evidence supports the work of one designer (biological universals, common features found in unrelated species – and much more than that).

See Introduction to Multiple Designers Theory.

There may not be enough data available to develop ideas on these questions.

Then it is up to ID to find the data. Given that we now have a great deal of sequenced DNA it should be possible for ID scientists to determine the different points in the genome where the designer/s adjusted the DNA in ways that evolution could not.

Again, ID will have great value by merely showing that natural processes alone cannot account for some of what is observed in nature – and that nature gives evidence showing that some intelligence was involved in the development of the universe.

This is incorrect. There is indeed some value in showing that known natural processes alone cannot account for something. That does not allow the assumption of ID. The default value of science is “we don’t know”, and that is what science will revert to. It will then be up to the ID side to produce positive evidence for ID. There may be previously unknown natural processes involved. There were a number of outstanding puzzles that were resolved by the discovery of radioactivity that up to then had no known explanation. Science did not assume a designer in those cases, it just said “we don’t know”.

The first step is in building and gaining support for the idea that CSI exists in nature and is not the product of physical laws alone.

There are currently two major problems that need to be resolved before CSI gets more general scientific acceptance:

1. *]Objective Specification: currently there is no objective way to determine what is and what is not a specification. Without an objective specification there can be no objective measure of CSI. Subjective measurements are not often accepted in science.
   
   *]Apparent CSI: this is the problem, identified by Dr Dembski, of distinguishing actual CSI generated de novo from apparent CSI which is just copied in from elsewhere. When the external source of information is not recognised then apparent CSI may look like actual CSI. Currently ID does not have a reliable way to distinguish one from the other.
   
   The second of these is obviously a problem when dealing with the origin of information in living organisms. Is any CSI detected in a living organism actual CSI or apparent CSI. It is possible to model random mutation and natural selection as a process that can copy information from the environment into a genome, hence any CSI in a genome has to be determined as actual CSI or as apparent CSI.
   
   rossum

 

[reggieM]

Then it is up to ID to find the data. Given that we now have a great deal of sequenced DNA it should be possible for ID scientists to determine the different points in the genome where the designer/s adjusted the DNA in ways that evolution could not.

It could be possible with what we know and with the ideas we have developed thus far, or then it might not be.

There is indeed some value in showing that known natural processes alone cannot account for something. That does not allow the assumption of ID.

That’s right. One step is to eliminate natural causes. But this does not mean that the process necessarily exhibits design. The object or process needs to be matched against understandings of designed systems.

The second of these is obviously a problem when dealing with the origin of information in living organisms. Is any CSI detected in a living organism actual CSI or apparent CSI. It is possible to model random mutation and natural selection as a process that can copy information from the environment into a genome, hence any CSI in a genome has to be determined as actual CSI or as apparent CSI.

William Dembski’s studies have limits (as evolutionary speculations do as well) but they offer a reasonable basis by which design can be detected.
But his are not the only methods for measuring functional information.
Again, SETI, forensics or archeological research use other methods for detecting intelligent design.
There are other scientists working on defining functional information also:

Functional information and the emergence of biocomplexity

 

[edwest2]

To ReggieM -

Please note the use of the word supernatural in the following link:

nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=SACKLER_Evolution

Peace,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

To ReggieM -

Please note the use of the word supernatural in the following link:

nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=SACKLER_Evolution

Interesting:

Darwin’s elucidation of natural selection was one of the great intellectual achievements in the history of science, revolutionizing thought not only in biology but also in philosophical and ideological realms. No longer were explanations for **the origin **and marvelous adaptations of organisms to be sought in terms of supernatural or extranatural causation.

So, evolution does make claims about the origin of life after all.
Plus, science has supposedly proven that God is not the cause of the origin of life or the origin of human beings either.
Evolutionary science has abolished the need for the supernatural in the origin of life and of the origin human beings – since both supposedly originated by natural processes alone.

