pz

In the thread, "In defense of intelligent design", a few people can't seem to grasp a simple request: that they present evidence for intelligent design, rather than what they consider evidence against evolution. I've removed their posts from that thread and moved them here. If anyone wants to rip 'em apart, this is the place to do it. Similarly, if davidH or E_muse would like to pursue their criticisms in greater depth, this, not that other thread, is also the place to do it.


from davidH:Intelligent design

Taking a step back and looking at the human body we would automatically assume intelligent design - right?

The complexity of the brain in controlling everything, the storage of both short and long term memories, the way the cells replicate, fix damaged tissue, defense against disease, absorbance and storage of energy etc etc. Anyone will admit that the human body and it's mechanisms are amazingly complex - so much so that much is still not understood today. The human genome was only recently decoded and much research is still going on to try and discover the workings of various mechanisms.

If looked at on its own - I'm sure most people would admit that intelligent design had to be involved to bring everything together.

The same with computers - taking a look at computers on their own - you would admit intelligent design since all the components couldn't have come together by chance.

But there is a difference between computers and humans - when you take another step back you find that humans can reproduce but computers cannot. Humans also produce offspring that are different from the parents (phenotypes).
So the assumption of intelligent design in computers is supported because they could not become computers unless they were individually created.

However intelligent design cannot at the moment be justified since humans reproduce themselves by the process of reproduction. So no intelligent being can be said to have created me or you since we were created seemingly without the need of an intelligent being.

So another step back is needed and the human genome (genetic code) can be seen to be indentical to the code that codes for every other living creature on this planet. The same C,G,T,A (U) code for all other living creatures.
Immediately alarm bells start ringing and a universal source for the code is thought of. Perhaps a perhistoric animal or organism of some sort or maybe an intelligent being that created all living things used the same code.

This opens new possibilities but neither confirms nor denies intelligent design.

So another step back is taken and the evolution of animals is seen.
The various species of animals, that look very different. This being caused by natural selection on the genetic codes of the organisms in question bringing certain characteristics to the surface and selecting for them more and more until the organism looks a lot different from when it previously did. However in observing this we see that the organisms that have evolved (microevolution) are still "dogs" or "cats". Recently it has been said that all dogs today came from 3 prehistoric wolves - yet we see all the different types - some of which can no longer interbreed sucessfully. Same with Darwin's Finches.
In observing this we see the presence of mutations - a lot are fixed by the DNA repair mechanisms - some are potentially harmful - some are good but only if the environment they are living in selects it and the mutation in question isn't recessive but can get into the population.

This in itself tells us nothing more - we can observe no evolution of organisms into completely different one ie Reptiles into Bird etc. Again this neither confirms nor denies intelligent design. All the genetic code is present and changes we see in species are rarely due to mutation. Macroevolution (organism into all the living today) has not been proved nor disproved even if it would seem unlikely.

So again another step back is taken from the picture and this time the fossil record comes into view.

If macroevolution is correct then there will be fossils documenting the gradual change of organisms into others - a complete record though some may be missing or not yet found.
We find fossils of many many creatures - some of which are now extinct, some similar but different to those alive today, others the same as those alive today.
Pausing here for a moment we question why it is that some creatures have remained unchanged - why did they remain frozen in time while everything else around them was mutating and changing. A question mark over macroevolution rises. Then the fossils that are similar to those creatures alive today also raises a question - could the differences be caused by natural selection on the same genome of those creatures alive today? If they can then another question mark over macroevolution must be raised.

Then the transition fossils come to light and immediately the question marks over macroevolution begin to fade.
Then a question is raised:

Again since this is from Darwin himself surely they must have found transitional fossils since he wrote this.
However other evolutionary scientists make these comments:

Now macroevolution has a larger question mark over it. If it was true and if transitional fossils where in the fossil record - why do these evolutionary experts disagree?

Taking another closer look you find that there are many different forms of evolution that have been proposed by the scientific community.
One of which you find was punctuated equilibrium. This was on the basis that some organisms changed into others so quickly that there was no time for transitional fossils to be deposited. This was introduced in the 1970s.

Why was this introduced if the transitional fossils are there in abundance? Macroevolution needs to be supported by the fossil record - no matter what else seems to support it - why? Because the fossil record is a record of the organisms that lived on the earth.
The evidence of the fossil record for macroevolution seems to have been shaken so reluctantly turning to the alternative you find that the absence of transition fossils does support the idea of intelligent design. There is no other way that life could have arisen in all it's complexity without an intelligent designer.

