Defining Intelligent Design
by MikeGeneI am truly and seriously curious about how other people define "˜Intelligent Design,' since it appears there are as many definitions as there are people who argue about the subject. So I would like to request that folks from both sides of the aisle provide their own definitions of Intelligent Design. There doesn't have to be a correct answer, as people can simply provide their own definitions. Furthermore, I am not trying to start an argument or lay any trap. I'm just interested in surveying public perception.
So, how do you define Intelligent Design?
May 3rd, 2008 at 9:29 am
The claim that life on Earth is the product, at least in part, of intelligent, purposeful action, and thet further claim that there is scientific evidence to support that claim.
The latter part differentiates it from theistic evolution. Under this definition Denton's hypothesis is not ID, but this is what I mean when I use the term.
Comment by The Pixie — May 3, 2008 @ 9:29 am
May 3rd, 2008 at 10:34 am
Intelligent Design means that the superior design of life is beyond current human technology. One thing that makes ID perfectly clear is the fact that life has the most advanced programming on the planet :idea:.
Comment by nobody — May 3, 2008 @ 10:34 am
May 3rd, 2008 at 11:21 am
Uncommon Descent (William Dembski's blog) holds that…
Apparently, Uncommon Descent holds ID as counter to some conception of "materialism ideology." They claim ID is a "scientific alternative." And they do purport to having empirical support.
Comment by Zachriel — May 3, 2008 @ 11:21 am
May 3rd, 2008 at 11:22 am
Comment by olegt — May 3, 2008 @ 11:22 am
May 3rd, 2008 at 11:23 am
ID as a discipline of investigation is "the study of patterns that signify intelligence"
ID as a theory is "the hypothesis that certain things in universe are intelligently designed"
ID in the most formal sense is the 4th law of thermodynamics
ID in culture is "The Bridge Between Science and Theology" and "The Wedge of Truth"
ID in Tipler and Barrow's view is the Anthropic Cosmological Principle derived strictly from Shrodinger's Equation and other theories of physics.
ID in Barbara Forrests view is "Creationism's Trojan Horse"
ID is many things to many people. It seems to some that ID is cute little bunny. That's probably my favorite definition of ID.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 3, 2008 @ 11:23 am
May 3rd, 2008 at 11:34 am
The Discovery Institute says-
"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
So far though they haven't been able to give any real examples that demonstrate this that stand up to any kind of scrutiny.
Comment by AaronSTL — May 3, 2008 @ 11:34 am
May 3rd, 2008 at 11:42 am
And again, AaronSTL misses the point.
LOL. What do you consider a real example? What do you consider 'any kind' of scrutiny?
Comment by Doug — May 3, 2008 @ 11:42 am
May 3rd, 2008 at 11:46 am
Intelligent design in the theory that life's evolution is not merely explained by chance and necessity, but must also involve a third category that permits self recognition.
Comment by Stephen — May 3, 2008 @ 11:46 am
May 3rd, 2008 at 11:46 am
LOL. Wouldn't that be up to ID advocates to provide?
Scientific.
Comment by Zachriel — May 3, 2008 @ 11:46 am
May 3rd, 2008 at 11:51 am
Are you saying no evidence has been provided?
Of course, you are the one who thinks the hierarchal response of RecA and LexA are the product of unguided processes. Despite the fact that initially it was the response that was believed to be unguided.
For you, Zach, no evidence would ever count.
Zach, why don't you drag out that definition of science you repost every once and awhile.
You are so wedded to your beliefs that you will continuously fail to see that your definition of science and your belief it entails no metaphysical assumptions is very flawed.
Comment by Doug — May 3, 2008 @ 11:51 am
May 3rd, 2008 at 11:57 am
No evidence that stands up to scientific scrutiny.
You provided no evidence of 'guidance'. Just a claim based on your personal incredulity.
If you can't make specific and distinguishing empirical predictions that are entailed in the hypothesis (at some time in the process), then it isn't science.
Science is as science does.
How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg?
Comment by Zachriel — May 3, 2008 @ 11:57 am
May 3rd, 2008 at 12:11 pm
In order for a personal incredulity charge to stick there must be a credulous demonstration of how something occurred. Often critics mistake explanatory sufficiency for what are actually open ended possibilities.
Comment by Bradford — May 3, 2008 @ 12:11 pm
May 3rd, 2008 at 12:17 pm
That is incorrect. We can be entirely ignorant of the history involved. Doug's argument would still be that he can't imagine how it could have evolved, it's so 'hierarchical,' therefore it was designed.
(But, if it evolved, we can predict LexA will form a tree of family relationships.
Comment by Zachriel — May 3, 2008 @ 12:17 pm
May 3rd, 2008 at 12:25 pm
That's the crux of the problem. You can't predict how the prerequisite mechanisms enabling an evolutionary process would form. You then turn to Doug and point out his personal unbelief of an unpredictable phenomenon.
