Signs you might be an intelligent design critic
by KrauzeSigns you might be an intelligent design critic:
5. As a scientist you spend most of your free time warning the public that intelligent design is a threat to science and democracy. However, you sign all your posts as "scienz-d00d", because you are afraid that animal rights terrorists will discover that you're using chimpanzees in your research and firebomb your house.
4. You're astonished that many ID supporters fail to make a distinction between people and ideas, when they claim that evolution must be atheistic because of Richard Dawkins.
3. You're astonished that many ID supporters fail to see the connection between people and ideas, when they deny that intelligent design must be theistic because of Phillip Johnson.
2. Every weather forecast ends with, "… unless a butterfly flaps its wings in Brazil". No, wait a minute, that's from the list "Signs you might be a chaos theorist".
and the number one sign you might be an intelligent design critic…
1. Whatever topic you're discussing, you feel an inexlicaple urge to end every response with, "Besides, who designed the designed?"
May 16th, 2006 at 7:40 am
No. ID is not theistic because of Phillip Johnson, it is athiestic because Johnson, Dembski, etc say it is theistic and they further say that one of its primary goals is to insert theism into science.
The fact that the ID movement has this agenda shows that it is not a field of scientific study, but rather a religious-political movement. Whilst Dawkins might state that the Theory of Evolution "made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist", I rather doubt he ever claimed that the goal of the Theory of Evolution was atheism.
Talk about a rather badly constructed 'bait and switch' attempt!
Comment by Hrafn — May 16, 2006 @ 7:40 am
May 16th, 2006 at 7:45 am
Sorry, this should read "ID is not theistic because of Phillip Johnson, it is theistic because…"
Comment by Hrafn — May 16, 2006 @ 7:45 am
May 16th, 2006 at 8:40 am
Well, although I'm an ID-critic, I'm not a scientist but here goes…
ID is not considered a threat to science or democracy. Rather, it is a threat to science education and consitutional freedoms.
While cranks like Johnson, Behe & Dembski were content to write books about their ideas, the scientific community was happy to simply tolerate and ignore them. It was only when they attempted to insert their unsubstantiated and unscientific ideas into highschool science curricula that scientists started jumping up and down.
Comment by Hrafn — May 16, 2006 @ 8:40 am
May 16th, 2006 at 8:42 am
Geez, Krauze, you should at least get the harangue correct. It's "what designed the designers?".
Comment by Art — May 16, 2006 @ 8:42 am
May 16th, 2006 at 8:57 am
Don't forget this:
Comment by Analyysi — May 16, 2006 @ 8:57 am
May 16th, 2006 at 9:06 am
Analysi: What proportion of Science PhD graduates of American universities are actually Americans? While the majority of those foreign graduates used to stay on in American research institutions, they are increasingly returning home to work in institutions that are doing outsourced research. How long before the entire process moves offshore? This means that the US can no longer afford to rely on importing raw scientific brainpower and will have to start properly educating its own children in the sciences.
Comment by Hrafn — May 16, 2006 @ 9:06 am
May 16th, 2006 at 9:44 am
Hrafn:
I don't know… 50%?
Is intelligent design or intelligent design movement the cause of returning home?
"have to start properly educating its own children"… Terrible
… and ID (or ID-movement) is the reason that forces to start education?
Comment by Analyysi — May 16, 2006 @ 9:44 am
May 16th, 2006 at 10:22 am
It's a religious idea…except when it comes to people like Flew who came to the conclusion based on the evidence and still isn't a theist.
Or there are the many agnostics I know personally who agree with the basic conclusions.
Johnson and Dembski have never said it's theism…it's friendly to theism, no doubt, but surely NDE is more friendly to atheism. Therefore- NDE is atheistic, right? They have both said it's ultimately science and science first and foremost. Behe has said that has position is basically equivalent to theistic evolution.
Newton practiced science based on the idea that the universe was ordered by God in such a way to be studied. He wrote twice as much on religion (Christianity) as he did on science…we could easily conclude his ideas were religious, not scientific. They were based firmly in a theistic worldview, and would probably have never been possible if he had not been a theist (his goal was to discover God's ways by studying his creation). Thus- Newton, the greatest scientist of all time- religious fraud. No?
Finally- no doubt ideas such as ID are the death of science and education in the US. Masses will flock to other nations to get away from any such ideas, surely. I mean- heck…the inventor of the MRI (a vital tool in science and medicine) was invented by a young earth creationist, and look at what happened? Doctors fled. It's a little known event that took place back in the 70's- MDE, they called it, mass doctor exodus. Nationwide, doctors fled abroad to get away from such heinous ideas espoused by religious charlatans hell bent on destroying science and education! Pesky men and women who didn't adhere to the NDE paradigm.
Comment by HaroldJenkins — May 16, 2006 @ 10:22 am
May 16th, 2006 at 10:30 am
Yes they have…
Johnson:
Dembski:
Comment by Hrafn — May 16, 2006 @ 10:30 am
May 16th, 2006 at 10:47 am
Newton also had a strong interest in alchemy and astrology. Should we likewise accept those fields as science? Better simply say that Newton was at the dawn of the scientific age, when the boundaries between the natural and the supernatural were less well understood, and even less well maintained by proto-scientists.
The inventor was invented by a creationist, how odd!
I presume you are talking about Raymond Damadian? Although he built the world's first working MRI, Paul Lauterbur & Peter Mansfield also played a crucial role in the development of the technology, and it is their approach, not Damadian's, that form the basis for even those MRIs made by Damadian's company, FONAR.
Comment by Hrafn — May 16, 2006 @ 10:47 am
May 16th, 2006 at 11:26 am
Analyysi:
No, but it (and other forms of Creationism before it) is one of the contributing factors in why science education standards in America are so low, and thus why you are dependent on foreign science graduates.
Comment by Hrafn — May 16, 2006 @ 11:26 am
May 16th, 2006 at 11:37 am
Flew only considered ID in conjunction with some form of deism. His flirtation with both can at best be described as half-hearted and incoherent.
So you were able to half-convince one tired and confused old man? Big deal!