 

[itinerant1]

That’s right – I corrected myself. I was wrong with the first claim. ID does not study the nature of the designer since that is outside of what science can do.

Okay.

Of course, science can investigate claims of astrology. By using empirical data, science could determine if the movement of planets has the physical effects that astrology claims that it does. That’s a scientific investigation – not a philosophical one. In this case, science could falsify astrological claims. How else would those claims either be proven or falsified except through science?

It appears to me from the court transcript that Behe’s definition of science includes astrology as a science, and not that science can test the claims of astrology, as you say, even though the latter assertion is true in itself.

In fact, Behe’s defense of his definition of science (I do not have his definition available for this post) was that centuries ago astrology was considered a science along with genuine astronomical knowledge. Behe’s defensive remarks were not accepted when the plaintiff’s attorney said “I did not depose you in the 1500’s”, or something to that effect.

To illustrate my point more clearly, Phillip Johnson, a chief spokesperson for ID says the proper basis for science is not naturalism. Johnson says the proper basis for science is John 1:1-3. Johnson has a vision, which he calls “theistic science” in which divine explanation and interventions become part of the scientific method.

So, are you really trying to defend ID as science when ID theorists realize that the definition of science must be modified to actually accommodate ID theory?

This issue is why the Vatican newspaper said, “Intelligent design does not belong to science and there can be no justification for the pretext that it be taught as a scientific theory alongside the Darwinian explanation.”

A pile of rocks at the bottom of a hill after an avalanche is what would be expected from the power of a natural force. It doesn’t exhibit the complex, functional, intelligent design that something like DNA does exhibit – and it can be explained entirely by gravity and physics.

You skipped around my question without addressing it. I specifically referred to living organisms, and living organism only. You shifted to rocks and inanimate matter. You are just skipping with rocks on the surface of the issue.

One more time: Behe considers some living systems and organisms intelligently designed, while other living systems and organisms are not. The latter type have evolved by the normal means.

So, why does Behe not see intelligent design in all living organisms? I don’t think the question can be stated any more clearly.

BTW, even atoms manifest rational design.

Again, you’re using the other meaning of the term “design” by shifting the discussion to purpose and attainment of ends. You’re using a philosophical approach on that. In other words, natural laws exist – therefore there must be a lawmaker. This is not what ID is looking at. It’s compatible with ID and not rejected by any ID theorists – but it’s a different kind of teleological argument.

Okay, let’s drop the terms “purpose” and “finality” for now, since ID theory is actually confused about these notions. But we will come back to these concepts later.

Without involving the the notion of purpose, my question still stands: If I look at an organism or system that ID theory says evolved by natural evolutionary processes and is therefore not intelligently designed, but I see that it clearly manifests rational design, why does ID theory say otherwise?

One last question. If there may exist, according to ID theory, multiple designers and even competing designers, is it okay to speculate whether the Peacock’s tail feathers are the work of a Fashion Designer?

 

[itinerant1]

One more question, as always:

If ID is supposedly a scientific theory, then are there peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed, rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred?

 

[itinerant1]

No, that’s not what I think. In my view, God provided us with some evidence in nature of His existence. We can see that in the way St. Thomas explained – when we see a well-ordered house we can infer a governing intelligence. But not all of nature looks like a well-ordered house. Some of it does. God gave us the experience of randomness and blind-natural processes so we could see the difference between order and purpose.

I have posed this question earlier, but you can see it in a different way here. We can infer an intelligent cause in the case of well-ordered house and in nature. A completed house is the product of intelligent design. The architect created the blueprints from his idea of a house, and carpenters built the house according to plan. A living organism has a plan of structure too, its idea or form, from which we can infer intelligent design. Yet, this organism evolved to its present state, but even so, why does ID theory, as it seems, not say that it is intelligently designed? You did not address the question directly, but merely stated “God provided us with some evidence in nature of His existence.” Do you not know the answer? Is that why you have not yet directly addressed the question?

