Lessons of Intelligent Design
Mark Isaak
Oh, they assert it all the time, but the never say anything *about* it.
And it's a shame, really. Looking at life from a design perspective can
yield some rather important insights.
For one thing, design is a process, not (as Dembski asserts and other
IDists assume) an isolated event. Designs do not appear suddenly. They
are built gradually, by adding, subtracting, and modifying parts of the
overall design. Almost always, new designs are adapted from previous
designs. And no design is ever really done. It reaches a point where
useful products can come from it, but then, usually, a designer asks,
How can we change it to make it more useful? Either that, or something
in the product's environment changes, making it necessary to change the
design, perhaps even scrapping it completely and replacing it with
something else.
In short, design is evolutionary. You cannot have design without
evolution.
Another essential aspect of design is compromise. All designs require
multiple compromises. Should it be stronger, or should it be lighter?
Broadly applicable or narrowly tailored? Low cost or high quality?
There is no way to get everything you could possibly want, because many
of the ideals are intrinsically incompatible. There is no way to design
something without including some compromises.
This means that life, if designed, must include compromises.
Creationists often speak of our state as a fall from a perfect state.
But design teaches us that that is impossible, because the perfect state
cannot exist in the first place.
The compromise of cost versus quality applies to the design process
itself. Short of prohibitive costs (and maybe not even then), one
cannot expect all designs to excel immediately. Some designs will need
improving; some will need eliminating. Competent designers know this,
and they test their designs. Testing, and eliminating the failures
which the tests reveal, is a huge part of designing, and many designs
have failed because the designers skimped on it. But then, the
marketplace itself is a forum which tests designs and eliminates
failures.
In short, a process like natural selection is essential.
The topic of creativity in design is one I cannot hope to do justice to,
but I must say a few words about it. Most "new" designs are
recombinations of existing designs and natural phenomena. For example,
PCR is a combination of observed DNA chemistry and some simple
electrical technology. One of the best ways to find ideas for designs
is to go exploring. Exploration can take many forms, such as looking
through technical journals and patent libraries, visiting people in
another culture, doing original scientific research, or simply browsing
through a hardware store. The important part of exploration, though, is
that it produce the unexpected. One process that is sure help with this
is random chance. Sometimes chance happens seredipitously, as with
Fleming's discovery of pennicilin. Sometimes designers deliberately
employ it with programs of trial and error. Not all chance will help
with design, which is why selection is important, but some chance is
invaluable.
In short, random chance adds novelty to design.
So maybe we should teach design in biology classes -- *real* design and
and concepts behind it, not just the buzzword. Teaching about design
can perhaps help students understand concepts such as change over time,
natural selection, and the importance of random variation in evolution.
And perhaps it can help people appreciate other applications of design
as well. It seems to me that a lot of people expect that laws and other
public policy can be effectively created de novo, without going through
any testing or modification. And some people don't seem to understand
that the idea of compromise applies to such designs as vaccines and
airport security; thus they require costs far in excess of expected
gains. Design is all around us. Just using the word helps nothing. We
need to understand it better.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
spintronic
Someone on my wavelength. P.O.T.M. I agree with most of this.
T Pagano
wrote:
>One thing the Intelligent Design movement never talks about is design.
>Oh, they assert it all the time, but the never say anything *about* it.
>And it's a shame, really. Looking at life from a design perspective can
>yield some rather important insights.
Problem is ID theory was NOT formulated NOR does it take a macro look
a life. It is formulated to take a narrow view at individual objects,
events and systems. This is old ground yet Isaak is still criticizing
something other than Dembski's ID theory. This would be like me
attacking something resembling Lamarckism but claiming I'm attacking
neoDarwinism
>
>For one thing, design is a process, not (as Dembski asserts and other
>IDists assume) an isolated event.
The quotes from Dembski's works to justify this nonsense are noticably
absent and for good reason----they don't exist. And while "design" is
a process it is not the intent of ID theory to explain or model the
causal action of an intelligent agent in the process of designing.
> Designs do not appear suddenly. They
>are built gradually, by adding, subtracting, and modifying parts of the
>overall design. Almost always, new designs are adapted from previous
>designs. And no design is ever really done. It reaches a point where
>useful products can come from it, but then, usually, a designer asks,
>How can we change it to make it more useful? Either that, or something
>in the product's environment changes, making it necessary to change the
>design, perhaps even scrapping it completely and replacing it with
>something else.
While this is all very interesting for the historian of science and
technology what does it have to do with ID theory?
Intelligent design theory investigates the "effects" of intelligent
activity and not intelligence or the causal history of the process
itself. Once this design inference has been made one might begin an
investigation into the process employed by the intelligent designer.
>
>In short, design is evolutionary. You cannot have design without
>evolution.
Design is evolutionary only in the broad sense that things change and
that we learn from our mistakes. Unlike neoDarwinian evolution the
design process is NOT blind and it does not have to build in gradual
linear fashion upon some existing structure but can and often does
begin from scratch.
snip
Regards,
T Pagano
wf3h
T Pagano wrote:
>>
> Problem is ID theory was NOT formulated NOR does it take a macro look
> a life. I
it actually looks at nothing. it's not evidence based. it's religion
based. data is irrelevant
>
> >
> >For one thing, design is a process, not (as Dembski asserts and other
> >IDists assume) an isolated event.
>
> The quotes from Dembski's works to justify this nonsense are noticably
> absent and for good reason----they don't exist. And while "design" is
> a process it is not the intent of ID theory to explain or model the
> causal action of an intelligent agent in the process of designing.
ID explains nothing at all. when you have to explain nothing you can
explain everything...
>
> >
> Intelligent design theory investigates the "effects" of intelligent
> activity and not intelligence or the causal history of the process
> itself. Once this design inference has been made one might begin an
> investigation into the process employed by the intelligent designer.
OK pagano...when you gonna start this process analysis?
>
> >
josephus
no wonder you are vying to replace mcstupid. as the dumbest poster on
the group.
josephus
Lee Oswald Ving
3r7sl25iiusnu6alt...@4ax.com:
> Problem is ID theory was NOT formulated NOR does it take a macro look
> a life.
Indeed. It was formulated to re-badge Scientific Creationism to sneak it
into public schools. As such, it takes a look at nothing in any sort of
analytical sense, but the Discovery Institute has huge bills from their PR
firm.
It's long over, Pagano. Crawl into a hole soemwhere and try to re-build
some of your squandered credibility.
Franck
of your temporal human existence as experiencing a succession of
thoughts over time. You rightly describe the human experience as being
tensed, a real world with a past, present and future. But suppose for
a moment that the designer - prior to time, matter and space - is a
changeless incorporeal mind with the benefit of grasping truth in a
single, changeless intuition. If the designer can exist timelessly,
there is no reason to think that he would require memory since he has
no past or bad designs to remember. Nor would he be concerned about
the future or anticipation of a better design.
The designer - in light of the design complexity we observe while in
time - is likely omniscient and therefore cannot deliberate or reflect
upon the design like you and I might need to. He would already know
the best outcome. The best design.
Though I don't think ID tries to argue for this, I think it is helpful
to think about the designer's relationship to time. And if we don't
want to think about a designer at all or even its possibility, it is
especially helpful to think about our relationship to time, as its
running out rather quickly.
Perplexed in Peoria
This post strikes me as a deliberate attempt to get a POTM nomination.
A successful attempt too.
A few comments from my background in the design of computer hardware
and software: I mostly worked in the CAD (Computer Aided Design) industry.
The customers designed electronics and software. The assistance they
wanted from our products was mostly assistance in simulating designs -
that is, testing them before rolling them into production. As Mark
points out, this is a lot like NS. The other thing they wanted was
assistance with the information management and 'librarianship' aspects
of a big design. I'll point out that this is a lot like genetic inheritance.
So much for the customers. Now a few words on how we went about designing
these design-assistance products. When I first got involved with computer
software, the buzz-word was 'top-down design'. Then, it was noticed
that designs rarely happen starting from a tabula-rasa - instead most
designs involve fitting together already designed parts. So a new idea
got some study - 'bottom-up design'. But today, it is mostly recognized
that design is an ongoing and collaborative process and the new buzz-word
is 'iterative design'. Like Mark described, it is very much like natural
selection. The only difference seems to be that a good iterative design
team is always alert to the desirability of revising the interfaces of
the subcomponents to improve 'reuseability'. Biological micro-evolution
doesn't seem to do much of this - there is no incentive to create
"re-useable subsystems". No incentive, that is, if biological evolution
is driven purely by organism-level selection. But if there is a lot
of horizontal-gene-transfer so that gene-level selection occurs, or if
there is 'lineage sorting' so that something like species-level selection
occurs, then it would seem that biology can re-use design fragments in
a variety of novel designs of big systems.