Comment by Hrafn — May 16, 2006 @ 11:37 am
May 16th, 2006 at 11:57 am
While I don't have an opinion about Dembski, Johnson and Behe are not cranks. They may be wrong but they are simply saying what they believe which is no different than the jumping up and down scientists. They both strike me as reasonably intelligent men with a healthy dose of humilty
and the sooner ID critics acknowlege this and stop jumping up and down, then a productive discussion can proceed. I have heard Johnson say on many occassions that ID should not be taught in public schools. While Behe's idea of irreducible complexity may be wrong and it may not
be strictly speaking science, can one deny that it has not challenged the scientific community on IC?
Write on brothers! Thanks for making it intellectually satisfying to be a theist
Comment by samohth — May 16, 2006 @ 11:57 am
May 16th, 2006 at 12:11 pm
I think, that the problem is, that 50% of science PhD students doesn't ever graduate (in USA). Why so many drops out (in USA)? If many of them (who drops out now) will graduate, so many foreign scientist were not needed in USA. But why for example the "National Center for Science Education" is so silent about these 50%; about perhaps one of the biggest problem of science education in America?
Comment by Analyysi — May 16, 2006 @ 12:11 pm
May 16th, 2006 at 12:19 pm
[...] Over at Telic Thoughts, Krauze has posted his list of the Top Five Signs you might be an intelligent design critic. [...]
Pingback by Heaven is not the sky » Blog Archive » You may be an intelligent design supporter if… — May 16, 2006 @ 12:19 pm
May 16th, 2006 at 12:19 pm
samohth:
Johnson has boasted of writing the initial draft of the Santorum amendment, whose purpose was to insert ID into public schools. See http://austringer.net/wp/?p=29..." for more details. The man is clearly duplicitous. And where is the humility of a law professor claiming to have the mandate to change the rules of science?
Behe's Darwin's Black Box contained no new research, and Behe has failed provide research expanding on its claims (or research on much else for that matter, his scientific output has dropped off almost totally). He has not even provided any new 'examples' of IC to replace the ones science has since debunked, nor kept up on the evolutionary research into his original 'examples' (which led to him being thoroughly discredited in the Dover trial). I would consider this to be a fairly empty challenge.
I therefore stand by my earlier claim that Johnson and Behe are cranks.
Comment by Hrafn — May 16, 2006 @ 12:19 pm
May 16th, 2006 at 12:31 pm
Analyysi:
Science education in the US shows problems well before the university level. Also it isn't unusual for a relatively low PhD graduation rate — the programmes can be quite demanding, as well as students having problems if their thesis topic turns out to be a dead end.
Comment by Hrafn — May 16, 2006 @ 12:31 pm
May 16th, 2006 at 1:00 pm
I admit I only skimmed the article but I would say that "boasted" is an interesting choice of word. Why is he boasting? Also I am not denying he does not have a grandiose goal and would like to change the
whole cultural landscape but he is not secrective or sneaky and I don't believe duplicitous about it. Why do feel he thinks he has a mandate to change the rules of science? Anyone is free to try.
I think Dover was a battle, not a war.
And I stand by earlier claim…sigh
Comment by samohth — May 16, 2006 @ 1:00 pm
May 16th, 2006 at 1:30 pm
Hi Hrafn,
"No. ID is not theistic because of Phillip Johnson, it is athiestic because Johnson, Dembski, etc say it is theistic and they further say that one of its primary goals is to insert theism into science."
So, if evolutionary biologists started saying that evolution was atheistic, it would become impossible to be a theistic evolutionist?
"While the majority of those foreign graduates used to stay on in American research institutions, they are increasingly returning home to work in institutions that are doing outsourced research."
How many graduate students would you estimate to have returned home because of ID?
Comment by Krauze — May 16, 2006 @ 1:30 pm
May 16th, 2006 at 1:51 pm
I have no idea. Wikipedia says "asserts", and cites The Right Questions: Truth, Meaning, and Public Debate as the source of this assertion.
Why should anybody be free to try? What right does he have to attempt to dictate to scientists how they conduct their research? What qualifications has he got for the task? Isn't it something best left to those who actually know what they're talking about? In any case, he has zero credibility in the scinetific community, so zero chance of success in changing the rules. The man is tilting at windmills — another clear sign of a crank.
And you don't consider such a grandious scheme, well outside his field of expertise (he is neither a scientist nor a philosopher of science) is a sign of a crank?
I dare say, but Dover severely damaged Behe's reputation and thus his usefulness for future battles. He came across as out of touch and deluded.
Comment by Hrafn — May 16, 2006 @ 1:51 pm
May 16th, 2006 at 1:58 pm
Dembski says:
Comment by Jack — May 16, 2006 @ 1:58 pm
May 16th, 2006 at 2:17 pm
Hi Hrafn,
It is interesting that you say Johnson is tilting at windmills. I understand that at a gathering honoring him his friends and family presented him with a cake depicting a man tilting windmills. I'm sorry you think him a crank. I think he is a great man.
Comment by samohth — May 16, 2006 @ 2:17 pm
May 16th, 2006 at 2:28 pm
The difference is that the Theory of Evolution is a serious, credible, well-substantiated scientific theory. I might disagree with the philosophic ediface some atheists attempt to build upon it, but I see relatively little to quibble about their foundations. ID arguments on the other hand are built on scientific 'sand' (or 'jello' to use David Wolpert's colourful description).
The vast majority of the scientific community would argue that there is no "science of ID" to seperate - that it is just the same old creationist arguments, with some of them (though not all) given slightly newer clothes. Certainly Behe and Dembski have failed dismally to substantiate either Irreducible Complexity or Specified Complexity to the satisfaction of anybody outside the circle of ID true believers.
Comment by Hrafn — May 16, 2006 @ 2:28 pm
May 16th, 2006 at 2:32 pm
I see little evidence of greatness, but rather megalomania and monomania, unmatched by any concrete achievement, beyond putting a new set of clothes on the tired old worn out body of Creationism. This new set of clothes is already wearing thin, and the Dover trial ripped a gapping hole in them exposing the Creationism underneath.