Comment by Bradford — May 3, 2008 @ 12:25 pm
May 3rd, 2008 at 12:38 pm
That's like saying we don't know how the universe formed, so we can't predict the movements of planets, therefore the orbits were designed.
Quite the contrary, LexA does form the predicted tree of family relationships.
Comment by Zachriel — May 3, 2008 @ 12:38 pm
May 3rd, 2008 at 12:46 pm
At the core of considerations of what is ID lies a perceptual matter. When one observes the link between polymer sequencing and biological function does he or she perceive a symbolic concept in evidence or the concept of reaction products induced by indifferent forces of Nature?
Comment by Bradford — May 3, 2008 @ 12:46 pm
May 3rd, 2008 at 12:50 pm
No. It's like noting that what remains intractable may yield to better explanations. No need to reinvent the wheel.
Comment by Bradford — May 3, 2008 @ 12:50 pm
May 3rd, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Hi Salvador,
You write:
It would seem that this is the ONLY obvious point about the term 'intelligent design.' And this is NOT a good thing.
Comment by MikeGene — May 3, 2008 @ 1:22 pm
May 3rd, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Olegt provides two definitions.
From the Discovery Institute: "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
This does not sound like a theory to me. What's more, why the need for the dig at natural selection?
Then we get an observation from the leading figure among creationists:
It looks to me like Morris's analysis is spot on and simply fills in the details missing from the DI definition. Can someone explain how and why Morris is wrong?
Comment by MikeGene — May 3, 2008 @ 1:28 pm
May 3rd, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Intelligent Design is a "nascent proto-science"
Do I pass the test, MikeGene?
Comment by kornbelt888 — May 3, 2008 @ 1:48 pm
May 3rd, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Morris is right with respect to parallels in argumentation. There is a need to point out something though. Arguments for creation can be logically consistent and supported by physical evidence when the emphasis is on physical creation processes. When the arguments become philosophical and slanted toward the existence of a deity then we have a category distinction.
Comment by Bradford — May 3, 2008 @ 1:50 pm
May 3rd, 2008 at 1:51 pm
That's why you should abandon it, come up with another term, trademark it, and tightly control how the term is used.
Comment by kornbelt888 — May 3, 2008 @ 1:51 pm
May 3rd, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Hi nobody,
I would agree. But are we sure "ID" is about advanced programming? While I lay my hypothesis on the table (evolution itself is both programmed and programming), what does the ID movement propose? That is, what was programmed?
The whole ID movement is built around two main arguments: 1) IC means something can not have come into existence through evolution and 2) CSI means something can not have come into existence through evolution. Both arguments would seem to contradict my position.
Comment by MikeGene — May 3, 2008 @ 1:54 pm
May 3rd, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Hi Mike,
Salvador says:
You respond:
You've been looking at this topic for years. What is your definition of ID?
Comment by nobody — May 3, 2008 @ 1:58 pm
May 3rd, 2008 at 2:16 pm
1. I don't speak for the ID movement. I'm only pointing out the obvious, which seems to upset some evolutionists. If the ID movement is not talking about the programming of life, they should be.
2. We can't answer your question at this time. The programming of life is beyond our current ability to fully understand. The Human Genome Project only scratched the surface. It showed us how much we don't know. At least you're willing to tackle the subject. That proves your curiosity has not been crushed by academia. You certainly have proposed a fascinating hypothesis.
Comment by nobody — May 3, 2008 @ 2:16 pm
May 3rd, 2008 at 2:28 pm
My distinct impression, from reading over the years, is that you are essentially proposing the idea of moving ID back to the creation of life (possibly with three initial life forms) and then letting evolution run its course using those pre-progammed designs.
Comment by nobody — May 3, 2008 @ 2:28 pm
May 3rd, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Morris: "[ID] is not really a new approach, using basically the same evidence and arguments used for years by scientific creationists but made to appear more sophisticated with complex nomenclature and argumentation."
MikeGene: "Can someone explain how and why Morris is wrong?"
A "theological evolutionist" myself, I was not familiar with the arguments and evidence used by creationists until recently. I became acquainted with them by following ID. So I agree with Morris that there is clearly some overlap, although it seems to me that ID adds more than just "sophisticated nomenclature and argumentation."
But the central argument of "creationism" is not used at all by ID–namely the proposition that the creation narrative of Genesis is historical (in the modern sense), and a scientifically accurate portrayal of how life came into being.
"Creationism" is first and foremost a prop for the 19/20th century view of the bible as "inerrant," while ID has nothing to do with an "inerrant" scripture.
Comment by Lutepisc — May 3, 2008 @ 2:38 pm
May 3rd, 2008 at 2:38 pm
ID is basically various claims of the form:
X is very complex therefore X was created by an intelligent mind.