That is true, but science also draws conclusions about the evidence – and the conclusions are based on philosophical principles. For example, the empirical evidence shows two fossils. Philosophically, evolutionists assert that two fossils that have similar characteristics mean that they are biologically related to each other. That is more than the empirical evidence provides. One has to believe, philosophically, that similarity in form necessarily means descent with modification.

I don’t see this at all. Common descent or descent with modification is a scientific theory. The scientific evidence establishing relation also includes genetic data. Why do you think this is philosophical? The more I think about what you just said the more ridiculous it appears.

First – those two points are excellent, in my view. Propositional speech is produced through the body – so we can see the empirical effects and study that scientifically. But the origin of speech is from the rational soul - science cannot directly study the soul. But science can assert that the empirical data cannot be produced by natural forces alone.

We better drop this, as you are getting too inexact. Empirical data is produced by natural or physical forces – the body produces the sounds. It is the meanings we attach to the sounds or language, which are universal concepts or intentions. Other distinction need to be made as well, so let’s let this one go for now. It will just confuse the issue.

 

[reggieM]

I have posed this question earlier, but you can see it in a different way here. We can infer an intelligent cause in the case of well-ordered house and in nature.

Right. We can see the well-ordered structure. We can measure symmetry, proportion, dimensions – this is a scientific, empirical study. It’s not philosophical. As St. Thomas says, when we see such a structure, we know that it cannot come into existence without a designer - an intelligent cause coordinated the parts. We say that because we know the difference between the product of intelligent design and the product of natural laws. I explained this before but you didn’t respond. A pile of rocks does not exhibit evidence of intelligent design. It shows the product of randomness that comes from the action of the physical laws.

A completed house is the product of intelligent design.

Ok, but don’t change what St. Thomas said – it’s not a “completed house”. It’s a “well-ordered” house. He is pointing to the order and structure that can be observed empirically – it can be measured scientifically.

The architect created the blueprints from his idea of a house, and carpenters built the house according to plan.

We do not know that necessarily. We see a well-ordered house. The question St. Thomas was specifically answering was “could that come about by chance”? We know it could not. Why? Because chance arrangements do not produce the order that is found in an object like a “well ordered” house. There was an intelligence at work to bring about the order. It is not the product of a physical law like gravity.

A living organism has a plan of structure too, its idea or form, from which we can infer intelligent design.

Why not merely infer that the organism is the result of blind chance?

Yet, this organism evolved to its present state, but even so, why does ID theory, as it seems, not say that it is intelligently designed?

ID is not studying that aspect of design. If the organism can be explained by evolutionary processes, then that is a sufficient explanation. Again, ID is not studying the metaphysical aspects of design (purpose, attainment of ends, origin of scientific laws).
It’s only looking at a two-step process.

1. Can the organism be sufficiently explained by physical laws (evolution, physics, etc)?
2. If not, does the organism exhibit characteristics which are analogous to designed systems (of the kind which would only be extremely improbable to arise by natural laws)?

Keep in mind, ID research does not look at biology alone – but also the fine-tuning that is apparent in the cosmos.

You did not address the question directly, but merely stated “God provided us with some evidence in nature of His existence.” Do you not know the answer? Is that why you have not yet directly addressed the question?

I thought I answered this question at least a couple of times already. I provided a large section of text from a work on Catholic cosmology from a Thomistic author showing the difference between the metaphysical view and the structural, or “physio-teleological” view.

I don’t see this at all. Common descent or descent with modification is a scientific theory. The scientific evidence establishing relation also includes genetic data. Why do you think this is philosophical? The more I think about what you just said the more ridiculous it appears.

It’s philosophical because it starts with a philosophical assumption that the data can be explained by methodological naturalism, in the first place. How does science prove that God Himself did not place fossils in the earth, all at the same time, and then create the illusion that they are older or younger? Nobody was there to see when the fossils were created. So, empirical science cannot state what happened to the fossils. Any explanation is an interpretation of the data. This is what historians do. We do not consider history to be an empirical science. It has some science in it – the empirical data that we find from history. But the interpretation of history comes from various philosophical perspectives. We’ve all heard of Marxist historians, Feminist historians and Post-modernist historians. The empirical data is not Marxist. But the interpretation of the data can come from various schools of thought.