Comment by Hrafn — May 16, 2006 @ 2:32 pm
May 16th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
I think you are wrong but I personally would not be embarassed by this exposure. I'm convinced we are created. Just not sure about the mechanism:smile:
Comment by samohth — May 16, 2006 @ 3:02 pm
May 16th, 2006 at 5:36 pm
Congratulations, Krauze. Looks like your post managed to net a perfect example of a typical, reactionary, knee-jerk critic in one Hrafn. From delusions about science education, to a misreading of Dover, to falling straight into #5 and #3 on your list. I am beginning to think Hrafn is an audience "plant" you called in to illustrate your point.
Comment by Eric Anderson — May 16, 2006 @ 5:36 pm
May 16th, 2006 at 10:49 pm
Eric Anderson:
Yes, I simply imagined the Santorum amendment, Grantsburg's DI-written curriculum, Ohio's 'Critical Analysis of Evolution' lesson plan & the Kansas Education Board's redefinition of science. Dear me my delusions must be getting strong when I seem to be able to impose them on the news media.
So tell me O great and knowledgable sage of Constitutional Law, what is the correct reading of Dover? Did ID really win? Was Judge Jones so impressed with Behe's testimony that he declared ID imminently scientific?
Yes, absolutely shocking of me to take Johnson at his word. Maybe if I repeat the "ID is science not religion" mantra enough times I will come to believe it (all the evidence to the contrary notwithstanding).
And being (1) not a scientist 7 (2) explicitly stating that I consider ID to be neither a threat to science nor to democracy definitely puts me squarely under #5, I see that now.
I leave the reader to determine for themselves which out of Eric & myself is the more delusional.
Comment by Hrafn — May 16, 2006 @ 10:49 pm
May 17th, 2006 at 9:57 am
Hrafn:
Hrafn, I don't claim to have an exclusive lock on reality, so it won't be possible for me to make a "Most Delusional" award. But I would enthusiastically give you the nod for "Most Acerbic Language." Will that do?
Comment by Lutepisc — May 17, 2006 @ 9:57 am
May 17th, 2006 at 10:06 am
Hi Hrafn,
"Yes, I simply imagined the Santorum amendment, Grantsburg's DI-written curriculum, Ohio's 'Critical Analysis of Evolution' lesson plan & the Kansas Education Board's redefinition of science."
Yes, there are lots of examples of people trying to use the democratic process to influence the way their tax dollars are spent. That's the consequence of living in a pluralistic society. But let's look at what all these attempts have accomplished, shall we? The Santorum amendment was dropped from the No Child Left Behind law, the Ohio State Board of Education stripped out the "critical analysis of evolution" lesson plan from their curriculum, the ACLU won in Dover, etc. I'm sorry, but I don't share your view on the threatiness of ID.
"Yes, absolutely shocking of me to take Johnson at his word."
I won't speak for Eric, but I'm not shocked at all. You're hardly the first ID critic to appeal to Johnson as a Trusted Source instead of constructing an argument showing why ID must be religious. I suspect this is why you have yet to answer my question: If evolutionary biologists started saying that evolution was atheistic, would it then become impossible to be a theistic evolutionist?
Comment by Krauze — May 17, 2006 @ 10:06 am
May 17th, 2006 at 11:11 am
Yeah, Hrafn! ID and evolutionary biology are pretty much at the same level, so we just switch roles around and see how you like it. Well, there are a few differences between ID and evolutionary biology, so let's tweak this gotcha a little. If evolutionary biologists had never done any research, and couldn't even be bothered to submit proposals for research, and many were saying it is atheistic - what then?
How about if the few evolutionary biologists who say that evolution is not atheistic were also saying that it isn't science either? Or that if you assume that there actually is something to evolution; it should develop quickly if it can ever get the basics sorted out? Would it be impossible to see the hand of God behind something that had produced zero results, was claimed by many proponents to show that there is no God, while others claim it isn't science or even a well developed idea? Well, I guess anything is possible.
Comment by JAllen — May 17, 2006 @ 11:11 am
May 17th, 2006 at 12:02 pm
I believe I adequately contrasted the differences between Johnson's and Dawkins' positions in my first post, to deal with your criticism. Even if you are not willing to accept the "Father of ID's" as a trusted source, quotes from Dembski, Wells, Behe, the Discovery Institute's Wedge Document all attest to ID's theistic content and motives.
If you want an argument, I'm perfectly happy to give you one (you only had to ask):
1) Intelligent Design states, as its central hypothesis, that life is too complex to have evolved spontaneously, and so must have had a designer.
2) This designer can conceivably have been either natural (aliens, etc), or supernatural (God).
3) But, under Intelligent Design's own argument, any natural designer is likewise too complex to have evolved spontaneously (and even assuming that some other natural designer designed our first one still leaves us with an unexplainable designer).
4) We are thus left with only the supernatural designer, God.
Given that as far as I know, even Dawkins hasn't gone that far, the whole matter is hypothetical. I would assume that if anybody was that silly then somebody like Ken Miller would stand up and tell them to shut up and stop making complete fools of themselves. Evolution doesn't necessitate atheism, ID does necessitate theism.
Comment by Hrafn — May 17, 2006 @ 12:02 pm
May 17th, 2006 at 12:18 pm
It would in all probability have been ignored as just another unsubstantiated crank theory, to be ignored unless and until somebody tried to have it taught in highschool science class. But they did submit the proposals and they did do the research and they did publish the results. Much more hard work than writing a few books in the popular press and then swanning off to the public speaking circuit.
The rest of your questions are too pie-in-the-sky hypothetical for me to be bothered with. What if the Flying Spaghetti Monster came down from the sky tommorow to tell me in person that both Evolution and ID are wrong? Don't know, and can't really be bothered coming up with an answer unless or until it happens - ditto for all your questions.
Comment by Hrafn — May 17, 2006 @ 12:18 pm
May 17th, 2006 at 12:21 pm
Hi JAllen,
"If evolutionary biologists had never done any research, and couldn't even be bothered to submit proposals for research, and many were saying it is atheistic - what then?"