The statements of evolutionists support this, and the theories of punctuated equilibrium and so forth were theories to allow evolutionists to continue believing in evolution even in the absence of the transitional fossils.
Think about it - if the transitional fossils had been there, why would the theory of punctuated equilibrium have ever arisen?

So taking a final step back macroevolution isn't supported and nothing else remains accept intelligent design.

But will you go looking for this intelligent designer or will you enter the world of macroevolution again and dig convinced that you will find those so far elusive transitional fossils?

-------------------------

from davidH quote: You don't seem to understand evolutionary explanations, so your post is wrong on two levels: your criticisms are not valid, and this dichotomy you've set up is false. Evidence of shortcomings in modern evolutionary theory (even if they were valid) are not evidence of intelligent design.

If the shortcoming invalidates the whole evolutionary theory then there is nothing else but to accept intelligent design - correct? Unless there's another theory like we where brought from a planet where evolution did occur and all living creatures where dumped on planet earth.

pz, if the fossil record doesn't support macroevolution then macroevolution has to go down the drain, because it cannot be valid. - Am I correct in saying this?
It doesn't matter if macroevolution can be proved by doing tests in a lab or anything else - because that only proves that it can be done in a lab. Macroevolution can only be tested by a record of life on earth - and that is found in the fossil record.

So evolution rests balanced on the fossil record.
There was nothing wrong with my logic at all.

I persume that "I" am an example of an ignorant creationist carping at my percieved flaws in evolution - ie. a flow of nonsense.
Wow - that is perhaps the worst I've been called by a moderator. Ah well, maybe it isn't nonsense that I have been spewing.

Ok, so you would like us all to leave evolution alone and concentrate on +ve evidence for an "intelligent designer".

Ok, here it is.
The utter complexity of our bodies cries out "intelligent design"
It has to have been made by an intelligent being -we are too complex to be brought by any other process.

Bear in mind that when you answer the statement above that I have made concerning intelligent design you cannot argue it with the theory of evolution. The moderator doesn't want this to descend into a debate of whether evolution is correct or not. I started down on that road about the fossil record and statements evolutionists had made and got my knuckles rapped.
If you do argue it with evolution my hands are tied because the moderator will shut down the topic if I go down the road I went down before.

-------------------------

from E_muse Invalid point IMO. According to talkorigins few people, including the majority of biologists, actually do.

Firstly, why are davidH's criticisms not valid?

However....

Dawkins and others state exactly what davidH has stated above. That on initial observation, living organisms impress us with the idea that they have been designed by an intelligent creator. Dawkins, in defining biology, states:

quote:"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."

And...

quote:"Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning."

If we are overwhelmed by the impression that things are designed (and theism is one evidence that this sense has overwhelmed us) then people can hardly be labelled as 'dumb' or 'stupid' for believing such a thing.

Even Hume, in (I think) Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion stated:

quote:"A purpose, an intention, or design strikes everywhere the most careless, the most stupid thinker; and no man can be so hardened in absurd systems, as at all times to reject it."

Although Hume's writing is in the form of a dialouge and therefore might not be expressing his own acceptance of an idea, he at least demonstrates that he can at least appreciate both sides of the arguement.

In other words, you don't need to be a brain surgeon to live under the impression that living organisms have somehow been designed by an intelligent agent.

The main arguement against the idea that things are not intelligently designed but are put together by random mutation and blind natural forces comes from evolutionary theory. As I have pointed out in another thread, when metaphysical naturalists wish to justify their position the point to the disoveries of methodoligal naturalism or science.

If the discoveries of the scientific method are used as the principal evidence against intelligent design (that nature overwhelms us with) then how is calling it into question unfair or illogical?

You are an atheist and a biologist. You therefore (it seems) feel that evolution offers an accurate description of reality whereas ID does not. However, you must surely be under the impression that the biological sciences offer evidence against idea?

However, you have suggested to me on another thread that you think that science should be freed from any theistic influence with 'dumb' theology concerning itself with scientific arguements and 'smart' theology only touching things that science leaves alone. Your replies here further give me the impression of your desire to separate science from theistic considerations. You said:

Firstly, as you are an atheist (and have persumably rejected all theological arguements) what is your basis for determining 'smart' and 'dumb' theology?

