Blowing Up Intelligent Design

[♦ ficino ♦]

OK, I know this is not a new topic, but it's newish to me. So, I'm trying to get my thoughts about it organized. Here's why I think it doesn't count as an alternative theory about origin of species. Tell me if I'm mistaken or forgetting something.

 

1. It is not falsifiable, so it doesn't even satisfy one of the important demands of a hypothesis. There's no way to test it because nothing is conceivable as a counterexample. Any counterexamples that have been offered have been met with ad hoc reinterpretations by proponents of ID. A sign of a metaphysical system masquerading as science is impossibility of its falsification. That fits ID.

 

2. If it's not even a hypothesis, it sure isn't a theory. A theory distinguishes itself by its predictive and explanatory power. ID doesn't explain well (see below). It also doesn't do a good job of predicting anything to guide future research.

 

3. ID does not explain the waste, failures, maladaptations, etc. in nature.

 

4. ID cannot be squared at least with belief in an omnipotent and good/loving creator because it entails that a sphere of existence - physical nature - was brought about that requires death and suffering of many creatures in order to function. It would be more "intelligent" if the creator chilled within its own being or with non-suffering created beings.

 

5. ID's main evidence:

a. statistical. Arguments rely on probability. These arguments are bogus applications of statistics - the probability of nature's being the way it is is 1. Arguments that try to measure probability of events happening in the remote past are measuring the unmeasurable.

b. appeal to interentailing nature of parts of unitary structures, like the eye: i.e. the eye doesn't function at all unless all its parts work together, so there was no time when a more rudimentary form of an eye could have functioned in nature, from which modern eyes evolved, without intervention. Doesn't follow, and there are rudimentary sensory organs in primitive creatures.

These phenomena are accomodated by the standard Darwinian model without the fancy footwork needed by ID.

[Druid]

I'm not sure if 1 and 5 go together logically.

 

What I mean by this is that for example say I say the earth is the centre of the universe. This can't be truely falsified without using the theory of gravity. But because we have such a theory to explain the motion of heavenly bodies the theory can be falsified. Similarly ID can be falsified by the ToE.

[Ouroboros]

I’m not a proponent of either Creationism or ID, and I agree that this subject needs to be evaluated and discussed. But I might counter on a few arguments, just a tiny bit, but still support you on most.

 

OK, I know this is not a new topic, but it's newish to me.  So, I'm trying to get my thoughts about it organized.  Here's why I think it doesn't count as an alternative theory about origin of species.  Tell me if I'm mistaken or forgetting something.

 

1.  It is not falsifiable, so it doesn't even satisfy one of the important demands of a hypothesis.  There's no way to test it because nothing is conceivable as a counterexample.  Any counterexamples that have been offered have been met with ad hoc reinterpretations by proponents of ID.  A sign of a metaphysical system masquerading as science is impossibility of its falsification.  That fits ID.

Right. There’s no common approved method that has been set up how to test or falsify the ID claims. The only thing they do is do the same experiments as other scientists, but then think of some explanation to circumvent the logical conclusion.

 

Almost like:

- I dropped the pen, measure the time, speed, impact etc

- It should prove gravity, but I don’t want it to

- So I invent the “Holy Ghost Attraction Magic” theory instead

 

2.  If it's not even a hypothesis, it sure isn't a theory.  A theory distinguishes itself by its predictive and explanatory power.  ID doesn't explain well (see below).  It also doesn't do a good job of predicting anything to guide future research.

Yes and no. It’s a borderline hypothesis.

hypothesis

n 1: a proposal intended to explain certain facts or observations 2: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices" [syn: possibility, theory] 3: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence [syn: guess, conjecture, supposition, surmise, surmisal, speculation]

It is a proposal for an explanation, but there’s no way of testing it so it’s not a good candidate. The definition #3 fits best I think, with the synonyms of “guess” etc.

 

3.  ID does not explain the waste, failures, maladaptations, etc. in nature.

Actually some of the proponents do have an explanation. They admit that God is not perfect and didn’t create a perfect world.

 

But they’re in conflict, because some still claim perfection in creation.

 

4.  ID cannot be squared at least with belief in an omnipotent and good/loving creator because it entails that a sphere of existence - physical nature - was brought about that requires death and suffering of many creatures in order to function.  It would be more "intelligent" if the creator chilled within its own being or with non-suffering created beings. 

Their official standpoint is that it has nothing to do with Christianity or Theism, but rather loose definition of God. I guess it's supposed to be more of an Deist kind of creation.