There's no need to imagine, as there was indeed a time when evolution had resulted in no research and was being used a vehicle for various philosophical and political ideas.
"Would it be impossible to see the hand of God behind something that had produced zero results, was claimed by many proponents to show that there is no God, while others claim it isn't science or even a well developed idea? Well, I guess anything is possible."
But we aren't discussing the demographic reaction to such perceptions; we're discussing whether intelligent design must be theistic, or, as Hrafn puts it, whether ID necessitates theism.
A while ago, a physics post-doc was expressing his troublement over the fact that students who rejected intelligent did so because of its associations with the religious right, not because of the scientific evidence. Are you saying that looking at associations and motives are legitimate ways of evaluating a position?
Comment by Krauze — May 17, 2006 @ 12:21 pm
May 17th, 2006 at 12:33 pm
Hi Hrafn,
"I believe I adequately contrasted the differences between Johnson's and Dawkins' positions in my first post, to deal with your criticism."
Your distinction is meaningless to this issue. Johnson may only be interested in intelligent design because he wants to "insert theism into science." So what? How does the motives of a position's adherents impact the logic of that position?
"Even if you are not willing to accept the "Father of ID's" as a trusted source, quotes from Dembski, Wells, Behe, the Discovery Institute's Wedge Document all attest to ID's theistic content and motives."
Dembski, Wells, Behe, etc. can only be Trusted Sources on the subject of Dembski, Wells, Behe, etc.'s motivations and beliefs. If Johnson, Dembski, or anyone else wants me to believe that intelligent design entails theism, they'll need to present an argument for that.
Which leads us to this:
"4) We are thus left with only the supernatural designer, God."
Very nice. I only have one question: Doesn't the problem of infinite regress apply to supernatural beings?
Comment by Krauze — May 17, 2006 @ 12:33 pm
May 17th, 2006 at 12:55 pm
Because he isn't an adherent of the movement, he is the movement's founder and still one of its foremost leaders. I challenge you to show that Dawkins' influence in Evolutionary circles comes anywhere close to Johnson's in ID. Far stronger claims from a far more influential leader adds up to a very large difference.
How…convenient. I am however only prepared to disregard their claims on the theism of ID if we also disregard all their other claims about ID. And that leaves ID with what? The simple fact of the matter is that there is little left of ID without them, so their "motivations and beliefs" are relevant.
That question would be better addressed to a Theologian. But my impression is that God is often cited as the "uncaused cause", so I would suspect that the answer is "no".
Comment by Hrafn — May 17, 2006 @ 12:55 pm
May 17th, 2006 at 3:33 pm
Hi Hrafn,
"Because he isn't an adherent of the movement, he is the movement's founder and still one of its foremost leaders."
And? How does the motives of position's founder impact the logic of that position? As shown in the link I provided to JAllen, early evolutionists used evolution to support their philosophical and political beliefs. Does that mean that evolution entails those beliefs?
"How"¦convenient."
No, it's perfectly common sense. When considering whether evolution entails atheism, you don't ask prominent evolutionists if they think evolution entails atheism; you examine the logic of the theory and see if it leads to atheism. Similarly, when considering whether intelligent design entails theism, you don't comb through the writings of its "founders and leaders", looking for statements about theism; you examine the logic of a design inference and see if it leads to theism. Common sense.
"I am however only prepared to disregard their claims on the theism of ID if we also disregard all their other claims about ID. And that leaves ID with what? The simple fact of the matter is that there is little left of ID without them, so their "motivations and beliefs" are relevant."
No one's asking you to accept intelligent design because Behe and Dembski do. If you accept intelligent design, it should be on the basis of arguments, not statements by Trusted Sources.
Krauze: "Doesn't the problem of infinite regress apply to supernatural beings?"
Hrafn: "That question would be better addressed to a Theologian. But my impression is that God is often cited as the "uncaused cause", so I would suspect that the answer is "no"."
How is an "uncaused cause" any better than an "unexplainable designer"
Comment by Krauze — May 17, 2006 @ 3:33 pm
May 17th, 2006 at 10:40 pm
Lacking the smallest shred of scientific research by ID, it shows that ID is simply apologetics, not science.
Did any of these "early evolutionists claim that evolution entails their beliefs? Dembski does: "Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."
In any case, if scientists had failed to back up their original hypothesis with genuine research, then yes evolution should have been rejected as merely an ideological prop, of no real scientific value.
It makes perfect sense to ignore a view of ID that is pervassive among its entire leadership and theoreticians?
Name some who do. I have already shown that Dawkins' (arguably the most vocally atheistic evolutionist) advocacy falls well short of this.
And the motivations of the originators of these arguments has no probative value in evaluating whether their arguments are legitimate? That strikes me as more than a little naive.
Ask a theologian. This all relates to the 'first cause' argument for God (probably from Aquinas). I suspect whatever strength it has relates to the fact that having a supernatural "uncaused cause" is more spiritually satisfying than a natural one, rather than any inherent logical superiority.
Comment by Hrafn — May 17, 2006 @ 10:40 pm
May 18th, 2006 at 12:25 am
I think one of the major relevant differences between Evolution and ID is that Evolution has a consensus of support behind it, meaning that the motivations of any one of its advocates has far less impact on the scientific credibility of it.
ID on the other hand is backed by a very narrow band of advocates, most acting outside (and in some cases well outside) their fields of expertise. Lacking a broad consensus of support for these views, the motivations, biases, and individual expertise of the advocates of these views becomes relevant to evaluating their merit.
This is not just my viewpoint, it is roughly congruent to the Federal Court guidelines for evaluating scientific testimony.
Comment by Hrafn — May 18, 2006 @ 12:25 am
May 18th, 2006 at 12:17 pm
Biology just needs to catch up with Cosmology. Cosmology, the purer science, has led us to the edge of a thiestic conclusion. It can't quite step over the line, but theism is hardly a mocked view amongst cosmologists. I have no fear, biology will get there.