ID theorists talk about a 'design inference' providing evidence for *the*
designer. It might be more interesting if they broadened their hypothesis
a bit to allow for the possibility of a 'design team'. Does the evidence
suggest one single designer, or is the evidence more suggestive of a
team of designers? Is the design apparently top-down creation of a
system to meet specifications starting from a tabula rasa, or is it
bottom-up construction of something clever from existing parts? Or
do the clues suggest that some kind of iterative design process was used?
It is also worthwhile to look at the evidence from a marketing perspective
rather than an engineering perspective. Lots of designs out there to
look at. Does it look like all the designs were produced by a single
designer or design department, or is there evidence that multiple
design enterprises are competing for market share? The ID movement is
Mark Isaak
> Very keen observation Mark. However, you're describing design in light
> of your temporal human existence as experiencing a succession of
> thoughts over time. You rightly describe the human experience as being
> tensed, a real world with a past, present and future. But suppose for a
> moment that the designer - prior to time, matter and space - is a
> changeless incorporeal mind with the benefit of grasping truth in a
> single, changeless intuition. If the designer can exist timelessly,
> there is no reason to think that he would require memory since he has no
> past or bad designs to remember. Nor would he be concerned about the
> future or anticipation of a better design.
Then you are describing a creator, not a designer. "God said, 'Be!', and
it was." If that's what you want to talk about, then say so. But we have
not the slightest idea how such creation would work or what constraints
there are on the end product. Part of the so-called Intelligent Design
claim is that life looks designed, which would be meainingless unless it
referred to the result of a design process.
Besides, like I said, design is worth knowing something about anyway.
Bill Wayne
T Pagano wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 19:54:12 GMT, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >One thing the Intelligent Design movement never talks about is design.
> >Oh, they assert it all the time, but the never say anything *about* it.
> >And it's a shame, really. Looking at life from a design perspective can
> >yield some rather important insights.
>
> Problem is ID theory was NOT formulated NOR does it take a macro look
> a life. It is formulated to take a narrow view at individual objects,
> events and systems. This is old ground yet Isaak is still criticizing
> something other than Dembski's ID theory. This would be like me
> attacking something resembling Lamarckism but claiming I'm attacking
> neoDarwinism
>
> >
> >For one thing, design is a process, not (as Dembski asserts and other
> >IDists assume) an isolated event.
>
> The quotes from Dembski's works to justify this nonsense are noticably
> absent and for good reason----they don't exist. And while "design" is
> a process it is not the intent of ID theory to explain or model the
> causal action of an intelligent agent in the process of designing.
While I agree it wasn't a good idea to not post a quote, I'm skeptical
one does not exist.
>
> > Designs do not appear suddenly. They
> >are built gradually, by adding, subtracting, and modifying parts of the
> >overall design. Almost always, new designs are adapted from previous
> >designs. And no design is ever really done. It reaches a point where
> >useful products can come from it, but then, usually, a designer asks,
> >How can we change it to make it more useful? Either that, or something
> >in the product's environment changes, making it necessary to change the
> >design, perhaps even scrapping it completely and replacing it with
> >something else.
>
> While this is all very interesting for the historian of science and
> technology what does it have to do with ID theory?
I believe he is saying that either the designer is infinitely
intelligent (and thus Gunderscored), or would have to do it with
evolution.
> Intelligent design theory investigates the "effects" of intelligent
> activity and not intelligence or the causal history of the process
> itself. Once this design inference has been made one might begin an
> investigation into the process employed by the intelligent designer.
So you claim ID "theory" rests on the ability to detect intelligence.
Very good. Two questions:
1) How do we detect intelligence design in organisms? I don't know what
"Complex Specified Information" is and Google nor any creationist site
help me, so you'll have to define it yourself.
2) Has the ID hypothesis been backed up by multiple experiments? If
not, it can't be called a theory.
> >
> >In short, design is evolutionary. You cannot have design without
> >evolution.
>
> Design is evolutionary only in the broad sense that things change and
> that we learn from our mistakes.
Agreed, although please refer to my previous comment.
> Unlike neoDarwinian evolution the
> design process is NOT blind and it does not have to build in gradual
> linear fashion upon some existing structure but *can and often does
> begin from scratch.*
Emphasis mine. If ID often builds from scratch, how come we share a lot
of our DNA with common ancestors?
> snip
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
Bill
Richard Clayton
> Problem is ID theory was NOT formulated NOR does it take a macro look
> a life. It is formulated to take a narrow view at individual objects,
> events and systems.
[snip]
There is no "id theory," Tony. There is no scientific theory of ID, and
ID proponents have reluctantly admitted this in court. Every time you or
any other ID supporter allude to a "theory" in intelligent design,
you're pushing a very cynical lie.
You could prove me wrong, though. Feel free to post the scientific
theory of ID right here in talk.origins. Be sure to include the ways it
can be tested and potentially falsified, and its predictions distinct
from the modern theory of evolution.
You usual tactics of evasion and victory-by-headline will be considered
an implicit admission of failure.
Regards,
R. Clayton
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"During wars laws are silent." -- Cicero
Bobby Bryant
T Pagano <not....@address.net> writes:
> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 19:54:12 GMT, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>>One thing the Intelligent Design movement never talks about is design.
>>Oh, they assert it all the time, but the never say anything *about* it.
>>And it's a shame, really. Looking at life from a design perspective can
>>yield some rather important insights.
>
> Problem is ID theory was NOT formulated
How true!
> NOR does it take a macro look a life. It is formulated to take a
> narrow view at individual objects, events and systems. This is old
> ground yet Isaak is still criticizing something other than Dembski's
> ID theory. This would be like me attacking something resembling
> Lamarckism but claiming I'm attacking neoDarwinism
No, the ID scam wasn't formulated to _examine_ anything. It was
formulated to make the ill-informed think there are scientific proofs
of a Creator.
How many "individual objects" has the """theory""" been applied to in
the past decade? And how many of them do we know any more about than
we did before, other than the spurious claim that "Someone designed it".
And what does "Someone designed it" even mean? Oh, wait, that's what
you're trying to make excuses for not knowing.
>>For one thing, design is a process, not (as Dembski asserts and other
>>IDists assume) an isolated event.
>
> The quotes from Dembski's works to justify this nonsense are noticably
> absent and for good reason----they don't exist. And while "design" is
> a process it is not the intent of ID theory to explain or model the
> causal action of an intelligent agent in the process of designing.
>
>
>> Designs do not appear suddenly. They
>>are built gradually, by adding, subtracting, and modifying parts of the
>>overall design. Almost always, new designs are adapted from previous
>>designs. And no design is ever really done. It reaches a point where
>>useful products can come from it, but then, usually, a designer asks,
>>How can we change it to make it more useful? Either that, or something
>>in the product's environment changes, making it necessary to change the
>>design, perhaps even scrapping it completely and replacing it with
>>something else.
>
> While this is all very interesting for the historian of science and
> technology what does it have to do with ID theory?
>
> Intelligent design theory investigates the "effects" of intelligent
> activity and not intelligence or the causal history of the process
> itself. Once this design inference has been made one might begin an
> investigation into the process employed by the intelligent designer.
Yet no one ever has. The mere "proof" of design satisfies the IDologists'
goals, and they have nothing to gain by pursuing the matter further.
>>In short, design is evolutionary. You cannot have design without
>>evolution.
>
> Design is evolutionary only in the broad sense that things change and
> that we learn from our mistakes. Unlike neoDarwinian evolution the
> design process is NOT blind and it does not have to build in gradual
> linear fashion upon some existing structure but can and often does
> begin from scratch.
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
Franck
> it was." If that's what you want to talk about, then say so.
Creator of design certainly! Isn't that what all human designers are?
I don't think however that ID says that the designer is a human person.
You say that in general "[designs] are built gradually" and I would
say that describes somewhat accurately how we humans design things (in
light of past, present, future moments in time). However, since ID also
refers to the design of the universe I was simply suggesting that the
study of the nature of Time would be an interesting scientific field
that could shed some light on your idea.
> Besides, like I said, design is worth knowing something about anyway.
Indeed!
Franck
> designer. It might be more interesting if they broadened their hypothesis
> a bit to allow for the possibility of a 'design team'. Does the evidence
> suggest one single designer, or is the evidence more suggestive of a
> designer or design department, or is there evidence that multiple
> design enterprises are competing for market share? The ID movement is
> silent on these questions.
Unnecessarily complicating the problem (multiplying the designers)
makes this reasoning incorrect. Causes should not be multiplied
without necessity (Ockham's Razor).
Ron O
This is a joke, right? Applying the razor to what wouldn't even be an
issue if you had applied the razor correctly in the first place.
Ron Okimoto
noctiluca
Franck wrote:
> >Then you are describing a creator, not a designer. "God said, 'Be!', and
> > it was." If that's what you want to talk about, then say so.
>
> Creator of design certainly! Isn't that what all human designers are?