What areas of reality do you feel science must leave alone? Surely metaphysical naturalism, in seeking to promote the scientific enterprise, will want scientific material explanations for all aspects of reality? Given this, you presumably feel it is O.K for science to step in on those aspects of reality that currently only theology can adequately explain?

Your comment above also suggests an idea that theism mustn't have any impact on the sciences (as smart theology will leave it alone). If this is the case then why must a theistic philosophical outlook be excluded and a materialistic one included when the scientific method is supposedly neutral?

This hardly seems impartial!

But you've gone on to imply that davidH is ignorant without explaining why!

ad hominmem arguements are those that attack the person rather than the arguement itself.

I have already argued on other threads that evolution is one of the principal defences that metaphysical naturalists use for their standpoint so to question it in connection with this arguement is hardly a case of fallacious logic is it? Until Darwin, intelligent design seems to have been the only attempt to explain biological complexity according to Dawkins.

Also, you create the impression that, once evolution is removed, we are left with no explanation at all despite the fact that others at least seem happy with the idea that nature impresses us with the illusion of intelligent design.

So here you've called creationists like davidH who question evolution (even if it is based on misunderstanding) as ignorant. This is despite the fact that even talkorigins admits that few qualified scientists fully understand the theory.

You've also suggested that your view those who believe in God as equal to people who believe in magic space elves.

Well done on controlling the ad hominems pz!

Yes, and it has been suggested that there is some as most people are impressed with the illusion of it presented in nature.

Macroevolution, driven by microevolutionary changes which are themselves driven by blind natural selection and random mutations are often used as an alternative to this idea and so their validity is being questioned.

pz

E_muse still doesn't get it. Here's another post from him.

Simplifying the arguement for a moment.. there seem to be two alternatives for the presence of everything, especially life:

1. It had an intelligent cause.
2. It had an unintelligent cause.

The theory of evolution is the principal defence for point 2 as well as the absence of an intelligent, tangible creator. Within this, the mechanisms for evolution are hotly debated.

The other alternative is 1. Some theists have incorporated evolution into their understanding of God. This view has certainly dominated western culture in previous days.

However, even if 1 is true we are dealing with an immaterial entity (God) creating something material. Therefore, even if 1 is true, something must have happened on the physical level that would be observable.

The reason that I believe 1 and 2 to be the only two major players is that they at least have some foundation in observation (see post to pz) whereas life coming from space would be very hard to defend scientifically I should imagine.

Of one thing I am sure. If the pursuit of evolution is simply an attempt to avoid intelligent design then the pursuit of it has become misguided.

Here I agree with you. If ID hypothesis is to be taken seriously then it must do more than attack evolution and come up with some descriptions of its own.

This has been stated in the <a href="http://www.leaderu.com/offices/koons/docs/ntsereport.html" target="_blank"> THIS article</a> by Professor Robert C Koons.

Clutch

E-Muse,

There seem to be two possibilities as far as explaining the origins of life and speciation.

1. It is explained by the operations of blue-nosed wights.

2. It is explained by the operations of things other than blue-nosed wights.

Since these exhaust the possibilities, problems and open questions with respect to explanations of Type 2 are, therefore, evidence to the effect that an explanation of Type 1 is correct.

Of course, there are many, many problems and open questions with respect to purported explanations of Type 2! Hence there is considerable evidence to the effect that a Type 1 explanation is correct -- in other words, there is substantial grounds to conclude that blue-nosed wights caused life and speciation. I assume the logic is clear to everyone.

lpetrich

Let's turn to a related question: in all of the Earth's biota, is there any currently-existing species other than Homo sapiens capable of performing intelligent design?

But before we can answer that question, let us ask what "intelligent design" is supposed to be. That is often left undefined by ID advocates, almost as if it is supposed to be self-evident. My consideration of the question of animal intelligent design has led me to this definition:

Making a mental model of what one intends to build before building it.

But what might be evidence of that occurring if the designer has not communicated the details of his/her/its mental deliberations?

I can't think of a reasonable and general answer, at least at the moment, so I'll have to wave my hands on this.

E_muse

I understand from this that you are questioning the logic of my satement above.

Firstly, whatever is conceptualized as a possible cause for everything (not simply life) must at least be able to cause everything. If it is being suggested that the cause is intelligent then it must at least possess adequate intelligence... even if what is being considered is pure conjecture. Because the operation of blue-nosed wights falls at point 1, your rebuttal seems ridiculous IMO as it doesn't actually counter what theists are saying. No theist is offering this kind of arguement.