Comment by bFast — May 18, 2006 @ 12:17 pm
May 18th, 2006 at 5:50 pm
Hrafn: "I think one of the major relevant differences between Evolution and ID is that Evolution has a consensus of support behind it…"
Most of us here on TT would describe ourselves as intelligent design evolutionists. ID is not anti-evolution. ID is in contention with the "Blind watchmaker" thesis: the idea that unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes are completely sufficient to account for the origin of life and the appearance of design in living organisms.
So why don't you tell us how you know scientifically that the properties of biological systems are such that the apparent design we observe in them can not be actual design?
Comment by Jack — May 18, 2006 @ 5:50 pm
May 18th, 2006 at 8:02 pm
Jack: "Most of us here on TT would describe ourselves as intelligent design evolutionists. ID is not anti-evolution."
I, for one, am an ID evolutionist. I thoroughly hold to common descent (with some possible variations.) From what I have seen, "common descent" was the definition of evolution. Certainly when the statement "evolution is a fact, the method of evolution is a theory" is speaking of the "common descent" definition of evolution. It seems to me that neo-Darwinism has kina sneaked in as the only definition of evolution.
Again, I, as most IDers, have no arguement at all with common descent, so I am an evolutionist. I just remain evidentually unconvinced that random mutation, filtered through natural selection, with all of its variants such as HGT, can come anywhere close to explaining all of the complexity of life.
Comment by bFast — May 18, 2006 @ 8:02 pm
May 18th, 2006 at 8:34 pm
I am still sceptical of evolution beyond microevolution which means I suppose I am sceptical of common descent. I would like to see some ID evolutionists give some bullet points on why they believe in common descent or macroevolution.
I read an article at talkorigins recently on speciation that led me to believe that critics are right when they say research is lacking in some areas and most scientist just assume that the research is there. Has anybody read this piece besides me? Did I find it weak because I'm already predisposed to not believe in speciation? Depending on how you define speciation of course.
I will look up the link if anyone is ineterested. Maybe they've upgraded it since I read it.
Comment by samohth — May 18, 2006 @ 8:34 pm
May 19th, 2006 at 1:47 am
This seems roughly similar to the position taken on ID vs Evolution taken by Michael Behe. For this position to have any hope of scientific validity, it would need to explain (giving specific, mechanistic, details) observations that Evolution alone cannot. Otherwise the principle of parsimony would rule out design as an unnecessary embelishment. The problem is that various arguments why Evolution can't explain observations (IC, Specified Complexity) have not been accepted by the scientific consensus (and what I have myself seen of them I do not find in the least bit compelling), and ID has not been able to give any greater explanation than evolution alone (beyond the assertion of its advocates that it explains "everything").
I think the real difference between ID evolutionists and theistic evolutionists is that, while both (for theological reasons or otherwise) consider there to have been a Designer/Creator behind everything, theistic evolutionists consider this to be a theological or philosophic idea, rather than one that is scientifically provable.
I don't know this — any more than I know that a pebble I pick up off a beach definitely wasn't designed. I do know however that in both cases assuming design does not give any greater explanatory power. Given that it gives no scientific advantage in terms of greater explanatory power, I am left with the impression that the assumption of a Designer is more philosophically or theologically satisfying to its adherents. This is why I tend to find the position of theistic evolutionists to be more rational than ID evolutionists.
Comment by Hrafn — May 19, 2006 @ 1:47 am
May 19th, 2006 at 8:57 am
Hi Hrafn,
I think you are right when you say this but I think rational can only take you so far. For me and maybe others science has proposed, not proved, some mechanisms that might have produced seemingly IC things. There is a popular phrase being tossed around a while back called "intuitively obvious" which seems to me to apply when contemplating design in life.
At first I thought ID could prove a designer but I realize that the odds are it can't. I've always been frustrated by the fact that there is this tension in thinking about God of knowing but not being able to know in a way that we all seem to want to know. Lets call it a scientific way. Most people have seen Forest Gump at the end where the exquisitely designed feather is floating randomly on the breeze and Forest wonders if is purposeful or random and decides that it is both. MikeGene said in a recent post that he was comfortable with ambiguity and it seems like you have to be no matter what philosophical/metaphysical/theological track you take. You get God of the gaps or time and chance of the gaps. You get who designed the designer or where did matter come from. Its turtles all the way down.
As Bob Dylan sang, "there's something going on here, but you don't know what it is, do you Mr. Jones"
Comment by samohth — May 19, 2006 @ 8:57 am
May 19th, 2006 at 9:27 am
The thing is that it is probably only "intuitively obvious" if you are a theist (and probably a monotheist at that), so are looking for a Designer. It would not be obvious at all to people who are members of non-theistic religions (Buddhism, Taoism and the like), agnostics and atheists, and would be considerably less obvious to polytheists and pantheists.
That fustration is perfectly legitimate. What isn't legitimate is to attempt to deny this tension by shoehorning God into science (as many have in the past and continue to do).
It is a tension best answered in university Theology and Metaphysics classes and church study groups. It is a tension that science simply doesn't have the toolkit to deal with (as you can't put somebody else's "intuitive obviousness" under the microscope), which tends to make many scientists somewhat irate when people insist on dumping it on their desks.
Science deals in the concrete, the specific and the mechanistic. If it doesn't involve this, then the average scientist will simply shake his head and direct you to the Philosophy or Theology Department instead. The exact line of demarcation will probably be argued by Philosophers of Science for centuries to come, but to most scientists it is "intuitively obvious" as to what areas they, as a matter of simply pragmatism, simply do not have a toolkit to deal with.
Comment by Hrafn — May 19, 2006 @ 9:27 am
May 19th, 2006 at 9:44 am
Of course I know that design isn't intuitively obvious to every one and I realize that my point of view is shaped by my presuppositions but I think that strong arguments have been made that scientist do not behave in the mechanistic way you imagine. See the thread in Hyping Human Evolution. So I don't believe scientist ignore their extra-scientifiic presuppositons when they do science, nor do I believe they can or necessarily should.
Comment by samohth — May 19, 2006 @ 9:44 am
May 19th, 2006 at 10:13 am
The only thing that is intuitively obvious to me about the design argument is the first question that needs asking after the statement 'it looks designed to me'. And that question is 'who by?'.