The point is that a designer employs design processes which rely
heavily (almost exclusively) upon trial and error histories. The
"designer" you describe is simply not a designer. This is a creator who
has no use for design processes and their inherent restrictions. This
entity can poof into existence whatever it desires.
> I don't think however that ID says that the designer is a human person.
Hmmm...and whom does ID say the designer is? The "designer" must either
be a natural intelligent entity (human or alien) or a supernatural one.
In the case of the former there is no reason why ID proponents should
not make this clear here and now. It would save a lot of wrangling as
well as leave the way clear for scientists who know a thing or two
about this field (e.g. archeologists) to help with the investigation.
On the other hand if ID is open to supernatural design it is by
definition a non-empirical enterprise suitable for theological, but not
scientific, reference.
There is only one other option open to ID "theorists" and that is to
change the methodological substance of science itself. The fact that
they are all well-aware of this is demonstrated by their continuing
efforts to argue for the relaxation of naturalistic requirements.
The truly sickening irony is that one minute they will make this case,
then follow it directly with an assertion that ID is not religious.
RLC
Von R. Smith
Franck wrote:
> Very keen observation Mark. However, you're describing design in light
> of your temporal human existence as experiencing a succession of
> thoughts over time. You rightly describe the human experience as being
> tensed, a real world with a past, present and future. But suppose for
> a moment that the designer - prior to time, matter and space - is a
> changeless incorporeal mind with the benefit of grasping truth in a
> single, changeless intuition. If the designer can exist timelessly,
> there is no reason to think that he would require memory since he has
> no past or bad designs to remember. Nor would he be concerned about
> the future or anticipation of a better design.
>
> The designer - in light of the design complexity we observe while in
> time - is likely omniscient and therefore cannot deliberate or reflect
> upon the design like you and I might need to. He would already know
> the best outcome. The best design.
>
> Though I don't think ID tries to argue for this, I think it is helpful
> to think about the designer's relationship to time. And if we don't
> want to think about a designer at all or even its possibility, it is
> especially helpful to think about our relationship to time, as its
> running out rather quickly.
Either there is a strong analogy between supposed Creation events and
known human design activities, or there is not. Your suggestion here
points to the conclusion that there is not. Since the entire argument
from design relies on the supposed strength of this analogy, it would
be self-defeating to present such proposals as yours in defense of ID.
noctiluca
I can accept this argument, as long as you realize that Ockham's Razor
also invalidates any inference to an extra-natural "designer." The
number of unsupported assumptions implicit in this inference is
staggering.
RLC
T Pagano
wrote:
>
>Franck wrote:
>> > ID theorists talk about a 'design inference' providing evidence for *the*
>> > designer.
Such inferences do nothing of the sort nor am I aware of any ID
theorist making any such claim. The inference implicates intelligent
agency as the proximate cause. It provides no pointer to which
intelligent agent or agents were involved.
>> > It might be more interesting if they broadened their hypothesis
>> > a bit to allow for the possibility of a 'design team'. Does the evidence
>> > suggest one single designer, or is the evidence more suggestive of a
>> > team of designers?
The design inference gives no information whatsoever about who the
designer is, whether there was more than one designer, when the design
occurred, why it occurred, when it occurred or where it occurred. The
theory studies the effects of design not the causal history of the
design, or the quality of design.
>> > ... Does it look like all the designs were produced by a single
>> > designer or design department, or is there evidence that multiple
>> > design enterprises are competing for market share? The ID movement is
>> > silent on these questions.
This is like accusing the advocates of Radiometric Dating of failing
to answer causal history questions about the rock samples they test.
It would also be like accusing neoDarwinians of being silent about the
causal history of the first self replicating molecule.
One can hardly hold a theory wanting for aspects it is NOT forumlated
to answer.
>>
>> Unnecessarily complicating the problem (multiplying the designers)
>> makes this reasoning incorrect. Causes should not be multiplied
>> without necessity (Ockham's Razor).
This is simple-minded nonsense. An inference of design implicates
intelligent agency; it is irrelevent to the inference how many agents
were involved. ID theory studies the empirical effects of intelligent
causation not the causal history of such activity.
If causes are being multiplied it is only in the imagination of
Franck.
>
>I can accept this argument, as long as you realize that Ockham's Razor
>also invalidates any inference to an extra-natural "designer." The
>number of unsupported assumptions implicit in this inference is
>staggering.
Noctiluca is making things up as he goes along. Ockham's razor is not
a principle of logic but a rough rule of thumb that has been ignored
repeatedly in the history of science. As such it is incapable of
invalidating any theory regardless of whether its guidance is followed
or not. The claim that Ockham's Razor invalidates anything including
an extra-natural designer is pure nonsense.
Ockam's razor is hardly a logical principle but rough rule of thumb
which simple suggests that entities are not to be multiplied beyond
necessity.
Regards,
T Pagano
Steven J.
seems to me that there is another. If paleontologists find a solitary
fossil of some unknown species, does Ockham's Razor demand that we not
infer, without additional evidence, the existence of other members of
that species? By the same token, if there can be one Designer, may we
not infer the existence of additional Designers, unless there is some
reasonable necessity to limit the number of Designers to one?
The really weird thing is, the above argument is not even heretical.
Some explicit creationists have argued that some features of the
natural world are the work of Satan rather than God (i.e. that there
are at least two designers). Some ID theorists, after taking off their
"non-religious" hats, have suggested that demons may have played a role
in the design of some systems. Of course, there are heretical
versions: the various gnostic systems invoked a created demiurge who
did the actual design work on the world, and there seems no particular
reason to limit the number of demiurges to one.
-- Steven J.
Steven J.
T Pagano wrote:
> On 19 Nov 2006 18:49:34 -0800, "noctiluca" <rober...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Franck wrote:
> >> > ID theorists talk about a 'design inference' providing evidence for *the*
> >> > designer.
>
> Such inferences do nothing of the sort nor am I aware of any ID
> theorist making any such claim. The inference implicates intelligent
> agency as the proximate cause. It provides no pointer to which
> intelligent agent or agents were involved.
>
agency" as a remote cause, with no clue as to the "proximate cause?"
This, of course, is a problem scientists tend to have with ID, since
"design inferences" in actual science tend to depend on identifying
proximate causes which happen, normally, to be employed by known sorts
of intelligent agents rather than happening without intelligent
guidance. For example, accelerants tend not to lay themselves down in
over-insured buildings, and bullets tend not to fire themselves at
victims. But always, outside of creationist apologetics, "design" is
inferred from the detection of "manufacture" using known techniques.
>
> >> > It might be more interesting if they broadened their hypothesis
> >> > a bit to allow for the possibility of a 'design team'. Does the evidence
> >> > suggest one single designer, or is the evidence more suggestive of a
> >> > team of designers?
>
> The design inference gives no information whatsoever about who the
> designer is, whether there was more than one designer, when the design
> occurred, why it occurred, when it occurred or where it occurred. The
> theory studies the effects of design not the causal history of the
> design, or the quality of design.
>
gives no information whatsover about whether there was a "designer," or
merely unknown nonteleological causes, or known unguided causes
operating in unknown ways in combination. For that matter, given that
the test employed in practice by ID proponents to show that something
is "IC" or has "SCI" is that there is no completely detailed and tested
"neoDarwinian" account of how something has evolved (i.e. not any
evidence that such a system actually could not evolve by "neoDarwinian"
mechanisms), don't forget to point out that the design inference gives
no assurance that something wasn't the result of an unknown
"neoDarwinian" pathway. In other words, natural selection cannot be
ruled out as the Designer.
>
> >> > ... Does it look like all the designs were produced by a single
> >> > designer or design department, or is there evidence that multiple
> >> > design enterprises are competing for market share? The ID movement is
> >> > silent on these questions.
>
> This is like accusing the advocates of Radiometric Dating of failing
> to answer causal history questions about the rock samples they test.
> It would also be like accusing neoDarwinians of being silent about the
> causal history of the first self replicating molecule.
>
sedulously refuses to provide details) is more analogous to natural
selection and mutation than to abiogenesis, more analagous to
radioactive decay itself than to the volcanic processes that produced
radioisotope-bearing igneous specimens. You will perhaps note that
when Darwin had no idea where new variation came from, he offered
numerous speculations (which by and large did not pan out, but at least
he tried), and later generations of scientists showed why these would
not work and offered other ideas that did. It is really very strange
that ID proponents have posed no testable theories (private religious
ideas, yes, but nothing they are willing to put on the line as
"scientific") about the nature of the thing that makes design happen.
It is, as I've noted before, as though Isaac Newton devised a "theory
of gravity" that included no reference to the inverse square law, or
any other ideas about or interest in how gravity was actually supposed
to work. That wouldn't be a theory. Neither is ID.
>
> One can hardly hold a theory wanting for aspects it is NOT forumlated
> to answer.