 

But the majority of the people behind ID are definitely Christian, and there are information to show that their true agenda is to remove evolution from schools and replace it with Bible teachings.

 

5.  ID's main evidence:

a. statistical.  Arguments rely on probability.  These arguments are bogus applications of statistics - the probability of nature's being the way it is is 1. Arguments that try to measure probability of events happening in the remote past are measuring the unmeasurable. 

b.  appeal to interentailing nature of parts of unitary structures, like the eye:  i.e. the eye doesn't function at all unless all its parts work together, so there was no time when a more rudimentary form of an eye could have functioned in nature, from which modern eyes evolved, without intervention.  Doesn't follow, and there are rudimentary sensory organs in primitive creatures.

   These phenomena are accomodated by the standard Darwinian model without the fancy footwork needed by ID.

Behe’s Irreducible Complexity argument can be counter proved with the Avida software, as well as all the findings of several intermediate forms of the eye.

 

The misconception ID supporters and anti-evolutionists have, is that they think about evolution the same way they think of genesis in the Bible. They think that evolution say an eye suddenly pops out from someone’s skull. Like the mutation happens in 1 million loci at the same time. While the truth is that evolution contains mutation redundancy and it’s a slow and happens normally in small steps and sometimes in bursts.

[♦ ficino ♦]

I'm not sure if 1 and 5 go together logically.

 

What I mean by this is that for example say I say the earth is the centre of the universe. This can't be truely falsified without using the theory of gravity. But because we have such a theory to explain the motion of heavenly bodies the theory can be falsified. Similarly ID can be falsified by the ToE.

 

Hi, Druid. Thanks for responding.

 

I don't see conflict between 1 and 5. Diehard ID types don't admit that data falsify ID, do they? Instead, they make up various ad hoc explanations to get any conceivable data to fit their claim. To the Darwinian, ID is falsified. The IDer can always content him/herself with trying to show that the data can be read consistently on ID assumptions, too. When that endeavor rests on further assumptions, postulates of additional entities, reinterpretation, etc. then it shows itself as bogus.

 

I also think you would want to phrase your point differently. I don't think one theory falsifies another theory. Instead, the ToE accounts for the data better than ID accounts for them.

[♦ ficino ♦]

There’s no common approved method that has been set up how to test or falsify the ID claims. The only thing they do is do the same experiments as other scientists, but then think of some explanation to circumvent the logical conclusion.

 

Almost like:

- I dropped the pen, measure the time, speed, impact etc

- It should prove gravity, but I don’t want it to

- So I invent the “Holy Ghost Attraction Magic” theory instead

 

Yes. On the old board I remember asking someone, I think it was Almost There but maybe I'm wrong, to state in advance under what conditions ID could be falsified. Never got an answer.

 

But they’re in conflict, because some still claim perfection in creation.

Their official standpoint is that it has nothing to do with Christianity or Theism, but rather loose definition of God. I guess it's supposed to be more of an Deist kind of creation.

 

Yes, I understand that some IDers are like this. It makes me wonder how "intelligent" the creator is, though. If we're going to admit lapses of intelligence in the intelligent creator, we're back to the unfalsifiability problem, because there is no accounting for lapses in intelligence. Any set of conditions can be claimed to be the creation of a creator with flawed intelligence. so the "hypothesis" again fails to meet the indispensible criterion of falsifiability that any good hypothesis must provide.

 

Behe’s Irreducible Complexity argument can be counter proved with the Avida software, as well as all the findings of several intermediate forms of the eye.

 

 

 

I still need to get more under my belt on the Irreducible Complexity counterclaims. Did you talk about Avida software on another thread, Han?

[Druid]

I also think you would want to phrase your point differently.  I don't think one theory falsifies another theory.  Instead, the ToE accounts for the data better than ID accounts for them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Good point, thanks.

[Ouroboros]

Yes.  On the old board I remember asking someone, I think it was Almost There but maybe I'm wrong, to state in advance under what conditions ID could be falsified.  Never got an answer.

I hear ya'! It's so frustrating, because I challenged creationists to explain certain aspects of DNA, mutations and traits in animals and humans, that have no explanation in the Bible, and they never take on the challenge.

 

My favorite is "why does men have nipples and milk glands", and so far, no Christian have responded, even though I've asked it 5-6 times on this site.