The first problem with this line of reasoning is so far they have been unable to provide useful definitions of what they mean by "complex" and "intelligent."
The second problem with this line of reasoning is its effectively a universal negative, the claim that no other explanation could be possible. Such a claim will always be meaningless given our finite knowledge of the possibility space.
As science advances and fills in gaps in our knowledge the X simply changes. First it was the eye, then the flagellum, then the code-of-life. Who knows what it will be next.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — May 3, 2008 @ 2:38 pm
May 3rd, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Hi nobody,
I defined it for scifi's audio book "“ something along the lines of an arrangement of parts that reflect understanding. My book essentially gives a 300 page definition, culminating in the Design Matrix "“ analogy (with things known to be designed), discontinuity (with non-teleological phenomena), rationality and foresight (attributes of intelligent agents). For the ID movement, the "intelligent" component of intelligent design mostly means "not natural selection." For me, it means the fingerprints on an intelligent agent.
I don't mind the term "intelligent design" at all, because I have tried to think about it objectively and in good faith. But most people don't define it as I have been defining it for years. And this is a very real problem.
Comment by MikeGene — May 3, 2008 @ 2:54 pm
May 3rd, 2008 at 2:59 pm
How I define it? This may be a little bit of wishful thinking on my part, but here goes.
"Intelligent design is a highly theoretical area of scientific investigation devoted to exploring the possibilities of purposeful, agent-initiated design within the context of natural science disciplines."
In other words, in my ideal world ID is almost a hybrid between speculative physics and engineering. Approaching our understanding of the natural world where processes, events, and things aren't viewed as simple aspects of history, but as tools. 'What could an agent do, given certain capabilities? And what can we as known agents do with the capabilities we have now? What can we expect to gain in the future?'
Comment by nullasalus — May 3, 2008 @ 2:59 pm
May 3rd, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Hi nobody,
Yes, that is close. My focus then is on "running its course" and the degree with which the originally designed state influences and channels evolution. It's called front-loading evolution. But if an ID person wants to argue that various features of organisms (feathers, eyes, hands) could not have evolved, we have a fundamental difference.
Comment by MikeGene — May 3, 2008 @ 3:00 pm
May 3rd, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Hi Mike,
Regarding body appendages and other features (like eyes, hands, etc), you don't think these functional components could have been front-loaded either? I presumed your take on evolution is that it uses the building blocks given to it and that evolution is (to a certain degree) geared towards expressing the complexity contained within.
Comment by Jean — May 3, 2008 @ 3:14 pm
May 3rd, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Hey Mike
What if someone was to say that a given feature was unlikely to evolve without frontloaded input? Would that be acceptable in your view?
It seems to me that your frontloading is a positive argument and things like Behe's edge and IC are negative arguments. These arguments don't conflict in my view In fact I would venture to guess that Behe would agree that frontloading is a way to get around the problems he brings up.
As for me I don't think I would have given frontloading a second look if I didn't take IC seriously.
Peace
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — May 3, 2008 @ 3:17 pm
May 3rd, 2008 at 3:22 pm
MikeGene,
I've had people (ID proponents) tell me that evolution is absolutely predicated on 'nothing could evolve by design' - to the point where, if natural history followed the most orthodox path described by the most mainstream evolutionary biologist, yet it followed that path via front loading by a powerful intelligence, then evolution did not occur. It was design. They can accept every mechanism and process in such a case, but they are utterly convinced that evolution (especially 'darwinism') explicitly excludes design outright.
I honestly think that for many, it's not the process or the concept they reject. It's the word itself.
Comment by nullasalus — May 3, 2008 @ 3:22 pm
May 3rd, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Thanks Mike,
I've never heard your definition. I completely agree. It should be obvious to any open-minded person who looks at the evidence.
Comment by nobody — May 3, 2008 @ 3:31 pm
May 3rd, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Hi jean,
.I think it plausible to argue that such features were front-loaded. In fact, I briefly discuss eye evolution in my book.
Comment by MikeGene — May 3, 2008 @ 3:43 pm
May 3rd, 2008 at 3:46 pm
To me ID is a framework which presupposes that all the components of life forms perform some role that is necessary for the overall functioning of the organ system it is part of, but not necessarily for the organism itself, in some respects (redundant parts). ID assumes that there is no such thing as "junk" components. ID should be agnostic theologically. Edit: in the case of bacteria, it would be the same idea but scaled down exclusively to the cellular level, with the appropriately amended terminology.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — May 3, 2008 @ 3:46 pm
May 3rd, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Hi fifth,
I have never been sympathetic to "unlikely to evolve" arguments, so it is difficult to say. I don't propose front-loading as a vehicle to surmount obstacles, but as a means to channel and guide. I would say that front-loading is more about making certain features more likely to appear than in trying to make something appear that could not have appeared without it.