It's intuitively obvious (and logically consistent) that if something has been designed there must be a designer. If there is no evidence of any designer then there is no reason to infer design.
Comment by Odd Digit — May 19, 2006 @ 10:13 am
May 19th, 2006 at 10:14 am
You mistake me, I never said that scientists were mechanistic (nor do I think this), merely that they study things that are mechanistic, or permit mechanistic explanations. Individual scientists are just as fallible and subject to enthusiasms, blind prejudices, pride and even the occasional dishonesty as the rest of mankind. That is why science has developed peer review and the scientific consensus as a filtering mechanism to try to reduce the impact of such individual fallibilities.
Speaking of such fallibilities, what would have happened to the field of Quantum Mechanics if Einstein's "intutively obvious" view that "God doesn't play dice" had been accepted without substantiation?
Individual scientists are always free to follow their intuitions in deciding what avenues to pursue (assuming they can gain funding), but these intuitions do not count for anything (nor should they) when it comes time to publish their results and seek to have their work accepted by the scientific consensus.
Comment by Hrafn — May 19, 2006 @ 10:14 am
May 19th, 2006 at 10:52 am
Hey Odd Digit,
Which puts you squarely in #1 of "Signs you might be an intelligent design critic". Actually, I was thinking more that IC is intuitively obvious not that a designer is intuitively obvious. So if a thing is IC, it suggests a designer but I really don't understand (and I'm not being flippant here ) why "who" is an issue. And I agree that you probably can't detect a designer (I don't think I would be original to suggest that the designer designed it that way). So I'm left with things that are intuitively IC that I'm not convinced have been proven to have originated by small incremental changes, each one benefitting the organism. So the natural explanation does not work for me. I'm also suggetsing that not everything is logically consistent even in science although I don't know where that leaves us. This is a serious question; why is not just as good a question to ask where did the material come from as who the designer is?
Comment by samohth — May 19, 2006 @ 10:52 am
May 19th, 2006 at 11:05 am
No. He asked "who is the designer", not "who designed the designer?" His question is part of a general irritation that the scientific community has that can be summarised as the exasperated question "so what can you tell us about this designer that you are so darn sure exists?"
Comment by Hrafn — May 19, 2006 @ 11:05 am
May 19th, 2006 at 11:36 am
Hi Hrafn,
Krauze: "And? How does the motives of position's founder impact the logic of that position?"
Hrafn: "Lacking the smallest shred of scientific research by ID, it shows that ID is simply apologetics, not science."
But we aren't discussing how intelligent design is used, but whether it must be theistic, or, as you yourself put it, whether ID necessitates theism.
"Did any of these "early evolutionists claim that evolution entails their beliefs?"
I don't have my sources handy at the moment, but, yes, I'd gather you could find a number of them making statements to that effect. A relevant place to start would be with Michael Ruse's The Evolution-Creation Struggle.
"It makes perfect sense to ignore a view of ID that is pervassive among its entire leadership and theoreticians?"
Yes, when discussing a subject, one must ignore things that are irrelevant to that subject. Here's a question I put to JAllen, but since he appears to have leftthe thread, you can take a crack at answering it:
A while ago, a physics post-doc was expressing his troublement over the fact that students who rejected intelligent did so because of its associations with the religious right, not because of the scientific evidence. Are you saying that looking at associations and motives are legitimate ways of evaluating a position?
Krauze: ""¦you don't ask prominent evolutionists if they think evolution entails atheism"¦"
Hrafn: "Name some who do. I have already shown that Dawkins' (arguably the most vocally atheistic evolutionist) advocacy falls well short of this."
It really doesn't matter to my point whether any of them do. But since you brought up Dawkins, here you go:
"The more you understand the significance of evolution, the more you are pushed away from the agnostic position and towards atheism."
"I suspect whatever strength it has relates to the fact that having a supernatural "uncaused cause" is more spiritually satisfying than a natural one, rather than any inherent logical superiority."
Excellent. So, to return to your argument:
"4) We are thus left with only the supernatural designer, God."
we can see that we aren't really "left with only" God, as it is no more logically superior to the concept of a natural designer.
Comment by Krauze — May 19, 2006 @ 11:36 am
May 19th, 2006 at 12:32 pm
Firstly, I did not say that it is used for apologetics, I said it is apologetics. Lacking the scientific research I mentioned earlier, it is merely a philosophic argument in the favour of the existence of a Designer, which designer most (and most probably all) of the adherents of this argument identify as God. This is I believe both a subset of apologetics, and inherently theistic. Of course if you can find me a group of people who believe Designer=Space Alien (or whatever) of at least the same order of magnitude as the far better known group who believe Designer=God, then I will re-evaluate my position.
This still falls well short of a claim that evolution entails atheism. I have read books by a biblical scholar who pretty much claimed that the more closely he examined the origins of the Bible, the more he was driven from his original position as a born-again, evangelical, Moody Bible Institute-attending Christian into an eventual agnostic. Does that mean that biblical scholarship entails agnosticism?
Actually, I merely voiced that as a personal suspicion. I am not a theologian, so I am not qualified to give a definitive answer on this point. If you want to read up on the "Argument from First Cause", you can do so at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
Thinking about it, God is defined as being eternal, so for that reason probably does not have any explicit need for a cause.
But even if God is likewise ruled out as you argue, it merely turns ID from being self refuting to the extent that it is not theistic (as I originally argued) to being entirely self-refuting. Big win for your side! I hope you have a wild celebration over it.
Comment by Hrafn — May 19, 2006 @ 12:32 pm
May 19th, 2006 at 12:57 pm
A point i realized after the posting:oops:
The scientific community should chill and not be irritated or exasperated and I am not so darn sure that a designer exists. Not being a scientist I am under no constraint to only look for a natural substitute for current 'Modern Evolutionary Synthesis' so IC suggest designer to me but I'm still open for alternate natural explanations.
Now if a designer did design say a flagellan(sp?), then I could tell you that he was a hell of a designer.