>
to answer those questions. On the one hand, ID doesn't want to be
saddled with clear evidence that it is just creationism with the serial
numbers filed off so that it can be slipped into public schools (not
that this tactic is working all that well, but one has to try). On the
other hand, ID doesn't *want* its ideas about the Designer (which are,
after all, religious beliefs rather than scientific hypotheses) subject
to testing and possible falsification.
>
> >> Unnecessarily complicating the problem (multiplying the designers)
> >> makes this reasoning incorrect. Causes should not be multiplied
> >> without necessity (Ockham's Razor).
>
> This is simple-minded nonsense. An inference of design implicates
> intelligent agency; it is irrelevent to the inference how many agents
> were involved. ID theory studies the empirical effects of intelligent
> causation not the causal history of such activity.
>
nothing you have said about the workings of the explanatory filter or
irreducible complexity suggests otherwise) that ID does not study the
empirical effects of anything; it constructs elaborate "god of the
gaps" arguments and specious justifications for them. It tries to show
that "design" is implied by the impossibility of finding a non-design
explanation, not that the supposedly "designed" thing actually
resembles any known empirical effect of any known designer.
>
> If causes are being multiplied it is only in the imagination of
> Franck.
> >
> >I can accept this argument, as long as you realize that Ockham's Razor
> >also invalidates any inference to an extra-natural "designer." The
> >number of unsupported assumptions implicit in this inference is
> >staggering.
>
> Noctiluca is making things up as he goes along. Ockham's razor is not
> a principle of logic but a rough rule of thumb that has been ignored
> repeatedly in the history of science. As such it is incapable of
> invalidating any theory regardless of whether its guidance is followed
> or not. The claim that Ockham's Razor invalidates anything including
> an extra-natural designer is pure nonsense.
>
which is simply that Ockham's Razor does not argue against multiple
supernatural designers any more strongly than it argues against even
one supernatural designer -- which you have not disputed. You seem, in
your posts, to deal with agreement almost as poorly as you deal with
disagreement.
But just for amusement, could you name an example of Ockham's Razor
being ignored in the history of science (preferably by a theory that
won long acceptance by a majority of scientists working in a field)? I
do not say this has not happened, but what cases did you have in mind?
>
> Ockam's razor is hardly a logical principle but rough rule of thumb
> which simple suggests that entities are not to be multiplied beyond
> necessity.
>
Also, you tend to lecture people on matters which are either not
germane to the point at hand or, as here, which a reasonable person
would infer that the person already understood.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
-- Steven J.
John Wilkins
As per the Multiple Designer Hypothesis, there are as many Designers as
there are Designs. At least one per phylum, if not one per species...
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
noctiluca
T Pagano wrote:
> On 19 Nov 2006 18:49:34 -0800, "noctiluca" <rober...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Franck wrote:
> >> > ID theorists talk about a 'design inference' providing evidence for *the*
> >> > designer.
>
> Such inferences do nothing of the sort nor am I aware of any ID
> theorist making any such claim.
Of course that is exactly what the inferences are meant to do, although
you are correct that ID "theorists" dance around that intent as
carefully as they can.
Feel free to read through the many and varied definitions and
descriptions of "intelligent design" here
(http://litcandle.blogspot.com/2006/01/what-is-intelligent-design-it-depends.html)
which fall all over themselves declaring that ID reveals the "designer"
without outright claim to actually having evidence.
> The inference implicates intelligent
> agency as the proximate cause. It provides no pointer to which
> intelligent agent or agents were involved.
This is functionally accurate, and constitutes a pithy observation as
to the content-free nature of ID "theory."
> >> > It might be more interesting if they broadened their hypothesis
> >> > a bit to allow for the possibility of a 'design team'. Does the evidence
> >> > suggest one single designer, or is the evidence more suggestive of a
> >> > team of designers?
>
> The design inference gives no information whatsoever about who the
> designer is, whether there was more than one designer, when the design
> occurred, why it occurred, when it occurred or where it occurred. The
> theory studies the effects of design not the causal history of the
> design, or the quality of design.
This is utter nonsense. The effects of unbounded (not restricted to
natural causes) design *cannot* be studied without first demonstrating
that extra-natural design is an empirically supported inference.
We can study the effects of natural intelligent design because this
cause (e.g. human design) is a non-controversial inference. The
evidential groundwork establishing the safety of that assumption is
inarguable. There is no such support for extra-natural intelligent
design.
If you wish to declare that ID, at least as you conceive it, repudiates
inference to extra-natural design I will retract my evaluation of your
naive arguments. Otherwise you're just continually spewing the word
"intelligence" in the hope that no one will notice your attempt to
conflate science (activities that investigate intelligence - e.g.
archeology) with theology (activities which propose supernatural
intervention).
> >> > ... Does it look like all the designs were produced by a single
> >> > designer or design department, or is there evidence that multiple
> >> > design enterprises are competing for market share? The ID movement is
> >> > silent on these questions.
>
> This is like accusing the advocates of Radiometric Dating of failing
> to answer causal history questions about the rock samples they test.
> It would also be like accusing neoDarwinians of being silent about the
> causal history of the first self replicating molecule.
Well, no, of course it wouldn't. It would be like accusing Darwinians
of being silent about the causal history of descent with modification.
But as this is what they actually study and publish research on your
analogy, once repaired, is revealed as drooling puffery.
You have once again offered an example that casts the problems of ID in
specific relief. This time the fact that real science tests its
hypotheses and ID merely assumes their validity.
> One can hardly hold a theory wanting for aspects it is NOT forumlated
> to answer.
One can if the theory purports to be scientific and fails miserably.
> >> Unnecessarily complicating the problem (multiplying the designers)
> >> makes this reasoning incorrect. Causes should not be multiplied
> >> without necessity (Ockham's Razor).
>
> This is simple-minded nonsense. An inference of design implicates
> intelligent agency; it is irrelevent to the inference how many agents
> were involved. ID theory studies the empirical effects of intelligent
> causation not the causal history of such activity.
>
> If causes are being multiplied it is only in the imagination of
> Franck.
> >
> >I can accept this argument, as long as you realize that Ockham's Razor
> >also invalidates any inference to an extra-natural "designer." The
> >number of unsupported assumptions implicit in this inference is
> >staggering.
>
> Noctiluca is making things up as he goes along. Ockham's razor is not
> a principle of logic but a rough rule of thumb that has been ignored
> repeatedly in the history of science.
If you reread you'll notice that I was asking Franck to apply his logic
to his own assumptions.
> As such it is incapable of
> invalidating any theory regardless of whether its guidance is followed
> or not. The claim that Ockham's Razor invalidates anything including
> an extra-natural designer is pure nonsense.
Had I held that the Razor actually invalidates any theory you might
have a point, but of course you are once again bloviating. I have
invoked Ockham's Razor in the past and above, but always in a
particular context, that being one where it has been offered by a
creationist or ID proponent as support for the inference to a designer.
As such it simply serves as an opportunity to ask the creationist to
face the multiplicity of assumptions he actually incurs as a result of
using the Razor to bolster his position.
Your inability to look beyond a chance to score cheap points with
pompous rhetoric and see the deeper argument is distressing, if not
surprising.
> Ockam's razor is hardly a logical principle but rough rule of thumb
> which simple suggests that entities are not to be multiplied beyond
> necessity.
Well done, Tony. You've mastered the drdach technigue of stating the
obvious in an attempt to appear educated. Or did he learn that from
you?
RLC
> Regards,
> T Pagano
Perplexed in Peoria
"Steven J." <stev...@altavista.com> wrote in message news:1163998760.9...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
It is also not heretical to people like me who thumb their noses at the
Mayrs and Wilkinses of the world and speak metaphorically about the
design capabilities of natural selection. If we deify Nature, we need
to be polytheists. The designer who had responsibility for the African
apes back 7 million years ago reproduced by fissioning into three distinct
designers - one for gorillas, one for chimps, and one for homonids.
Those three designers inherited a common design tradition, but they soon
began working at cross-purposes.
The best argument I can see against a single Designer for the whole
biosphere is that so many of the clever inventions seem to have been
designed for the whole purpose of counteracting some other clever invention.
Bobby Bryant
"Perplexed in Peoria" <jimme...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
> The best argument I can see against a single Designer for the whole
> biosphere is that so many of the clever inventions seem to have been
> designed for the whole purpose of counteracting some other clever
> invention.
The best argument *I* can see against a single Designer is that we
don't have a clue what design (or Designer) means. Until someone
is willing to stick their neck out with a definition, the claims
are vacuous.
And of course, that's an argument against polydesignism as well.
Ye Old One
I will second that.
--
Bob.
TomS
<1hp3xyz.rpv3mb1trmnyvN%j.wil...@uq.edu.au>, John Wilkins stated..."
But there are other "designs" in the world of life, other than the anatomical
features in common to certain taxa.
For example, there is the pattern of the "tree of life". The complex
relationships between the various taxa. By any reasonable measure, this
pattern wound count as complex, and it also has predictive power: every
living thing that will ever be examined, however it is examined, will fall
into place in that tree of life.