Empirical data is produced by natural or physical forces – the body produces the sounds. It is the meanings we attach to the sounds or language, which are universal concepts or intentions.

We have to consider the empirical data which measures the result of chance versus intelligent design.

The body produces symbols and puts them on paper. The meanings of those symbols are found in the universal concepts – within the mind. But within that context, we can judge the difference between symbols that exhibit no language pattern (the result of random letters) and those which exhibit patterns (repetitions, combinations). That’s how we can decipher meaning in languages that we didn’t know about.

Again, it’s the same as SETI research. Scientists filter out what is noise produced by blind, natural causes and seek for intelligent communication from sounds that will appear to look like language.

The U.S. Army commissioned scientists to do the same thing in underwater research. Sound-detection software listened to sounds made in the ocean and screened out whatever noise was caused by the natural, random, mindless processes of the ocean, and then captured sounds which were identified as those of Soviet submarines. In this case, the sounds of the submarines were indications of intelligent design – and not what natural processes produce.

 

[reggieM]

One more question, as always:

If ID is supposedly a scientific theory, then are there peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed, rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred?

Here is a list to review:

Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design

Again, I seriously recommend that you review this page here
uncommondescent.com/faq/
which offers answers to a number of common questions about ID. You may not be convinced by this, but at least you will be able to review the responses from an ID perspective:

 

[itinerant1]

Here is a list to review:

Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design

Again, I seriously recommend that you review this page here
uncommondescent.com/faq/
which offers answers to a number of common questions about ID. You may not be convinced by this, but at least you will be able to review the responses from an ID perspective:

If we narrow things down to the kind of publications I had in mind, i.e. main stream scientific publications, which link on that page addresses my question concerning “accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred”?

 

[reggieM]

… which link on that page addresses my question concerning “accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred”?

Again, ID research is looking for evidence of design in nature, as I explained. The question of the various mechanisms that the designer used it outside of the scope of this research project.

Also, I asked you previously for an account explaining the origin of the human mind – from any sources you might have.

 

[itinerant1]

“The Pontifical Academy of Evolutionists”

…If John Paul II is unaware of the contemporary crisis in the credibility of evolution, this could be related to the fact that his 80 scientific advisors in the Academy are all evolutionists, including Fr. Stanley Jaki and the atheist cosmologist Stephen Hawking. This bias must severely limit the competence of the Academy to fulfil the stated intentions of Pope Pius IX, on its foundation in 1936, “… who wished to surround himself with a select group of scholars, relying on them to inform the Holy See in complete freedom about developments in scientific research and thereby to assist him in his reflections.”(38) In his 1996 Message, John Paul reminded the Academy that the Magisterium has already made pronouncements on these matters, and cites the encyclical “Humani Generis” in which Pope Pius XII: “considered the doctrine of ‘evolutionism’ a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposing hypothesis.”

more…

Hardly a credible source you quote. The source does not understand the purpose of the invitation of Hawing to a science conference at the Vatican. Secondly, the source clearly knows nothing at all about Stanley L. Jaki, who is an avid critic of Darwinian ideology as well as the weak aspects of Darwinian science.

I can hardly imagine a more misleading and ridiculous quote than the one you proudly flaunt.

 

[itinerant1]

Right. We can see the well-ordered structure. We can measure symmetry, proportion, dimensions – this is a scientific, empirical study. It’s not philosophical. As St. Thomas says, when we see such a structure, we know that it cannot come into existence without a designer - an intelligent cause coordinated the parts. We say that because we know the difference between the product of intelligent design and the product of natural laws. I explained this before but you didn’t respond. A pile of rocks does not exhibit evidence of intelligent design. It shows the product of randomness that comes from the action of the physical laws.