My book discusses the multi-faceted relationship between front-loading and IC. Cooption is the only viable phenomenon that does defeat IC, but cooption is also the logical output of front-loading.
And rather than down-play natural selection and its abilities, front-loading props it up and gives it some direction, as I explain when discussing life being endowed with artificial selectors. Built into life is a seeing-eye dog for the blind watchmaker. Etc.
Comment by MikeGene — May 3, 2008 @ 3:55 pm
May 3rd, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Lutepisc wrote:
Here is Henry Morris on the subject:
Now tell me how this approach is different from ID (the DI flavor).
Comment by olegt — May 3, 2008 @ 5:13 pm
May 3rd, 2008 at 5:36 pm
At last a reason to buy the book.
I thought it was only about bunnies and subjective hunches. It's officially on my must read list now.
olget
Creationism starts with the presupposition of biblical creationism and works to make the evidence fit. It assumes that the evidence must fit it's interpretation of the biblical account . That's why when ID says it has no problem with an old earth or common decent creationism balks.
This approach is similar to Darwinism not ID. Darwinism begins with the presupposition that evolution can be explained by appealing to natural causes. In fact it defines science in such a way that only natural causes are allowed.
ID on the other hand claims to look at the evidence with no biases at all and hold no explanation to be out of bounds and find the fingerprints of design.
Whether they accomplish what they claim so far depends on who you ask.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — May 3, 2008 @ 5:36 pm
May 3rd, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Agreed. But I personally can live with it….
Jokes aside, I prefer to regard ID as a discipline of investigating patterns that signifiy intelligence. Thus, Dembski's definition "ID is the study of patterns that signify intelligence" seems to be the best. He defines ID more as a discipline, a body of ideas, rather than a specific theory.
Words and phrases have several meanings. I can say "mount rush more is the product of ID". This certainly does not fit into Bill Dembski's definition because formally speaking if we used Bill's definition we'd be saying:
And that's a bit nonsensical….
So we have a definition of ID as a discipline of investigation and lots of colloquial and appropriate usages of the term ID. I once wrote a talk and I pointed out one needs to understand the context the phrase is being used. I could say the "sky is blue". It is a correct statement. But that is not a definition of what the sky is.
In like manner I could say, "ID is the bridge between science and theology" or "intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory". It may be a true statement, but it is not a definition.
In sum, I like Bill describing ID as a discipline.
An interesting exercise: what would a mathematician or math undergrad say mathematics is? The reason I point this out is that I'm not too quick to think all the many notions of what ID is is any different than issues with other concepts.
I'm uncomfortable labeling ID as one monolithic theory.
To quote Bill Clinton, "it depends on what the meanin of "is" is"….
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 3, 2008 @ 8:29 pm
May 3rd, 2008 at 9:23 pm
fifth monarchy man wrote:
Before you write your next response, please read Morris's article. Morris again:
Comment by olegt — May 3, 2008 @ 9:23 pm
May 3rd, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Intelligent Design - the study of non-material causation
Comment by johnnyb — May 3, 2008 @ 9:37 pm
May 3rd, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Biological ID is a result of the trivially obvious observation that complex, tightly functionally integrated information-processing machinery cannot be produced by chance and necessity, and that the only known source of such machinery is design.
Cosmological ID is a result of the observation that the universe was apparently rigged from the outset for a long series of superbly orchestrated events and properties that would permit life. This is the prima-facie evidence. Attempts to deny this require resorting to blind faith in an infinitude of in-principle undetectable universes.
Based on what we know from modern science and mathematics, design should be the default position, to be refuted with evidence that chance and necessity can account for it all.
Comment by GilDodgen — May 3, 2008 @ 9:41 pm
May 3rd, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Salvador:
I like this. Understanding the significance of patterns lies at the heart of understanding how information is stored, transcribed and translated. It enables understanding of gene regulation and expression. It also reveals similarities and differences between different organisms. There is much to recommend this approach.
Comment by Bradford — May 3, 2008 @ 10:03 pm
May 3rd, 2008 at 10:10 pm
olegt
You need to read something written after 1986. I scanned the article.
You can rest assured that I am familiar with Creationism almost all my friends hold to it. I was weaned on it. I hear it from the pulpit. My kid hears it taught in Sunday school. And just because Creationists like Morris think that a case for creation can be made with out appealing to the Bible does not mean that he will accept evidence that does not agree with what he thinks the Bible says. He sounds like he would accept ID in the article because at the time he had not heard of ID.
From here: http://www.answersingenesis.or...