But then no-one is arguing this. You want to attack the logic of the arguement but then present something that isn't actually being argued for.

But your arguement goes as follows:

1. Present something that can't be responsible for life and speciation.
2. Alternative theory.

Because there are problems with 2, we must accept one. However, we wouldn't accept this as the 1 you have postulated would be an inadequate cause.

pz

That's an interesting idea, but now you get to define what a "mental model" is. Do wasps have a "mental model" of a nest? A 747 is way too complex to be grasped by the brain of a single person -- does the distributed information carried by multiple individuals and most importantly, many computers and rooms full of technical documentation constitute a "mental model"?

lpetrich

Returning to the question of animal intelligent design, it had been proposed to be abundant by biologist George Romanes in his 1887 book, Animal Intelligence. He collected numerous anecdotes that seemingly show that, even in species like ants.

However, his work has mainly been remembered as how not to do animal-behavior research -- it is grossly unsystematic and lacking in experimentation. And the picture that has emerged in the century since his work has been a very different one.

Most animal behavior is a result of instinct and simple forms of learning, like imprinting and conditioning. However, instinct and learning can be mixed in complicated ways, and instincts themselves can sometimes be formidably complicated.

I think that if an ID theorist saw a spider building a web for the very first time, he/she will likely conclude that that spider had designed that web. This is no straw conclusion; William Dembski himself has concluded that about <a href="http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0011/articles/exchange.html" target="_blank">beavers and the dams they build</a>.

However, spider web-building is both stereotyped and species-specific, and it is done without any opportunity to learn how to do it (spiders are not known for parental care of hatched offspring). And some months ago here, there was a thread on someone who had created a simulation of spider web building that used a big collection of rather simple algorithms for making its simulated spider decide where to go next as it lays down its silk thread. So it is reasonable to conclude that spider web building is done by instinct.

Likewise, beaver dam building is clearly an instinct -- it is triggered by the sound of rushing water, wherever it occurs. Thus, to keep them from building dams, one must keep them from hearing that sound, a fact used in some beaver-control strategies. Skip Lisle, the inventor of a "Beaver Deceiver" fence for culvert entrances and exits, notes that beavers are not very smart -- they cannot easily work around his fence designs.

However, close to our species, there are some possible exceptions, notably chimpanzees. In <a href="http://www.pigeon.psy.tufts.edu/psych26/kohler.htm" target="_blank">Wolfgang Koehler's classic experiments on chimps</a>, he discovered that they would often pause and then implement a solution, such as stacking crates to reach an out-of-reach banana. This is reasonably interpreted as the chimp thinking of how to reach that banana, constructing a mental model of stacked crates underneath that banana, and then stacking those crates. Thus, chimps may be capable of performing true intelligent design.

One counterargument is worth mentioning. The IDist may retreat to the claim that spiders and beavers had been designed for instincts for building webs and dams, but that is implicitly conceding that spiders and beavers do not perform intelligent design of these structures.

Clutch

It's interesting that you can get the point without realizing that you're getting it. But yes: this sort of fallacious argument does indeed hinge upon the prospects for (1) to actually count as an explanation of some phenomenon.

Assessing those prospects hence requires reviewing the specific research programme, crucial tests, lines of experimentation, and points of consilience with other theories and disciplines that characterize the Type 1 explanations. Simply noting that the (1)s and the not-(1)s disjointly exhaust the class of explanations is pointless; you need specifics about the scientific bona fides of the Type 1 purported explanation.

And that is what the recently deceased ID thread invited you to deliver, which you spectacularly failed to do.

See the point now?

Principia

I agree with this sentiment. Can intelligence be an emergent property of basic physical laws? Why not? Or must the intelligence described in ID theories be an extrinsic element? Note that answering these questions does not necessarily require tracing back to an ultimate causation. For instance, suppose we grant the basic, known physical laws as given (without positing the metaphysical questions) -- can intelligence emerge from the interaction of these laws?

But to answer that question, we need to ask how we differentiate between an objective intelligence and something that we subjectively assess as intelligent. Without answering this question, IDiots can keep talking around apparent designs without establishing any link to a real design. Is a rock intelligent or perhaps a product of intelligent design? What if we analyze its formation? And then consider its utility in practical human applications? its conservation? its atomic structure?

Extended further. What prevents us from saying everything is intelligently designed? The problem of course is that the utility of the concept diminishes.