Comment by samohth — May 19, 2006 @ 12:57 pm
May 19th, 2006 at 1:10 pm
Yes, but one who, if he could be found, would immediately be put into prison for designing biological weapons. It also adds a further question to the throng: "why is this Designer so interested in bacteria? Doesn't he have better things to do?":wink:
Comment by Hrafn — May 19, 2006 @ 1:10 pm
May 19th, 2006 at 1:20 pm
These are old theological issues, right? Thats when I would agree with you that you should head to the theology and philosophy departments.
Comment by samohth — May 19, 2006 @ 1:20 pm
May 19th, 2006 at 1:56 pm
Hrafn wrote:
"Yes, but one who, if he could be found [the designer of the flagellum], would immediately be put into prison for designing biological weapons. It also adds a further question to the throng: 'why is this Designer so interested in bacteria? Doesn't he have better things to do?'"
Should be obvious to everyone, but just thought I'd point out that Hrafn's statement, however flippant, demonstrates that Hrafn's real issue with the idea of the flagellum being designed is not scientific. Rather, the heretical idea of design does not square with Hrafn's philosophical/religious views.
Comment by Eric Anderson — May 19, 2006 @ 1:56 pm
May 19th, 2006 at 1:57 pm
Sorry for the redundancy. Samohth beat me to it!
Comment by Eric Anderson — May 19, 2006 @ 1:57 pm
May 19th, 2006 at 2:57 pm
No. They're perfectly valid questions even from a non-theological viewpoint. You have proposed a designer who goes around putting flagella on bacteria. I am merely wondering why this designer would have done this. Why is the designer wish these bacteria to be able to swim?
Comment by Hrafn — May 19, 2006 @ 2:57 pm
May 19th, 2006 at 3:07 pm
Hrafn, no-one is suggesting that the questions are not interesting, in and of themselves, just that they are irrelevant to the question of whether the flagellum is designed. Thus, these types of questions, which come up so often, are really red herrings, and typically (you can ascertain for yourself whether this applies in your case) do not represent sincere inquiries, but instead, flippant side roads into irrelevancies. No further comment or explanation is needed and no further time will be spent pointing this out to you from my side (something we are both, no doubt, grateful for).
Regards,
Comment by Eric Anderson — May 19, 2006 @ 3:07 pm
May 19th, 2006 at 11:39 pm
So how the flagellum was designed is irrelevant to whether it was designed?
Yet ever more minute details on how the flagellum evolved (mechanisms, precise pathways) is essential to determine if the flagellum evolved?
Do you see the disparity? How can it be intellectually honest to demand any details on evolution when you flatly refuse to provide a single shred of detail about your Designer?
If, instead of offering mechanisms (mutation, recombination, natural selection, genetic drift & genetic flow) and some (admittedly often fairly tentative & speculative) pathways, Evolutionary Biologists merely baldly asserted that "they evolved", they would still be no worse off than ID is now.
This demand for ever more detailed explanations from Evolution, while refusing to provide any details on the Designer is why most ID critics consider ID to be:
1) no more than an attack on evolution (making us generally skeptical about "ID evolutionists); and
2) completely vacuous (in that it has no positive content).
Further Eric, if you claim that any detail of the Designer is irrelevant, then I take that as an admission from you that your entire theory is completely irrelevant to science.
By all means rabbit on about designers, fairies, evil aliens called Xenu, or whatever, but until you are willing to provide any details that could provide your theory with any explanatory power and/or testable predictions, do not expect to be taken seriously by anybody outside the ID echo chamber.
Comment by Hrafn — May 19, 2006 @ 11:39 pm
May 20th, 2006 at 9:48 am
That's a poor phrasing of the question. How the flagellum was designed is irrelevant to whether we can reasonably infer that it was designed.
What you should have asked was, do you mean to tell me that we can reasonably infer that something is designed without knowing how it was designed?
Of course, the answer is obvious, we do so all the time, and that probably more than anything explains why you didn't ask the relevant question.
How else do you propose that we determine whether the flagellum evolved? The theory that you have hitched your wagon to demands that things evolved by graadual steps by step modifications of pre-existing structures. Feel free to change your theory, but don't think you can impose the demands of your theory on the theories of others.
Sure there is a disparity. So what. See above paragraph.
But this is not to say that you actually meet the demands of your theory. Instead you make inferences about species sharing common ancestors without ever specifying those common ancestors nor the steps which resulted in the diversification to new species.
So I hear you crying foul where there is no foul. I also see you not meeting the burden of proof imposed by your theory and thus have no good reason to accept it.
Comment by Mung — May 20, 2006 @ 9:48 am
May 20th, 2006 at 10:30 am
Do we? When we pick up a flint arrowhead found on a hike we know, at least approximately, who made the arrowhead (a hunter-gatherer), why they made the arrowhead (to make an arrow to hunt game with) and how it was made (chipping flakes off of a lump of flint).
So tell me, when are we infering "all the time" that design has occured without any information about how, why or by whom this design occured? Can you give even one example?
Your "inference" is as vacuous as your theory!
I could use your own "inference". Many things have been observed to evolve (mostly microevolution, but also speciation, which is a form of macroevolution), so let us use your obvious, people-use-it-all-the-time inference that everything evolves.
Just because Evolution also provides messy things like research and mechanisms, doesn't mean it can't be "proved" by the same "we don't need to bother with science or research" method that you claim for ID.
ID is empty! It offers no details, it explains nothing, it predicts nothing, it researches nothing. It is therefore not only "unscientific", but also of no conceivable scientific use!
(And yes Lutepisc, I'm getting acerbic again — but only, I would claim, in the face of considerable aggravation.)
Comment by Hrafn — May 20, 2006 @ 10:30 am
May 20th, 2006 at 2:00 pm
Why should I? I suspect you'll just shift the goalposts yet again and I don't care to play that game. The only relevant question in this discussion is whether we can reasonably infer that something was designed without knowing the specifics of how it was designed.