Quote:
end quote:
nuff said
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — May 3, 2008 @ 10:10 pm
May 3rd, 2008 at 10:23 pm
fifth monarchy man wrote:
Morris later heard of ID. He didn't like it. In fact, he complained that Dembski and friends did not invent anything new but instead had liberally borrowed from creationists.
Comment by olegt — May 3, 2008 @ 10:23 pm
May 3rd, 2008 at 10:30 pm
We can agree that Dembski borrowed a lot from creationists but that does not make him one now does it.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — May 3, 2008 @ 10:30 pm
May 3rd, 2008 at 10:34 pm
The problem with your definition is that by calling it "trivially obvious", one avoids providing scientific justification for the claim"”which is then merely assumed. It's "trivially obvious" that matter is solid and that the Earth is stationary. Many scientific claims are contrary to common experience.
Comment by Zachriel — May 3, 2008 @ 10:34 pm
May 3rd, 2008 at 10:39 pm
fifth monarchy man,
That raises the question: what exactly is the difference between Dembski's ID and scientific creationism? Dembski's specified complexity is Morris's organized complexity under a different name. Dembski's UPB, 10 to the power 150, is a rehashing of Morris's number, 10 to the power 110. (Dembski comments on these similarities here.) And both, Dembski and Morris, stress that their sciences are not based on Genesis.
Again, what's the difference?
Comment by olegt — May 3, 2008 @ 10:39 pm
May 3rd, 2008 at 10:45 pm
ID is the scientific study/analysis of patterns/structures in nature that have no causal anticedent in the mindless material world and can only be explained as the result of intelligent causation.
Comment by William Brookfield — May 3, 2008 @ 10:45 pm
May 3rd, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Oh, William, glad to see you here! How's your scientific program progressing?
Comment by olegt — May 3, 2008 @ 10:51 pm
May 3rd, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Quite well thankyou Olegt. How is yours progressing?
Comment by William Brookfield — May 3, 2008 @ 10:55 pm
May 3rd, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Thanks, William, I'm squeaking by.
Details are available on the web, in case you're interested.
Comment by olegt — May 3, 2008 @ 11:07 pm
May 3rd, 2008 at 11:34 pm
Hi Salvador,
Yes, I've been pointing out there is no ID theory for years and I can agree that ID is the study of patterns that signify intelligence. So what are the patterns?
Comment by MikeGene — May 3, 2008 @ 11:34 pm
May 4th, 2008 at 2:35 am
MikeGene,
Patterns in what context? In the development of a specific, rather static 'thing' like a bacterial flagellum? Or something more perpetual and changing, like a city or nation? A situation, like 'profit at a casino'?
To me it sounds like a '1000 ways to skin a cat' issue. Or at least that's how I see it, since I'm in the 'I'm not convinced anything is not designed, especially in big-D designer terms' school of thought, no matter how small or large.
But I suppose one fundamental pattern of design would be.. stability. Reliability. The one thing you absolutely need in order to design anything is a system where certain situations can be relied on to remain for as long as necessary to achieve what you want.
Let's say we were programmers at a grand scale. We code up a universe. We want to design something. First and foremost, we need laws - ones not only conducive to our goals, but ones which will stay that way for as long as they need to be. Physical laws would be the context within which we are allowed to design, something that must be in place and predictable (by us, at least) even to front load.
So, there's one pattern, one thing all designers must deal with. I'd go on, but I'll let another ID-type respond to see if I sound on the right track here. After all, I'm more of a TE, much as I'm interested.
Comment by nullasalus — May 4, 2008 @ 2:35 am
May 4th, 2008 at 8:30 am
Well I guess the jig is up we've been found out. Your right despite all the public distancing ID really is just scientific creationism in a cheep tuxedo.
In fact Denton Behe Dembski and even Mike Gene are really just fundamentalist secret agents out to destroy science education and replace it with a Seventh Day Adventist inspired Bible study.
When AIG says that ID is counter productive and fatally flawed because it does not start with Genesis what it really means is "it's exactly the same as us"
We can finally stop all the pretending.
The world is a lot simpler when we can ignore all the differences and lump all our enemies into the same basket isn't it.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — May 4, 2008 @ 8:30 am
May 4th, 2008 at 9:13 am
Olegt, thank you for looking into Morris' distinction between "scientific creationism" and "biblical creationism." That was new to me. I'm certainly willing to be educated about this, but I wonder how pervasive it is. Is anyone in the creationist camp besides Morris making this distinction?
Even Morris remains a bit confused about his distinction, it seems. He writes
Is he speaking here as a "scientific creationist?" If so, then why is it "unfortunate" that "many Christians"¦have resorted to various forms of non-literal interpretation?" It looks like "scientific creationism" has a position as to how Genesis should be interpreted. But wouldn't that make it "biblical creationism?"