 

Yes, I understand that some IDers are like this.  It makes me wonder how "intelligent" the creator is, though.  If we're going to admit lapses of intelligence in the intelligent creator, we're back to the unfalsifiability problem, because there is no accounting for lapses in intelligence.  Any set of conditions can be claimed to be the creation of a creator with flawed intelligence.  so the "hypothesis" again fails to meet the indispensible criterion of falsifiability that any good hypothesis must provide.

Very true. Why claim Intelligent Design, when the Design is not Intelligent?

 

The DNA and biosphere is not perfect, far from it. We probably have about 50% excess codes in the DNA that is not used. And we have multiple (redudant) systems for breaking down glucose etc (IIRC). And we have a partial code and process to create C-vitamins, but not the complete code, so we can't create it, but we can get it from fruit, so we don't need it. But why would there be a function in us creating a partial C-vitamin that can't be used?

 

I still need to get more under my belt on the Irreducible Complexity counterclaims.  Did you talk about Avida software on another thread, Han?

In the Reason topic, I pointed to the Avida software a couple of times. My son is experimenting with it, and suddlenly these "critters" made "cities", or colonies to hide from the cataclysms that he sent on them.

 

When it comes to Irreducible Complexity it's basically someone saying "I don't understand".

 

Say if I go and see a Chess competition, and I didn't know the rules how to play. I would find the game rather strange and wouldn't be able to understand why a certain move was done or not. We can make computers that can outplay the most professional players, so the strategy is totally mathematical and can be reproduced into algorithms. But still seing the end game of chess would be an Irreducible Complex for the viewer since he doesn't understand the rules or where it started. But that doesn't mean it couldn't follow a pattern of fixed rules and formulas. Which evolution has.

 

Avida link:

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?show...indpost&p=46068

[Ouroboros]

The origin of life, abiogenesis, is thought to have started with self organizing compounds, and there has been some findings regarding that. And it’s interesting that Chaos Theory is making an impact here.

 

Check out this fractal engine:

http://www.lilavois.com/nick/fractals/

 

Looking at a fractal you think it's irreversible complex, and that it has to have a designer, while fractals follow very simple recursive formulas.

[Ouroboros]

Check out these articles at Infidels.org

 

http://www.google.com/custom?q=intelligent...ch=infidels.org

[crazy-tiger]

It’s a borderline hypothesis.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, it's borderline insanity.

My favorite is "why does men have nipples and milk glands", and so far, no Christian have responded, even though I've asked it 5-6 times on this site.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because it was a Friday afternoon and God was hurrying to finish the job for the weekend...

[Ouroboros]

No, it's borderline insanity.

 

And God is a fullblown Schizo, three personalities and counting...

 

Because it was a Friday afternoon and God was hurrying to finish the job for the weekend...

FINALLY!!! But...but...

 

He created Adam first with nipples, then Eve from the ribs...

 

Hmmm. Does it mean the explanation is that guys were supposed to give birth and breastfeed the babies, but Adam felt so lonely and God made Eve but forgot to remove the nipples? I guess that must be it...

 

God was in a hurry.

 

Imagine. It only took 1 frigging day to create a universe with stars etc, piece of cake. But it took a whole day to create Adam and Eve, and then not have the time to finish the job... Wow, God is more unorganized and scatterbrained than me!!!

[crazy-tiger]

He created Adam first with nipples, then Eve from the ribs...

No... he made them both at the same time...

 

Didn't he??

Hmmm. Does it mean the explanation is that guys were supposed to give birth and breastfeed the babies, but Adam felt so lonely and God made Eve but forgot to remove the nipples? I guess that must be it...

 

God was in a hurry.

 

Imagine. It only took 1 frigging day to create a universe with stars etc, piece of cake. But it took a whole day to create Adam and Eve, and then not have the time to finish the job... Wow, God is more unorganized and scatterbrained than me!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's it! That's the explaination...

 

 

God is blonde!

[Ouroboros]

No... he made them both at the same time...

 

Gen 2:22  And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

 

Didn't he??

That's it! That's the explaination...

God is blonde!

Yup.

[crazy-tiger]

Genesis1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

So, was it both together or one at a time?

 

 

Can we get a Christian in here to explain this to us?

[DaveL]

Has anyone ever seen a peer reviewed paper on ID? Is there a Journal of ID floating around out there?

 

Dembke and Behe's theories have not met acceptance with the broader scientifc community, and never will. All they managed to do was score a few minor hits. The rest is a crock, but the fundies are crowing about it endlessly.

[♦ ficino ♦]

My first ill-informed guess is that deep down, IDers don't expect or even care that the scientific community will accept ID as science. My guess is that their main goals are attention and money-making within the Chrisitian community, expansion of the number of Christians by giving ill-informed people enough justification to suspend disbelief, and increase of political power. They know Christians fork over lots of money for various ministry-related efforts and they know public schools are controlled by voters.