You could, but it won't work. In order to make the inference you need to show how something like a flagellum evolved. Once you've done that, then you can perhaps infer that other flagellar-like structures evolved.
iow, to make an inference you need to have something similar that you've shown a step-by-step evolutionary pathway for. ID claims you haven't done this yet, therefore you have no basis for any such inference.
At least ID theory offers a basis for it's inferences. So as far as I am concerned it's still a better explanation.
Even if true, so what? Your complaint is about the demands ID adherents place on evolutionary theory. You accuse them of intellectual dishonesty. If your theory offers no details and explains nothing and predicts nothing it is unscientific and of no conceivable use. You can't protect it from criticism by pointing at ID and using ID as an excuse, lol.
I have made two points:
ID isn't a theory that purports to explain the issue of how something was designed. So your objections and comparisons based upon a lack of "how" are misplaced. You need to drop them.
Evolutionary theory purports to be a theory about how things evolved. So your objections to calls from ID'ists for details about how things evolved are also misplaced.
Where have you addressed either of these points?
Comment by Mung — May 20, 2006 @ 2:00 pm
May 20th, 2006 at 2:36 pm
Because you were the one asserting it. I have shown that in infering design we generally know something about the design process. Give an everyday example of where we infer design without knowing anything about the design process.
Why do I need to establish how the flagellum evolved when you don't need to establish how it was designed?
No it doesn't - not beyond your bald, unsubstantiated, assertion that "we do so all the time".
So it is vacuous (which literally means empty, without content) and useless. QED
But Evolution does offer details (in the form of mechanisms and pathways), is used every day in the research of thousands odf scientists, and does make predictions:
blockquote>Lander's experiment tested a quirky prediction of evolutionary theory: that a harmful mutation is unlikely to persist if it is serious enough to reduce an individual's odds of leaving descendants by an amount that is greater than the number one divided by the population of that species. http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
http://www.millerandlevine.com...
Then what, of any practical use, does it explain? If it does not explain how, when, why or by whom, then it is of no conceivable use!
Thank you Mung, you have just confirmed my suspicion that ID is of no possible scientific value at all.
No, I haven't — because your points are empty of logic or scientific merit. You seem to be revelling in ID's vacuousness and uselessness — as though either is a high achievement. I will therefore leave you to your pointless, useless, valueless "theory".
Comment by Hrafn — May 20, 2006 @ 2:36 pm
May 20th, 2006 at 4:38 pm
Hi Hrafn,
"Of course if you can find me a group of people who believe Designer=Space Alien (or whatever) of at least the same order of magnitude as the far better known group who believe Designer=God, then I will re-evaluate my position."
So the logical consequences of a position can be determined through demographics?
"I have read books by a biblical scholar who pretty much claimed that the more closely he examined the origins of the Bible, the more he was driven from his original position as a born-again, evangelical, Moody Bible Institute-attending Christian into an eventual agnostic. Does that mean that biblical scholarship entails agnosticism?"
Of course not. Indedd, that's my very point: Whatever logical consequences someone thinks their ideas have doesn't influence the actual consequences of these ideas.
Krauze: "we can see that we aren't really "left with only" God, as it is no more logically superior to the concept of a natural designer."
Hrafn: "Actually, I merely voiced that as a personal suspicion. I am not a theologian, so I am not qualified to give a definitive answer on this point."
But "this point" is only the entire basis of your claim that intelligent design must necessarily be theistic. So, what lead you to believe that we are "left with only" God as a candidate designer? Did you talk to a theologian before coming to this belief? If so, what did he or she tell you that convinced you?
"But even if God is likewise ruled out as you argue, it merely turns ID from being self refuting to the extent that it is not theistic (as I originally argued) to being entirely self-refuting. Big win for your side! I hope you have a wild celebration over it."
Sure, if you think that there are some explanations out there that don't suffer from the problem of infinite regress.
But we can put that aside for now, as it isn't really relevant. What is relevant is that your attempt to argue that intelligent design must be theistic has failed, being based on sloppy reasoning.
Comment by Krauze — May 20, 2006 @ 4:38 pm
May 21st, 2006 at 3:46 am
I made the above comment in the context of the following:
If a sufficiently large number of people identify the Designer as something other than God, then I have reason to re-evaluate this argument, not as a matter of logical consequences, but as a matter of evidence.
But if you want logical consequences, I merely refer you to my argument above, which shows that ID is self-refuting to the extent it is not theistic (or entirely self-refuting if you don't believe in God as an uncaused cause).
Oh please! ID is nothing more than a set of (at best thinly disguised) arguments for theism created by Phillip Johnson, William Dembski and Michael Behe. If you can argue that they aren't theistic then you can argue that nothing is theistic ("the sermon the preacher made in church this morning need not be theistic, because regardless of the preachers intended consequences, its actual consequences might be otherwise").
The infinite regression is a direct consequence of ID's assumption. No other explanation makes this assumption, so no other explanation suffers from this defect.
Complete and utter baloney!
We have two, and only two possible outcomes of my argument:
1)ID is theistic to the extent it is not self-refuting.
2) ID is entirely self-refuting (if you deny the possibility of God as an uncaused cause).
There is nothing sloppy about my reasoning in this Kauze, what was incredibly sloppy was your understanding, which led you to argue yourself into a corner.
So which is it Krauze? Is ID theistic or self-refuting? These are your only two choices now.
Comment by Hrafn — May 21, 2006 @ 3:46 am
May 21st, 2006 at 10:44 am
Hfran:
That's not my view.
Comment by MikeGene — May 21, 2006 @ 10:44 am
May 21st, 2006 at 12:57 pm
[...] Commenting on "The non-mattering of motives", Krauze writes: In the comments to this post, ID critic "Hrafn" is arguing mightily that the religious motives of people like Johnson and Dembski means that intelligent design must necessarily be theistic. I was reminded of this when reading this article by Jeffrey Koperski, philosopher at Saginaw Valley State University. He has some potent remarks on some of the arguments that are popular with the ID critic crowd, which I'll be quoting beneath the fold. [...]
Pingback by Heaven is not the sky » Blog Archive » When do motives matter? — May 21, 2006 @ 12:57 pm