He goes on to say that "Biblical creationism, on the other hand (including its teaching of literal recent creation) should be taught in Bible-believing churches." Again, is it not possible to be a bible-believing church and yet not believe in a literal, recent creation? Evidently Morris is speaking as a "biblical creationist" at this point, with only a minimal awareness that "biblical creationism" is not a majority position of U.S. Christendom. But even if we see him speaking here as a "biblical creationist," just two or three sentences earlier he told us that "scientific creationism is compatible with Biblical creationism."
So I suppose it doesn't really matter which hat he's wearing when he makes various statements. Even though he proposes a distinction, he does not maintain it. His bottom line is that "scientific creationism" is fully supportive of "biblical creationism," so the two are indistinguishable in the final analysis.
I must have spent three or four minutes lingering over his last sentence. It reads:
Whatever that means, it's clear that any distinction between "biblical creationism" and "scientific creationism" fades so far into the background in Morris' mind as to be irrelevant.
You asked, "Now tell me how this approach is different from ID (the DI flavor)." I take your point, I think. Nevertheless, I don't believe that the DI has taken any sort of position on "biblical creationism," while it appears to be absolutely central to the position Morris stakes out.
Comment by Lutepisc — May 4, 2008 @ 9:13 am
May 4th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Lutepisc wrote:
But the same can be said about Dembski. Here's a quote from his 1999 article in Touchstone (the article is not available online, but the quote has been discussed all over the web):
fifth monarchy man wrote:
Right on, ffm. ID of Discovery Institute has nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity. Dembski's logos quote is but a pedagogical device to explain his IDeas to fellow Christians. And the Wedge Document is a clever marketing ploy to extract money for ID research. Thanks for opening my eyes.
Comment by olegt — May 4, 2008 @ 9:46 am
May 4th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Do you even know what logos theology is? It's not about biblical inerrancy or a certain reading of Genesis. In fact Philosophers were using the term Logos to describe information in the cosmos long before John did it. Does the mere mention of scripture make some one suspect in your book?
Are you also appalled when Kenneth miller says "evolution is the key to understanding God."
Maybe the TErs are in cahoots with the Creationists as well
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — May 4, 2008 @ 11:01 am
May 4th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Olegt, I think fmm has it right on this one. While "scientific/biblical creationism" is bent on shoring up a literal understanding of Genesis, Dembski's remark about the Johannine Logos theology is hardly aimed at supporting a literal interpretation of John 1:1: "In the beginning was the Word."
(I suppose a literalist here might seek to flesh out an understanding of this verse by asking questions like, "Which word was it? How was it spelled? In what language?" Er"¦it just doesn't work.)
As fmm said (and surely you know), "Philosophers were using the term Logos to describe information in the cosmos long before John did it."
So I think my original point is still intact:
Comment by Lutepisc — May 4, 2008 @ 12:42 pm
May 4th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Dembski is free to say whatever he wants to his religious audiences. The question I asked was a bit different, though: how is his supposed science different from the previous arguments of Henry Morris et al.?
Comment by olegt — May 4, 2008 @ 1:02 pm
May 4th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Olegt, I think I've answered your question. If you don't think so, mebbe someone else can answer it for you. I would just be repeating what I've already said.
Comment by Lutepisc — May 4, 2008 @ 1:29 pm
May 4th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
ID is an investigation that begins with a guestion: Are we able to detect intelligent causes from just examining the properties of an object or phenomenon, without independent evidence of a designer? (Paraphrasing Dembski)
Comment by Bilbo — May 4, 2008 @ 4:10 pm
May 4th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
I actually thought long and hard about this question and couldn't come up with an answer. It turns out that ID without context doesn't mean anything to me– I just don't have any way to come up with something that I would call a definition.
To me, the term ID is completely context dependent. It always changes depending who you are talking to. I found quite often that when I use quotes about ID from folks that I think are authorities in the ID movement, they don't really speak for everybody. So, in order to have any kind of meaningful discussion, one has to tease out what ID means to every individual one talks to.
Comment by hrun — May 4, 2008 @ 7:10 pm
May 4th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Religious agandas beside (if that's possible) ID is a conclusion based on the specified complexity evident in even the most basic of living creatures.
Id theorists then differ in how to explain this, aliens, unmoved mover, Mike Gene (front loading evolution), right through to your Biblical creationists.
At the heart though IMO its a deduction based on the reality of specified complexity, a reality that natural selection + mutations + time, is simply incapable of generating.
Comment by willo — May 4, 2008 @ 7:30 pm
May 4th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
I kinda agree with hrun. ID is a lot like Oakland (according to Gertrude Stein).
It's too bad, because there is a promise unfulfilled. The design instrumentality that has always been a part of evolutionary thought (at least since Darwin) and even more so today, could be turned to effect by IDers.
A kind of generalized hostility to science by IDers (see the "Uncommon Descent" blog, e.g.) reduces ID to complaints about how unfair it is to exclude them.