[Ouroboros]

So, was it both together or one at a time?

Can we get a Christian in here to explain this to us?

I guess... I'd like to see a Creationist prove that women are made out of a rib!

They like to tease us that we believe we come from the monkeys, but they believe women (only) come from the ribs!

 

 

Has anyone ever seen a peer reviewed paper on ID? Is there a Journal of ID floating around out there? 

They do write some peer review, but it always look like this:

Oh, you're so right, I was so blessed, glory, thank you Jeeeeebus, and everything you say is true, even with the flying pink elephants, and the ark taking on 1 million animals per square feet, it was a miracle, halleberrylujah!

And so on...

 

Dembke and Behe's theories have not met acceptance with the broader scientifc community, and never will.  All they managed to do was score a few minor hits.  The rest is a crock, but the fundies are crowing about it endlessly.

What irritates me is that their books and websites, and the facts, and the references they do are all OLD! Nothing is updated!

 

Scientists make new discoveries, and ID people still use arguments that even science left 5 years ago! 5 Years is a lifetime in science. But with ID, they reference a quote of some questionable personality from the 70's!

 

I could quote my grandma from '75, and say she said "it's bunk", and with that she meant that the whole ID was bunk. Yup. There you have it. ID style proofs. Now it's proven, my grandma said it '75, so it's proven.

 

 

My first ill-informed guess is that deep down, IDers don't expect or even care that the scientific community will accept ID as science.  My guess is that their main goals are attention and money-making within the Chrisitian community, expansion of the number of Christians by giving ill-informed people enough justification to suspend disbelief, and increase of political power.  They know Christians fork over lots of money for various ministry-related efforts and they know public schools are controlled by voters.

So very true. Their plan is not to create a new science, but to put roadblocks for the old one.

[Ouroboros]

Actually, females have the xx chromosome combination, while men have a variation on x, meaning they have xy chromosomes.  In my mind, which I admit is not terribly scientifically knowledgable at this point, the variant from the norm would indicate that the xy (men) would have come second after females.  Especialy since the females of the species retained the ability to create offspring, and men are the "helpers" in providing genetic material for said offspring- but not having the physical organs to grow a human life.  In that light, makes you wonder, who would have been created to be a "helper" to whom.  I'm all for equality of the sexes, but I'd love to throw this at a Christian when they are spouting off about women being created as helpers (ie: slaves) to men, in order to relegate women to a position of relative 2nd class citizenry and offspring making machine.

 

This is the reason why Evolution and Genetic theories make sense to explain things like this. And the Genesis story, Creationism and ID can not explain why there is two sexes, and yet the male gender have female attributes. The genetic code and visible evidence totally contradicts Genesis, and the only ones I get any answers from are my fellow apostates on this site, but still not any Christian!

 

I agree with your statement Madam, but I really would like to hear what a Christian would say to explain the phenomenon. Personally I'm sure that in the evolutionary tree, ones we were like androgyn or asexual frogs, and when it shifted to mammal rats, sometime, it developed to the two genders.

 

Where's Guacamole and Invictus to answer this now?

[Isak The Newt]

Where's Guacamole and Invictus to answer this now?

or TJR666

[♦ ficino ♦]

[Madame M @ Jul 17 2005, 09:55 AM]

Especialy since the females of the species retained the ability to create offspring, and men are the "helpers" in providing genetic material for said offspring- but not having the physical organs to grow a human life.  In that light, makes you wonder, who would have been created to be a "helper" to whom. 

 

Neat point, Madame M.

 

 

Philo, a Jewish Platonizing philosopher and commentator who lived in Alexandria in the 1st century (Rameus used to like to "quote" his silence about Christianity), already recognized the contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. The order of creation of various species is different between the two books. Philo said Genesis 1 gives the chronological order and Genesis 2, where humans are mentioned before animals, gives the order of priority in God's mind - i.e. the logical ordering of the blueprint, whose execution was already described in Genesis 1.

 

So people of this ilk could argue that the ideal type of the human being is male - Adam is created first in Genesis 2 and then the woman as a help suitable for him. That would mean female is an afterthought or even defective version of the ideal.

 

I've just finished Azar Nafisi's book, Reading Lolita in Teheran. She gives many examples of how the ayatollahs are very specific about the superiority of men. There is a verse quoted that says a woman's value is half that of a man. ETc. ad nauseam.