For another, there is the pattern of biogeography. And so on, through
all of the various patterns which have been brought up as supporting
evidence for common descent and descent with modification. That is
to say, all of the features of biology which have been of interest to
biologists once biology expanded beyond natural history (or "stamp
collecting").
If the analogy from design is taken seriously, then we clearly have a
designer responsible for the appearance of billions of years of the
history of life. That appearance clearly could not be due to "chance",
and it clearly is "specified" (in that it has so often predicted what
kinds of fossils will be found, and what kinds will not). If the analogy
from design has any general applicability, then the appearance of
age is either due to natural law or it has been deliberately designed
that way.
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"...works of Nature are not like the works of art which are made only by
progressing from one part to another ... unlike an artisan, Nature ... can
act on all of the parts at once just as well as on a single one ..."
Pierre Gassendi, De Generatione Animalium, Chapter III (1651)
Dick
wrote:
>One thing the Intelligent Design movement never talks about is design.
>Oh, they assert it all the time, but the never say anything *about* it.
>And it's a shame, really. Looking at life from a design perspective can
>yield some rather important insights.
>
>For one thing, design is a process, not (as Dembski asserts and other
>IDists assume) an isolated event. Designs do not appear suddenly. They
>are built gradually, by adding, subtracting, and modifying parts of the
>overall design. Almost always, new designs are adapted from previous
>designs. And no design is ever really done. It reaches a point where
>useful products can come from it, but then, usually, a designer asks,
>How can we change it to make it more useful? Either that, or something
>in the product's environment changes, making it necessary to change the
>design, perhaps even scrapping it completely and replacing it with
>something else.
Modularizing is common to earthly design. The automobile industry
found common chassis a cost saver. I see no reason a hypothetical
"designer/s" would start from scratch each whack.
Assuming a single 'designer' makes no sense, nor does it seem
reasonable to do major design changes through earthly evolution.
Surely a designer capable of creating a universe would understand
assisted 'modeling.' Even, mortals, have learned to model then
transfer to an intelligent machine the process of turning out a
product. Once the product is designed, engineers can alter for cost
effectiveness and niche markets.
If there was design, that is how I would suspect it happened, thus
starting with a "cell" or fraction thereof progressing to modules
using the cell as a building block. Eventually designing a
reproducible storage device (DNA) and processing tools (proteins?)
then using the basic system to model advanced designs.
Earthly Evolution would be a great tool to modify basic designs to fit
individual niches and fine tune for efficiency.
>
>In short, design is evolutionary. You cannot have design without
>evolution.
>
>Another essential aspect of design is compromise. All designs require
>multiple compromises. Should it be stronger, or should it be lighter?
>Broadly applicable or narrowly tailored? Low cost or high quality?
>There is no way to get everything you could possibly want, because many
>of the ideals are intrinsically incompatible. There is no way to design
>something without including some compromises.
That is the role of Evolution after basic design.
>
>This means that life, if designed, must include compromises.
>Creationists often speak of our state as a fall from a perfect state.
>But design teaches us that that is impossible, because the perfect state
>cannot exist in the first place.
The constant rebuttal using Creatonists is a straw man. Christianity
is just one model of a supernatural existence. Perhaps the Greeks and
Romans, or other native tribes with their monotheism are closer to a
likely supernatural.
>
>The compromise of cost versus quality applies to the design process
>itself. Short of prohibitive costs (and maybe not even then), one
>cannot expect all designs to excel immediately. Some designs will need
>improving; some will need eliminating. Competent designers know this,
>and they test their designs. Testing, and eliminating the failures
>which the tests reveal, is a huge part of designing, and many designs
>have failed because the designers skimped on it. But then, the
>marketplace itself is a forum which tests designs and eliminates
>failures.
>
Again, this is where Natural Selection seems so appropriate to do the
fine tuning.
>In short, a process like natural selection is essential.
I typed my comment before reading your last line. I really do agree
with your statement.
>
>The topic of creativity in design is one I cannot hope to do justice to,
>but I must say a few words about it. Most "new" designs are
>recombinations of existing designs and natural phenomena. For example,
>PCR is a combination of observed DNA chemistry and some simple
>electrical technology. One of the best ways to find ideas for designs
>is to go exploring. Exploration can take many forms, such as looking
>through technical journals and patent libraries, visiting people in
>another culture, doing original scientific research, or simply browsing
>through a hardware store. The important part of exploration, though, is
>that it produce the unexpected. One process that is sure help with this
>is random chance. Sometimes chance happens seredipitously, as with
>Fleming's discovery of pennicilin. Sometimes designers deliberately
>employ it with programs of trial and error. Not all chance will help
>with design, which is why selection is important, but some chance is
>invaluable.
>
Consider a design team with a data base that 'knows' how to implement
designs into earthly elements, that has instructions to first look up
existent modules and another device that knows how to
translate/transfer (perhaps via 'strings' to earth elements.
>In short, random chance adds novelty to design.
So does intelligent intent.
>
>So maybe we should teach design in biology classes -- *real* design and
>and concepts behind it, not just the buzzword. Teaching about design
>can perhaps help students understand concepts such as change over time,
>natural selection, and the importance of random variation in evolution.
>
Design and Evolution need not conflict.
>And perhaps it can help people appreciate other applications of design
>as well. It seems to me that a lot of people expect that laws and other
>public policy can be effectively created de novo, without going through
>any testing or modification. And some people don't seem to understand
>that the idea of compromise applies to such designs as vaccines and
>airport security; thus they require costs far in excess of expected
>gains. Design is all around us. Just using the word helps nothing. We
>need to understand it better.
There is so many gaps in our knowledge. No need to require students
be indoctrinated with one view or another. Having said that, I do not
believe in indoctrination by creed.
dick
Dick
>>Then you are describing a creator, not a designer. "God said, 'Be!', and
>> it was." If that's what you want to talk about, then say so.
>
>Creator of design certainly! Isn't that what all human designers are?
>I don't think however that ID says that the designer is a human person.
> You say that in general "[designs] are built gradually" and I would
>say that describes somewhat accurately how we humans design things (in
>light of past, present, future moments in time). However, since ID also
>refers to the design of the universe I was simply suggesting that the
>study of the nature of Time would be an interesting scientific field
>that could shed some light on your idea.
Why do you believe "time" is running out? In relation to human
experience, there seems to be lots of time.
Besides, what is this time of yours? Einstein said time is what a
clock measures. But, clocks measure energy entropy. If you forget
the battery or winding the spring, nothing is measured. Perhaps time
is nothing but a series of "Now." Motion nothing but a memory of Now
and Now-past such as we are familiar in frames of a motion picture.
>
>> Besides, like I said, design is worth knowing something about anyway.
>
>Indeed!
Indeed (me too)
dick
Dick
wrote:
>
>Franck wrote:
>> >Then you are describing a creator, not a designer. "God said, 'Be!', and
>> > it was." If that's what you want to talk about, then say so.
>>
ID as represented by Behe, does not say "Be'" Behe goes so far as to
say believing in design says 'nothing' about the nature of the
designer.
>> Creator of design certainly! Isn't that what all human designers are?
>
>The point is that a designer employs design processes which rely
>heavily (almost exclusively) upon trial and error histories. The
>"designer" you describe is simply not a designer. This is a creator who
>has no use for design processes and their inherent restrictions. This
>entity can poof into existence whatever it desires.
I am often taken by the 10 billion years it took for the material
universe to form versus the 3.5 billion years to evolve life forms.
It suggest either the material world was more difficult than life
forms, or the designers learned and designed better tools.
>
>> I don't think however that ID says that the designer is a human person.
>
>Hmmm...and whom does ID say the designer is? The "designer" must either
>be a natural intelligent entity (human or alien) or a supernatural one.
>In the case of the former there is no reason why ID proponents should
>not make this clear here and now. It would save a lot of wrangling as
>well as leave the way clear for scientists who know a thing or two
>about this field (e.g. archeologists) to help with the investigation.
So long as the Christian world is given full ownership of ID and the
Designer the identity of the Creator of Genesis, we are in a hopeless
loop. I don't think we (mankind) have given much effort to examining
the nature of the supernatural and possible implications of having
been designed. The Bible is void of answers to 'why' life exists
including the requisite material universe. "Accident" is a closed
discussion: we are here thus end of discussion. However, there are
many possible reasons for why a 'designer', shorn of the existing
gods, might have designed us.
>
>On the other hand if ID is open to supernatural design it is by
>definition a non-empirical enterprise suitable for theological, but not
>scientific, reference.
Science is not the only tool of man. We do not turn to science to
help us 'know' what music we like, who we love, what is beautiful.
Does anyone care to place a value of what is more important in our
lives, discovery by scientific investigation or values felt by the
individual?