Science ain't fair. It's results.
Comment by Rock — May 4, 2008 @ 7:42 pm
May 4th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
That's the way it has always been. And that's because there is no ID theory. It's much like the believers in abiogenesis. How did the Earth spawn life? Is this belief strongly supported by the evidence? Are we making scientific progress in this area? The answers depend on who you ask, with the only universal theme being a belief that it happened.
Of course, this all makes the reliance on stereotype about IDers all the more irrational.
Comment by MikeGene — May 4, 2008 @ 8:13 pm
May 4th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Rock said:
Spot on therefore lets keep the science school classroom and comments by Dawkins etc based purely on results, and leave darwinian postualtions and ID to the philosophers.
Comment by willo — May 4, 2008 @ 8:15 pm
May 4th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Mike Gene:
That's an apt analogy. I don't understand why more discussions are not focused on life's origins. ID opponents for the most part tout mutations, selection and an evolutionary process that is blind rather than front loaded while taking the position that abiogenesis is the default position. If evolution were front loaded the "loading" would likely occur at the outset when life first began would it not? So if protecting turf is not a priority it makes sense to me to subject opposing ideas to scrutiny within a time frame that has no dominant theory.
Comment by Bradford — May 4, 2008 @ 8:33 pm
May 4th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
The list I have so far:
1. patterns of convergence from different lines of "phylogeny".
2. turing machines
3. patterns across species (Dembski's steganography, Denton's hierarchical ordering)
4. things with strong engineering analogs — computer languages, feed back control mechanisms, error correction, etc. etc.
People will argue that convergence is the result of natural selection. Gambler's Ruin is Darwin's Ruin shows some of the reasons that claims that "natural selection can create convergence" should be viewed with deep suspicion.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 4, 2008 @ 8:59 pm
May 4th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Quite simply, because we have very little understanding about how it could have happened. But I also don't really know exactly why OOL has anything to do with ID. It seems that so many people think the study of the actual design events (like OOL) is completely outside of ID.
Comment by hrun — May 4, 2008 @ 9:04 pm
May 4th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
By the way Mike,
Patterns of deeply conserved, long stretches of DNA accross mammalian species are inconsistent with stochastic processes.
Because of the population genetic considerations such as those identified in Gambler's Ruin is Darwin's Ruin, these deeply conserved, long streteches of DNA could not be the product of selection either.
Thus these stretches would tentatively pass the Explanatory Filter. Whether an intelligence put them there is another story, however, formally speaking it would tentatively qualify as a Design. Bill suggests these designs would likely be rich for steganography analysis — they exist to help the enterprise of scientific research.
I can attest that some of the protein researchers who were members of our IDEA club used the phenomenon of deeply conserved regions to identify active sites in proteins and elucidate the physics of protein structure….
I think this could be a fruitful area of reasearch….
Sal
PS
I'm slowly getting through your book….
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 4, 2008 @ 9:09 pm
May 4th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Gee, I guess Natural Selection works, after all. Thanks Sal!
Hmm. Scordova's graph seems bugged.
Comment by Zachriel — May 4, 2008 @ 9:16 pm
May 4th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
hrun:
Greater focus is sensible precisely because past approaches have yielded very little understanding. I don't understand how anyone would think that a process resulting in a replicating cell would not be relevant to theories seeking to understand the nature of life. I for one am intensely curious as to what types of proteins and nucleic acids would be necessary components of a minimally functional cell. What enzymes are absolutely critical to basic functions and what would generate the unique sequential arrangement of nucleotides or amino acids linked to such functions? If design exists and it did not exist at this level where would it exist?
That strikes me as completely bizarre.
Comment by Bradford — May 4, 2008 @ 9:24 pm
May 4th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Yes, those clever IDEA club members used conserved regions to identify active sites. By God, ID research actually fosters fruitful research. Oh, wait, is was evolutionary biologists who argued that conserved regions in both proteins and DNA are most likely key functional regions and have studied an discussed these for over 35 years.
But you are certainly right… this is a fruitful area of research.
Comment by hrun — May 4, 2008 @ 9:26 pm
May 4th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
And OLL researchers are studying just that.
Me too! But everytime I inquire about the actual design event I'm either told that this is just not all that interesting (e.g. Mike Gene) or that ID just identfies design but not the actual design event (some UD/ARN folks).
Comment by hrun — May 4, 2008 @ 9:29 pm
May 4th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Have you given much thought to what would be the nature of an event(s) leading to an initial coding and replicating genome?
Comment by Bradford — May 4, 2008 @ 9:41 pm
May 4th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
hrun said:
Sorry to butt in but how is it possible to identify the design event?? Time machines aside that's not possible or am I missing something here.