House versus rocks, again. You are misunderstanding Aquinas’ analogy with the house. Continued below.

Ok, but don’t change what St. Thomas said – it’s not a “completed house”. It’s a “well-ordered” house. He is pointing to the order and structure that can be observed empirically – it can be measured scientifically.

I did not change the analogy in any significant way. A well-ordered house is a completed house. It is not a house actually while it is in the process of being built. It is a house potentially. A well-ordered, completed house bespeaks intelligent design. However, the “symmetry, proportion, dimensions” are observable aspects of the parts. They do not explain the whole. The whole, that which makes it a house, is not itself a material component of the house. This is where you confuse your idea of “design” with what Aquinas speak about.

We do not know that necessarily. We see a well-ordered house. The question St. Thomas was specifically answering was “could that come about by chance”? We know it could not. Why? Because chance arrangements do not produce the order that is found in an object like a “well ordered” house. There was an intelligence at work to bring about the order. It is not the product of a physical law like gravity.

Of course, it is not the result of chance causes. However, you are using Aquinas to support the ID notion of design in nature and Thomistic philosophy does not agree with you. Design in nature, according to Aquinas, is not design according to ID theory. What ID theory considers design is in classical philosophy, finality. Any inference to a Designer is not science.

For example, when Cardinal Schonborn published his essay “Finding Design in Nature”, in the New York Times, it was misunderstood by everyone who read it through the lens of ID theory, whether are not they agreed with ID theory. Schonborn said, "I wrote quite consciously from the classical philosophical perspective, while recognizing that many would misunderstand my meaning and see my writing as an endorsement of the scientific theory of “intelligent design.”

This should be a clue for you that Schonborn, as well a little ol’ me, do not see that ID theory is consistent with classical philosophy. Furthermore, Schonborn does not consider ID to be science.

Schonborn goes on to say “I must confess, however, that I was surprised just how few people seemed to understand what I actually wrote. I said nothing about “specified complexity” or “irreducible complexity” or other narrow, arduous, allegedly scientific concepts.” (My emphasis)

Why not merely infer that the organism is the result of blind chance?

I don’t know if you are joking or serious.

ID is not studying that aspect of design. If the organism can be explained by evolutionary processes, then that is a sufficient explanation. Again, ID is not studying the metaphysical aspects of design (purpose, attainment of ends, origin of scientific laws).
It’s only looking at a two-step process.

1. Can the organism be sufficiently explained by physical laws (evolution, physics, etc)?
2. If not, does the organism exhibit characteristics which are analogous to designed systems (of the kind which would only be extremely improbable to arise by natural laws)?

You mean, ID is trying to show that the origin of various organism cannot be explained by Darwinian evolution. Unfortunately, the strategy won’t work because even if an organism or system cannot be explained by means of Darwinian evolution it does not follow that ID has the answer. This is true even if “organisms exhibit characteristics which are analogous to designed systems.”

The strategy is ill-conceived and the logic just as bad because there may be some other explanation, one not sufficiently considered or at all, or it may require a revision of Darwinian theory to be able to provide an explanation.

At this point there is no hard evidence that evolution theory cannot at some point in the future, if it has not already, provide an explanation. In addition, ID theory has presented no rigorous scientific evidence and experiment to show how complex systems and ID systems came about and when.

Keep in mind, ID research does not look at biology alone – but also the fine-tuning that is apparent in the cosmos.

That’s one of my fears, that ID theory will screw up the entire cosmos when it is finished messing up biology…

I thought I answered this question at least a couple of times already. I provided a large section of text from a work on Catholic cosmology from a Thomistic author showing the difference between the metaphysical view and the structural, or “physio-teleological” view.

No. You totally misinterpreted the texts you cited. A structural or “physio-teleological” is metaphysical. You don’t understand classical philosophy.