>
>There is only one other option open to ID "theorists" and that is to
>change the methodological substance of science itself. The fact that
>they are all well-aware of this is demonstrated by their continuing
>efforts to argue for the relaxation of naturalistic requirements.
Man creates the classifications for his convenience. "Natural
Philosophy" used to include philosophy and the study of the natural
world.
>
>The truly sickening irony is that one minute they will make this case,
>then follow it directly with an assertion that ID is not religious.
>
I suspect most adherents to ID are Christians. That is too bad. For
me the real discussion is between: Accident versus Design. Behe
clearly 'was able' to distinguish God from Designer/s when he said,
believing in design tells us nothing about the nature of the designer.
Too bad that statement by Behe is not repeated rather than his other
Creationist views.
dick
Dick
wrote:
What is needed is 'brainstorming' to open the nature of our being.
Titles and association have focused on known possibilities, not the
possible.
Origin is not limited by man's abilities.
dick
noctiluca
Dick wrote:
> On 19 Nov 2006 17:29:00 -0800, "noctiluca" <rober...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >Franck wrote:
> >> >Then you are describing a creator, not a designer. "God said, 'Be!', and
> >> > it was." If that's what you want to talk about, then say so.
>
> ID as represented by Behe, does not say "Be'" Behe goes so far as to
> say believing in design says 'nothing' about the nature of the
> designer.
It's pretty clear that Behe both believes in design and believes he
knows the nature and identity of the designer;
"By "intelligent design" I mean to imply design beyond the laws
of nature. That is, taking the laws of nature as given, are their[sic]
other reasons for concluding that life and its component systems have
been intentionally arranged? In my book, and in this essay, whenever I
refer to intelligent design (ID) I mean this stronger sense of
design-beyond-laws." - Michael Behe, Philosophical Objections to
Intelligent Design, 2002
And design "beyond the laws of nature," i.e. transcendental design, no
matter where you place it in the sequence of universal or biological
development, is pretty much synonymous with saying "BE!"
> >> Creator of design certainly! Isn't that what all human designers are?
> >
> >The point is that a designer employs design processes which rely
> >heavily (almost exclusively) upon trial and error histories. The
> >"designer" you describe is simply not a designer. This is a creator who
> >has no use for design processes and their inherent restrictions. This
> >entity can poof into existence whatever it desires.
>
> I am often taken by the 10 billion years it took for the material
> universe to form versus the 3.5 billion years to evolve life forms.
> It suggest either the material world was more difficult than life
> forms, or the designers learned and designed better tools.
Or you could just go with conclusions based upon evidence.
> >> I don't think however that ID says that the designer is a human person.
> >
> >Hmmm...and whom does ID say the designer is? The "designer" must either
> >be a natural intelligent entity (human or alien) or a supernatural one.
> >In the case of the former there is no reason why ID proponents should
> >not make this clear here and now. It would save a lot of wrangling as
> >well as leave the way clear for scientists who know a thing or two
> >about this field (e.g. archeologists) to help with the investigation.
>
> So long as the Christian world is given full ownership of ID and the
> Designer the identity of the Creator of Genesis, we are in a hopeless
> loop. I don't think we (mankind) have given much effort to examining
> the nature of the supernatural and possible implications of having
> been designed.
The possible implications of having been designed by the supernatural
are irrelevant and inaccessible to methods of scientific examination.
This is what churches are for.
> The Bible is void of answers to 'why' life exists
> including the requisite material universe. "Accident" is a closed
> discussion: we are here thus end of discussion. However, there are
> many possible reasons for why a 'designer', shorn of the existing
> gods, might have designed us.
For instance?
> >On the other hand if ID is open to supernatural design it is by
> >definition a non-empirical enterprise suitable for theological, but not
> >scientific, reference.
>
> Science is not the only tool of man.
Indeed. Where did I imply otherwise?
> We do not turn to science to
> help us 'know' what music we like, who we love, what is beautiful.
No, we turn to science to help us understand the natural universe. And
in the context of understanding origins vis a vis first causes ID
cannot be considered scientific, your digressions above and below
notwithstanding.
> Does anyone care to place a value of what is more important in our
> lives, discovery by scientific investigation or values felt by the
> individual?
>
> >There is only one other option open to ID "theorists" and that is to
> >change the methodological substance of science itself. The fact that
> >they are all well-aware of this is demonstrated by their continuing
> >efforts to argue for the relaxation of naturalistic requirements.
>
> Man creates the classifications for his convenience. "Natural
> Philosophy" used to include philosophy and the study of the natural
> world.
And it is now science that includes the study of the natural world.
This happened for a reason, that being the "convenience" of
reliability. Methodological naturalism (especially when coupled with
peer-review) produces results irrespective of the philosophies and
prejudices of those who employ it.
> >The truly sickening irony is that one minute they will make this case,
> >then follow it directly with an assertion that ID is not religious.
> >
>
> I suspect most adherents to ID are Christians. That is too bad. For
> me the real discussion is between: Accident versus Design. Behe
> clearly 'was able' to distinguish God from Designer/s when he said,
> believing in design tells us nothing about the nature of the designer.
Behe does not distinguish between God and Designer. Behe just places
its action(s) at a different point in the process. If you're
interested, you can check into "front-loading" for more on this.
> Too bad that statement by Behe is not repeated rather than his other
> Creationist views.
Why? It's a rather vacuous argument when considered in the context of
Behe's political activities. It's simply another example of an ID
"theorist" trying to keep "intelligent design" from running afoul of
the establishment clause. Of course, out of the other side of his
mouth...
"I'm still not against Darwinian evolution on theological
grounds. I'm against it on scientific grounds. I think God could have
made life using apparently random mutation and natural selection. But
my reading of the scientific evidence is that he did not do it that
way, that there was a more active guiding. I think that we are all
descended from some single cell in the distant past but that that cell
and later parts of life were intentionally produced as the result of
intelligent activity. As a Christian, I say that intelligence is very
likely to be God." - Michael, Behe, Can You Believe in God and
Evolution?, Time, 2005
RLC
> dick
Mark Isaak
>>Then you are describing a creator, not a designer. "God said, 'Be!',
>>and it was." If that's what you want to talk about, then say so.
>
> Creator of design certainly! Isn't that what all human designers are?
Yes, but design is not simply creation. If I take a bunch of paint and,
without forethought and in an instant, slap it down on a canvas, I have
created a pattern, but I have not designed anything. There has to be some
kind of process for it to be design.
> I don't think however that ID says that the designer is a human person.
It is no exaggeration to say that ID says nothing whatsoever. That's why
I am talking about something which does have meaning.
> You say that in general "[designs] are built gradually" and I would
> say that describes somewhat accurately how we humans design things (in
> light of past, present, future moments in time). However, since ID also
> refers to the design of the universe I was simply suggesting that the
> study of the nature of Time would be an interesting scientific field
> that could shed some light on your idea.
I get the impression you are assuming a conclusion. I cannot make sense
of the above otherwise.
Dick
wrote:
>
>Dick wrote:
>> On 19 Nov 2006 17:29:00 -0800, "noctiluca" <rober...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >Franck wrote:
>> >> >Then you are describing a creator, not a designer. "God said, 'Be!', and
>> >> > it was." If that's what you want to talk about, then say so.
>>
>> ID as represented by Behe, does not say "Be'" Behe goes so far as to
>> say believing in design says 'nothing' about the nature of the
>> designer.
>
>It's pretty clear that Behe both believes in design and believes he
>knows the nature and identity of the designer;
There is no way to discuss with you. You seem focused on arguing with
the D.I. crowd. Behe made a statement I agree with. This does not
mean I totally agree with him.
>
> "By "intelligent design" I mean to imply design beyond the laws
>of nature. That is, taking the laws of nature as given, are their[sic]
>other reasons for concluding that life and its component systems have
>been intentionally arranged? In my book, and in this essay, whenever I
>refer to intelligent design (ID) I mean this stronger sense of
>design-beyond-laws." - Michael Behe, Philosophical Objections to
>Intelligent Design, 2002
>
I am probably too dense to understand the quote. It means nothing to
me.
>And design "beyond the laws of nature," i.e. transcendental design, no
>matter where you place it in the sequence of universal or biological
>development, is pretty much synonymous with saying "BE!"
Sorry, I miss your point, "BE" means nothing to me.
I don't attend any church, but I think about the matter. Just because
scientific examination fails to find a way to examine ID, does not
mean it should be left to churches. They are lost in their old
documents. The Jews make quite an effort trying make new the old.
Most of the personal, important issues faced by man do not lend
themselves to the scientific tools. I love my dogs, enjoy a good
meal, enjoy Mozart, like to browse "t.o." Science is a method, one
method of trying to understand our world. Leaving investigation of
our "origins" to churches is to cheat ourselves.
>
>> The Bible is void of answers to 'why' life exists
>> including the requisite material universe. "Accident" is a closed
>> discussion: we are here thus end of discussion. However, there are
>> many possible reasons for why a 'designer', shorn of the existing
>> gods, might have designed us.