Comment by willo — May 4, 2008 @ 9:46 pm
May 4th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Hi hrun,
It's not interesting only because we must deal with things in their appropriate order. The actual design event occurred billions of years in the past and would not constitute a regularity. As such, it must be detected indirectly and incrementally, working back in time without being misled by false positives.
Try imagining that life was indeed designed. If life was designed, it would probably be the most difficult event to analyze/detect. Thus, it's better to start with low-hanging fruit and develop gathering experience before jumping for things higher.
Comment by MikeGene — May 4, 2008 @ 9:49 pm
May 4th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Yeah. Odd. And yet, pretty much whenever archaeologists find artifacts, they not only detect design, but actually talk about who designed the artifact and theorize how it was designed. All without a time machine.
Comment by hrun — May 4, 2008 @ 9:57 pm
May 4th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
I knew that you had some rationalization for your approach. I was not claiming that it was wrong, merely that it is surprising to me that most exclude it from current "ID research".
Actually, I would guess that 'design events' would be the easiest ones to detect.
Comment by hrun — May 4, 2008 @ 9:59 pm
May 4th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Archeologists have the advantage of not just indisputable evidence of design but indisputable evidence of natural events leading to observed outcomes like volcanic eruptions for example. We have the advantage of neither with respect to life's origin. So what would the fingerprints of the diffferent causal pathways look like. To think a design event(s) would be easy or difficult to detect one would have to have some concept of what evidence should look like.
Comment by Bradford — May 4, 2008 @ 10:21 pm
May 4th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
hrun said:
Ok but if such an aritfact was discovered on Mars, surely a conclusion would be reached about its design despite complete ignorance as to who designed the artifact and how it may have been designed.
Further, once agreed that its designed then the search would begin on how and who. In fact the same goes for archeology! It seems to me you are placing a burden on ID that is not placed on other design detection.
Comment by willo — May 4, 2008 @ 10:42 pm
May 4th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Really? Or they would look at the artifact and see marks of tools, study the materials and then come at least to conclusions on how it was designed and what characteristics such designers must have had.
Is that true? Are there actual examples where archeologists have 'concluded' design before having an idea of how the object was created?
Comment by hrun — May 4, 2008 @ 10:57 pm
May 4th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
I don't know. You figure it out. I don't think there actually was such a design event. But I would look at how we would design and create life and go from there. So, I would start looking for some extremely advanced civilization that has the capabilities to create and seed life.
Comment by hrun — May 4, 2008 @ 11:00 pm
May 4th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
hrun said:
Consider the statues on Easter Island, walk up on that place for the first time and you would immediately recognise those statues as created by an intelligent being before knowing who or how.
In fact they still haven't the faintest idea who, but this gap in knowledge isn't stopping any sane person from making the conclusion that they were indeed intelligently designed.
Comment by willo — May 4, 2008 @ 11:19 pm
May 4th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
Hi hrun,
It's not a rationalization; it's rational thinking. To exclude something entails the notion that it can be included. But how so? Your suggestion is as follows: "So, I would start looking for some extremely advanced civilization that has the capabilities to create and seed life." The problem here is that I have no space ship with warp drive to explore the universe. I'm stuck on this planet without the means or ability to look for some extremely advanced civilization that has the capabilities to create and seed life. So I make do with what I have: a world of biological data and a lifetime's experience with human designers, more than enough to keep me busy. Come to think of it, I'm reminded of the fact the those taking the lead role in synthetic biology are beginning to think as I hypothesized life's designer to think.
Comment by MikeGene — May 4, 2008 @ 11:23 pm
May 4th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
I take it an extremely advanced civilization is needed to accomplish what undirected forces of Nature did.:wink:
Comment by Bradford — May 4, 2008 @ 11:25 pm
May 5th, 2008 at 8:11 am
I have no other plausible designer than other advanced civilizations. Hence, if I suspected there was a designer I would look for that. Others assume there is some invisible omnipotent being that did the designing. If I was one of those, I would probably look for such a being. I don't think there was a designer. I don't look for one.
And of course synthetic biology this the way humans would think when they want to design life. How else would they think?
I don't think that even the Atzteks (who were an advanced civilization) were able to seed earth with life a few billion years back, thus becoming the creators of their own ancestors. Thus, I assume it would have been some civilization capable of space travel. I know, I know… highly unlikely. BUt hey, that's one of the reasons why I don't believe there actually was a designer, but would rather spend my time exploring other options for how life came into being.
Comment by hrun — May 5, 2008 @ 8:11 am
May 5th, 2008 at 8:20 am
Oh, I don't know. They sorta look like Homo sapiens (a peculiar form of technological ape found on the same planet) and resemble other lithic monuments associated with that species. I suppose our initial impressions could be wrong. We might look for a quarry as evidence of manufacture.
Comment by Zachriel — May 5, 2008 @