 

[buffalo]

Previously, you said ID tells us that the designer is of great power and intelligence, etc. but now you say " It says nothing about the nature of the designer." You appear to contradict yourself. Even though ID does not study the nature of the designer, you first claimed that it does tell us something about the designer.

The inquiry here will go nowhere because ID theory really yields nothing of value. According to ID theory, there could be multiple designers and even competing designers. What use, then, is ID theory?

Let me organize my additional questions, to be addressed by ID advocates:

1. Why is the ID conclusion that something reveals itself to be intelligently designed not a philosophical or theological conclusion? Paley’s conclusion was not a scientific conclusion, even though it was accepted by many scientists, including Darwin himself, until the Origin of Species.
2. If ID is science, as commonly understood by the meaning of the term “science”, why does ID attempt to redefine science? For example, Philip Johnson has his own definition of science that includes theology within the natural sciences. Behe’s use of “science” includes astrology. Why do they feel the need to modify the accepted definition of science?
3. Why does ID theory, at least in Behe’s case, believe that some living things reveal intelligent design while others do not? The latter types are said by Behe to have evolved. In other words, what the heck does "intelligently designed" mean if I look at an organism or system that ID theory says evolved by natural evolutionary processes and is not intelligently designed, but I see that it clearly manifests rational design and purposiveness?
4. Why is Behe’s explanation of the production of IC systems, in the final analysis, so garbled? See Behe’s stumbling explanation. (I believe ID theory is garbled because ultimately ID theory does not make logical or ontological sense. It does not fully and properly recognize design for what it is.)
5. Do you think Cardinal Schonborn, and Thomist philosophers in general, have good reasons for distancing themselves from ID theory?

Well, I am off again to do more nature photography. I hope to find some good answers when I return.

God, Design, and Contingency in Nature - Behe

I recently received an email asking if the correspondent correctly understood my views about intelligent design and God. Since I sometimes get similar questions, I’m posting this correspondence for anyone who is interested.

more…

 

[itinerant1]

It’s philosophical because it starts with a philosophical assumption that the data can be explained by methodological naturalism, in the first place. How does science prove that God Himself did not place fossils in the earth, all at the same time, and then create the illusion that they are older or younger? Nobody was there to see when the fossils were created. So, empirical science cannot state what happened to the fossils. Any explanation is an interpretation of the data. This is what historians do. We do not consider history to be an empirical science. It has some science in it – the empirical data that we find from history. But the interpretation of history comes from various philosophical perspectives. We’ve all heard of Marxist historians, Feminist historians and Post-modernist historians. The empirical data is not Marxist. But the interpretation of the data can come from various schools of thought.

The ideas are too garbled for to even want to respond. All I will say here is that you are confusing “history” with “historicism”. I don’t accept as reasonable anything you said about fossils or methodological naturalism.

 

[itinerant1]

Here is a list to review:

Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design

Again, I seriously recommend that you review this page here
uncommondescent.com/faq/
which offers answers to a number of common questions about ID. You may not be convinced by this, but at least you will be able to review the responses from an ID perspective:

I was quoting from Kitzmiller v. Dover and had Behe’s comments in mind. Here is a section of the transcript with Behe answering questions:

Q. Now you have never argued for intelligent design in a peer reviewed scientific journal, correct?

A. No, I argued for it in my book.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am.html#day12am179

Q. Not in a peer reviewed scientific journal?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am.html#day12am180

A. That’s correct.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am.html#day12am181

Q. And, in fact, there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred, is that correct?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am.html#day12am182

A. That is correct, yes.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am.html#day12am183

Q. And it is, in fact, the case that in Darwin’s Black Box, you didn’t report any new data or original research?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am.html#day12am184

A. I did not do so, but I did generate an attempt at an explanation.

Source

 

[itinerant1]

Also, I asked you previously for an account explaining the origin of the human mind – from any sources you might have.

The origin of the human mind is God. Consult Genesis 1 and 2, and John 1:3.