 

This is the kind of stuff that IDers are trying to find excuses for.

[Stormwarden]

I say we see "ID" for what it is: Creationism in a pseudo-scientific package. They hope that the new title might give them a veneer of legitimacy. I say we make sure that people are reminded that religion packaged in a scientific wrapper is still religion.

[Sokudo Ningyou]

So, was it both together or one at a time?

Can we get a Christian in here to explain this to us?

 

 

I guess... I'd like to see a Creationist prove that women are made out of a rib!

They like to tease us that we believe we come from the monkeys, but they believe women (only) come from the ribs!

 

 

Actually, females have the xx chromosome combination, while men have a variation on x, meaning they have xy chromosomes.  In my mind, which I admit is not terribly scientifically knowledgable at this point, the variant from the norm would indicate that the xy (men) would have come second after females.  Especialy since the females of the species retained the ability to create offspring, and men are the "helpers" in providing genetic material for said offspring- but not having the physical organs to grow a human life.  In that light, makes you wonder, who would have been created to be a "helper" to whom.  I'm all for equality of the sexes, but I'd love to throw this at a Christian when they are spouting off about women being created as helpers (ie: slaves) to men, in order to relegate women to a position of relative 2nd class citizenry and offspring making machine.

 

Ah, I remember this one. I mentioned in an older thread that Jewish Apocrypha actually claims two wives previous to Eve; Lilith, and an unnamed woman whom God uncreated. Lilith was created equal to Adam, stuck back to back with him, and God passed His/Her/Its hand between them to separate them. A White Wolf book claims she got pissed at him for wanting her to be on the bottom during sex, so off she went. ("Book of Lilith." Completely batshit, but references the Jewish myth.) So God then began to create a second wife, whom Adam saw as a sack of skin full of organs and squish, and was so horrified he didn't name her; thus, she was uncreated. Then God put Adam to sleep to remove the rib, knowing that if he were awake and watching a third creation, he might be just as terrified. So we also have justification for his nap.

 

Also, from what I remember of science class, the fetus is technically always female until very late into the pregnancy, when they finally grow their sexual organs. So females may be inferior to Christians, but even the biggest anti-feminist bastard was born a woman.

[Penny1]

Oooo, ooo! I know something! Over here!

 

The earliest, most primitive life-forms are classified by science as "female", and rightly so. Almost all cells, including ones in our bodies (diploid, anyway) reproduce by cell division, or "cloning", if you will. (It doesn't make as much sense to ban cloning now, does it? )

 

Late on, multi-cellular organisms reproduced by "budding". Plants and trees still do this. Certain animals can also regrow limbs by a similar process. An entire copy of the original was generated from the "bud", which eventually separated from the parent plant.

 

Plants and animals evolved from a common ancestor, each of which evolved sexual reproduction separately. Earliest plants reproduced by "sporing", which was similar to "budding", and only later did the first plants to possess sex, the gynosperms, evolve.

 

The first animal to reproduce sexually, as far as I recall, was the sponge. In fact, besides possessing hemoglobin, this is one of the reasons it was classified as an animal. (Yes, Spongebob really is a boy, lol.)

 

The sponge reproduces similarly to a plant: the "pollen" from the male gets blown and unites with an egg from a female, fertilizing it.

 

It has been shown that the Y chromosome is similar to the X chromosome in certain ways, but contains less genetic information. There is ample evidence that the Y chromosome is a mutated X chromosome. All that is needed for the production of a full male or female human being is all contained on the X chromosome. The Y chromosome only affects expression. This has been proven due to the fact that a fetal injury can result in a male developing as a female, and vice-versa!

 

BTW, the reptiles and birds evolved a different sex system from our own. Their chromosomal origins were the same, but evolved differently. The female is the sex determiner in birds and reptiles, not the male. So, boy birds are genetically really girls, and the girl birds are really boys!

 

(BTW can anyone think of an organ that a woman possesses similar to the male penis? lol)

[Christopher Carrion]

What the argument between "Creationism" and scientific universal-development theory comes down is this: You either choose to accept that the Universe is evidently far vaster and more complex than our intellectual discourses up until relatively recently have allowed us to comprehend, or you choose to adhere to some story scratched out by Bronze-Age tribes-people whilst ignoring the vast, vast range of other "Creation" stories and myths from which it was derived and which exist prior or concurrently to it. Simple. As. That.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Christopher, Doesn't "Intelligent Design" try to avoid quoting the Bible and just focuses on updated versions of the cosmological argument?