>
>For instance?
Laboratory animals
Entertainment as in "reality TV'
Game show with side bets on winners/losers
Alter egos to allow spiritual beings an opportunity to experience
sensations and feelings.
Social experiment testing for other world possible politics
I sometimes wander these roads and others. I left out the
Passion play equivalent to our "moral" creator.
intentionally. To me it impossible to conceive
an "Intelligence" great enough to create the Universe
spending most of its time evolving the material world
then hastily creating life to "worship" it.
>
>> >On the other hand if ID is open to supernatural design it is by
>> >definition a non-empirical enterprise suitable for theological, but not
>> >scientific, reference.
>>
>> Science is not the only tool of man.
>
>Indeed. Where did I imply otherwise?
Does everything I say apply to you alone?
>
>> We do not turn to science to
>> help us 'know' what music we like, who we love, what is beautiful.
>
>No, we turn to science to help us understand the natural universe. And
>in the context of understanding origins vis a vis first causes ID
>cannot be considered scientific, your digressions above and below
>notwithstanding.
Your limiting debate to what you consider significant, does not mean
you limit what I discuss. Your science addresses such a small part of
life and the universe. I am tempted to say, "Get a life," it is full
of fun, beauty, love, excitement, danger, etc. most of which will not
be studied by science. The concept of "ID", not as writ by D.I. but
in a broad interpretation, allows more open investigation. IMHO.
>> Does anyone care to place a value of what is more important in our
>> lives, discovery by scientific investigation or values felt by the
>> individual?
>>
>> >There is only one other option open to ID "theorists" and that is to
>> >change the methodological substance of science itself. The fact that
>> >they are all well-aware of this is demonstrated by their continuing
>> >efforts to argue for the relaxation of naturalistic requirements.
>>
>> Man creates the classifications for his convenience. "Natural
>> Philosophy" used to include philosophy and the study of the natural
>> world.
>
>And it is now science that includes the study of the natural world.
>This happened for a reason, that being the "convenience" of
>reliability. Methodological naturalism (especially when coupled with
>peer-review) produces results irrespective of the philosophies and
>prejudices of those who employ it.
Only results that fit within chosen parameters, a very limited field
compared to man's living world.
>
>> >The truly sickening irony is that one minute they will make this case,
>> >then follow it directly with an assertion that ID is not religious.
>> >
>>
>> I suspect most adherents to ID are Christians. That is too bad. For
>> me the real discussion is between: Accident versus Design. Behe
>> clearly 'was able' to distinguish God from Designer/s when he said,
>> believing in design tells us nothing about the nature of the designer.
>
>Behe does not distinguish between God and Designer. Behe just places
>its action(s) at a different point in the process. If you're
>interested, you can check into "front-loading" for more on this.
I am only interested in Behe for the things he wrote that fit into my
experience. I am very sorry he has tainted his words by association
with the D.I., however, what he says that resonates with my mind is
still valuable.
You and I have this in common, we believe in what we say, though
reaching different opinions.
>
>> Too bad that statement by Behe is not repeated rather than his other
>> Creationist views.
>
>Why? It's a rather vacuous argument when considered in the context of
>Behe's political activities. It's simply another example of an ID
>"theorist" trying to keep "intelligent design" from running afoul of
>the establishment clause. Of course, out of the other side of his
>mouth...
Why consider his political activities? Consider the ideas. Our
county is currently embroiled in partisan warfare. Ideas are judged
by who presents them rather than an evaluation of the idea.
>
> "I'm still not against Darwinian evolution on theological
>grounds. I'm against it on scientific grounds. I think God could have
>made life using apparently random mutation and natural selection. But
>my reading of the scientific evidence is that he did not do it that
>way, that there was a more active guiding. I think that we are all
>descended from some single cell in the distant past but that that cell
>and later parts of life were intentionally produced as the result of
>intelligent activity. As a Christian, I say that intelligence is very
>likely to be God." - Michael, Behe, Can You Believe in God and
>Evolution?, Time, 2005
No comment? I fail to understand why you included what seems to me to
be a reasonable position. I don't think it to be the only way could
happen, but it is one possibility. He certainly in entitled to his
opinion even if it leads to the design by his God.
I do not see a contradiction between Natural Selection and ID. We do
not know how abiogenesis came about. It could have been an act of a
designer. I don't see how we can exclude the possibility. I have
toyed with other possibilities in other threads. Not being able to
'imagine' someone else ideas does not make them wrong.
>
>RLC
>
>> dick
dick again
noctiluca
Dick wrote:
> On 20 Nov 2006 08:21:56 -0800, "noctiluca" <rober...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Dick wrote:
> >> On 19 Nov 2006 17:29:00 -0800, "noctiluca" <rober...@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Franck wrote:
> >> >> >Then you are describing a creator, not a designer. "God said, 'Be!', and
> >> >> > it was." If that's what you want to talk about, then say so.
> >>
> >> ID as represented by Behe, does not say "Be'" Behe goes so far as to
> >> say believing in design says 'nothing' about the nature of the
> >> designer.
> >
> >It's pretty clear that Behe both believes in design and believes he
> >knows the nature and identity of the designer;
>
> There is no way to discuss with you. You seem focused on arguing with
> the D.I. crowd. Behe made a statement I agree with. This does not
> mean I totally agree with him.
I never said you did. I thought your interepretation and application of
Behe's statement was flawed, so I said so.
> > "By "intelligent design" I mean to imply design beyond the laws
> >of nature. That is, taking the laws of nature as given, are their[sic]
> >other reasons for concluding that life and its component systems have
> >been intentionally arranged? In my book, and in this essay, whenever I
> >refer to intelligent design (ID) I mean this stronger sense of
> >design-beyond-laws." - Michael Behe, Philosophical Objections to
> >Intelligent Design, 2002
> >
> I am probably too dense to understand the quote. It means nothing to
> me.
>
> >And design "beyond the laws of nature," i.e. transcendental design, no
> >matter where you place it in the sequence of universal or biological
> >development, is pretty much synonymous with saying "BE!"
>
> Sorry, I miss your point, "BE" means nothing to me.
The discussion was about creation as in "speaking something into
existence" or saying "Be" (as used by Mark Isaak and Franck). You
suggested that Behe's conception of ID does not include such a
phenomenon. I thought you were wrong and offered the above quote with
my comments to support my position.
If you lose the plot this quickly I can see why you'd think a
discussion would be difficult. Or is it that you have misinterpreted
the attributions? You are aware, aren't you, that while responding to
my post you also replied to the comments of posters up-thread?
No, but it does mean that bringing up ID within the context of a
scientific discussion is going to engender responses like mine.
> They are lost in their old
> documents. The Jews make quite an effort trying make new the old.
Mmm...okay, sure.
> Most of the personal, important issues faced by man do not lend
> themselves to the scientific tools. I love my dogs, enjoy a good
> meal, enjoy Mozart, like to browse "t.o." Science is a method, one
> method of trying to understand our world. Leaving investigation of
> our "origins" to churches is to cheat ourselves.
Who suggested we leave investigation of origins to the churches. I
think science is quite capable, perhaps uniquely qualified, to shed
light on these issues.
What I said was that "possible implications of having been designed by
the supernatural" is an idea irrelevant to science. These questions are
best left to other epistemologies.
> >> The Bible is void of answers to 'why' life exists
> >> including the requisite material universe. "Accident" is a closed
> >> discussion: we are here thus end of discussion. However, there are
> >> many possible reasons for why a 'designer', shorn of the existing
> >> gods, might have designed us.
> >
> >For instance?
>
> Laboratory animals
> Entertainment as in "reality TV'
> Game show with side bets on winners/losers
> Alter egos to allow spiritual beings an opportunity to experience
> sensations and feelings.
> Social experiment testing for other world possible politics
And how do you propose we test these ideas?
> I sometimes wander these roads and others. I left out the
> Passion play equivalent to our "moral" creator.
> intentionally. To me it impossible to conceive
> an "Intelligence" great enough to create the Universe
> spending most of its time evolving the material world
> then hastily creating life to "worship" it.
We have all wandered these roads. What I am having difficulty
determining is whether you are just talking to yourself while you
wander here in t.o, or you are offering ideas in the hopes of engaging
in discussion.
> >> >On the other hand if ID is open to supernatural design it is by
> >> >definition a non-empirical enterprise suitable for theological, but not
> >> >scientific, reference.
> >>
> >> Science is not the only tool of man.
> >
> >Indeed. Where did I imply otherwise?
> Does everything I say apply to you alone?
You do realize, don't you, that threading in your responses immediately
following my comments is the usenet equivalent of looking me straight
in the eye and addressing your speech directly to me?
Or is there someone behind me?
> >> We do not turn to science to
> >> help us 'know' what music we like, who we love, what is beautiful.
> >
> >No, we turn to science to help us understand the natural universe. And
> >in the context of understanding origins vis a vis first causes ID
> >cannot be considered scientific, your digressions above and below
> >notwithstanding.
>
> Your limiting debate to what you consider significant, does not mean
> you limit what I discuss. Your science addresses such a small part of
> life and the universe. I am tempted to say, "Get a life," it is full
> of fun, beauty, love, excitement, danger, etc. most of which will not
> be studied by science. The concept of "ID", not as writ by D.I. but
> in a broad interpretation, allows more open investigation. IMHO.
Be it ever so humble...
You are entitled to tell me to get a life, and I will certainly file
that advice with other bon mots of similar sagacity.
But you are not entitled to wander around listening to the sound of
your own voice while responding to a post of mine and addressing your
comments directly to me, and expect no reply in turn.
> >> Does anyone care to place a value of what is more important in our
> >> lives, discovery by scientific investigation or values felt by the
> >> individual?
> >>
> >> >There is only one other option open to ID "theorists" and that is to
> >> >change the methodological substance of science itself. The fact that
> >> >they are all well-aware of this is demonstrated by their continuing
> >> >efforts to argue for the relaxation of naturalistic requirements.
> >>
> >> Man creates the classifications for his convenience. "Natural
> >> Philosophy" used to include philosophy and the study of the natural
> >> world.
> >
> >And it is now science that includes the study of the natural world.
> >This happened for a reason, that being the "convenience" of
> >reliability. Methodological naturalism (especially when coupled with
> >peer-review) produces results irrespective of the philosophies and
> >prejudices of those who employ it.
>
> Only results that fit within chosen parameters, a very limited field
> compared to man's living world.
Feel free to suggest how we might broaden the parameters of empirical
inquiry. If you feel that limiting scientific investigation to the
natural universe is too restrictive I can only offer you the same
opportunity we provide to all who share that view - describe how you
would change science so that it might accommodate non-natural
inference.
> >> >The truly sickening irony is that one minute they will make this case,
> >> >then follow it directly with an assertion that ID is not religious.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I suspect most adherents to ID are Christians. That is too bad. For
> >> me the real discussion is between: Accident versus Design. Behe
> >> clearly 'was able' to distinguish God from Designer/s when he said,
> >> believing in design tells us nothing about the nature of the designer.
> >
> >Behe does not distinguish between God and Designer. Behe just places
> >its action(s) at a different point in the process. If you're
> >interested, you can check into "front-loading" for more on this.
>
> I am only interested in Behe for the things he wrote that fit into my
> experience.
Well, I guess if you've embraced confirmation bias, you might as well
flaunt it.
> I am very sorry he has tainted his words by association
> with the D.I., however, what he says that resonates with my mind is
> still valuable.
>
> You and I have this in common, we believe in what we say, though
> reaching different opinions.
>
> >
> >> Too bad that statement by Behe is not repeated rather than his other
> >> Creationist views.
> >
> >Why? It's a rather vacuous argument when considered in the context of
> >Behe's political activities. It's simply another example of an ID
> >"theorist" trying to keep "intelligent design" from running afoul of
> >the establishment clause. Of course, out of the other side of his
> >mouth...
>
> Why consider his political activities? Consider the ideas. Our
> county is currently embroiled in partisan warfare.
One could write "Why consider his political activities?" and virtually
follow it with "Our county is currently embroiled in partisan warfare"
only if one is either a devilishly subtle Loki or a mutation has
created a stop codon in one's irony-detection gene.
> Ideas are judged by who presents them rather than an evaluation of the idea.
This seems confused, but when I examine it more deeply I have to admit
that, well...it's really confused.
> > "I'm still not against Darwinian evolution on theological
> >grounds. I'm against it on scientific grounds. I think God could have
> >made life using apparently random mutation and natural selection. But
> >my reading of the scientific evidence is that he did not do it that
> >way, that there was a more active guiding. I think that we are all
> >descended from some single cell in the distant past but that that cell
> >and later parts of life were intentionally produced as the result of
> >intelligent activity. As a Christian, I say that intelligence is very
> >likely to be God." - Michael, Behe, Can You Believe in God and
> >Evolution?, Time, 2005
>
> No comment? I fail to understand why you included what seems to me to
> be a reasonable position. I don't think it to be the only way could
> happen, but it is one possibility. He certainly in entitled to his
> opinion even if it leads to the design by his God.
The comment preceded the quote. It was meant as a wry observation on
the oft repeated protests of ID "theorists" that the theory has nothing
to do with religion. Apparently I was too subtle.
> I do not see a contradiction between Natural Selection and ID.
I might agree, depending upon your definition of ID. The perspectives
of Behe and theistic evolutionists suggest that there is no necessary
contradiction. However nearly all proponents of ID are far less
temperate in their position on this.
> We do
> not know how abiogenesis came about. It could have been an act of a
> designer. I don't see how we can exclude the possibility.
It depends upon what kind of designer you propose. If it can be
observed, measured or tested in some replicable fashion then no, we
cannot exclude the possibility.
> I have
> toyed with other possibilities in other threads. Not being able to
> 'imagine' someone else ideas does not make them wrong.
I have little difficulty imagining your ideas, if that's what you mean.
And any reaction I might have to those ideas, regardless of its
disposition, could hardly make them wrong.
But if you're going to thread them into responses to my comments then
I'm going to reply. That's what t.o is all about. Sometimes it's brutal
in here, but there there is always much to be learned.
If in the future you prefer to simply ruminate and be left alone I'll
try to respect that, but I cannot guarantee others will.
RLC
> >RLC
> >
> >> dick
> dick again
Von R. Smith
I have no idea what you just wrote.
Von R. Smith
Hey, Tony. I just have one question for you. If the Intelligent
Designer isn't God, why do you consistently label those who reject ID
"atheists" and "secularists"?
Von R. Smith
Hey, Tony. I just have one question for you. If the Intelligent
Bobby Bryant
"Von R. Smith" <trak...@gmail.com> writes:
> Hey, Tony. I just have one question for you. If the Intelligent
> Designer isn't God, why do you consistently label those who reject
> ID "atheists" and "secularists"?
LoL.
drdach
> T Pagano wrote:
drdach replies:
Thanks for the gratuitous reference, regarding a technique that is
really more yours than mine. However, in your case, you merely state
those things which are obvious to YOU, ignoring all the other things
which you have no cognitive ability to understand. You are not alone,
as this appears to be a common malady found here, perhaps a SNP related
to evolutionary change in the human genome. Here we make the
assumption that the above reply was made by a human, rather than a jump
drive containing source code which auto runs a program capable of
producing more advanced text. Only the turkeys know for sure.
regards from www.drdach.com
Franck
Please make sure you quote appropriately. Intelligent Design theory
makes the most sense in light of what we know intrinsically and with
the help of science.
On Nov 19, 10:04 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> On 19 Nov 2006 18:49:34 -0800, "noctiluca" <robertlc...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Franck wrote:
> >> > ID theorists talk about a 'design inference' providing evidence for *the*
> >> > designer.Such inferences do nothing of the sort nor am I aware of any ID
> theorist making any such claim. The inference implicates intelligent
> agency as the proximate cause. It provides no pointer to which
> intelligent agent or agents were involved.
>
> >> > It might be more interesting if they broadened their hypothesis
> >> > a bit to allow for the possibility of a 'design team'. Does the evidence
> >> > suggest one single designer, or is the evidence more suggestive of a
> >> > team of designers?The design inference gives no information whatsoever about who the
> designer is, whether there was more than one designer, when the design
> occurred, why it occurred, when it occurred or where it occurred. The
> theory studies the effects of design not the causal history of the
> design, or the quality of design.
>
> >> > ... Does it look like all the designs were produced by a single
> >> > designer or design department, or is there evidence that multiple
> >> > design enterprises are competing for market share? The ID movement is
> >> > silent on these questions.This is like accusing the advocates of Radiometric Dating of failing
> to answer causal history questions about the rock samples they test.
> It would also be like accusing neoDarwinians of being silent about the
> causal history of the first self replicating molecule.
>
> One can hardly hold a theory wanting for aspects it is NOT forumlated
> to answer.
>
>
>
> >> Unnecessarily complicating the problem (multiplying the designers)
> >> makes this reasoning incorrect. Causes should not be multiplied
> >> without necessity (Ockham's Razor).This is simple-minded nonsense. An inference of design implicates
> intelligent agency; it is irrelevent to the inference how many agents
> were involved. ID theory studies the empirical effects of intelligent
> causation not the causal history of such activity.
>
> If causes are being multiplied it is only in the imagination of
> Franck.
>
>
>
> >I can accept this argument, as long as you realize that Ockham's Razor
> >also invalidates any inference to an extra-natural "designer." The
> >number of unsupported assumptions implicit in this inference is
> >staggering.Noctiluca is making things up as he goes along. Ockham's razor is not