The I in ID

quote:

---

this leads to the question of whether the intelligence is just in the eye of the beholder?

---

I think most of us can agree that intelligence can not be gauged by the products of that intelligence. Jar's example of the termite mound and a pile of leaves created by a gorilla is a perfects example, in that most of us think that gorillas are more intelligent than termites.The inference that ID put's forth is therefore weakened because of this. Through inference, we can conclude that the design is not a measure of intelligence. (I only say this as an example of the logic put forth by IDers)We could then infer that God is not necessarily that bright. What we run into when looking at design, especially designs in nature, is that the complexity and purpose of these designs is reached through following very simple rules. I wish I had a copy handy, but in my brief readings of Dawkin's book "Climbing Mt. Improbable" he argues that tree design (tree branching and leaf patterns) follows very simple rules. He was able to follow these rules and mutate tree designs into both useable and fanciful designs. IOW, the I in ID could have simply followed cookbook-like recipes to create the designs we see today.These same cookbook-like instructions can also be found within the innate instincts of organisms that we see today. Termites, again, are a perfect example. I argue that termites do not plan ahead, or discuss amongst themselves, about the design of the mound. Instead, they are react to environmental cues, such as pheremones and humidity, in combination with instincts to create design. By inference, we could then conclude that it is possible that the I in ID didn't even consciously design. The "I" may be reacting to outside stimulus and had no choice in the matter.My argument is that ID theory unfairly limits their inferences to human design and ignores the designs created through instinctual or rule guided design. In doing so, they mistake all design as being from an intelligence that is human-like. Using the same inference, it is possible to infer that design in nature, if not the result of naturalistic evolutionary mechanisms, does not necessarily point to a forward looking, goal oriented, conscious designer.

quote:

---

Most ID stuff does seem to be very ?egotist? ?sapientist? in that it assumes points of view that have no reason to be so.

---

Perhaps human-centric, or anthropomorphic? But, yes, I agree. Anyway, they still haven't given logical reasoning that there is another "human-like" intelligence anywhere in the universe. For instance, using the same inferrence technique in the following argument:Premise: Every time there is written language humans are the authors.Conclusion: Therefore, the only possible author of the Bible is humans.This isn't a conclusion that christians want, but nonetheless it is a byproduct of their same logical reasoning. Of course, I could extend the same logic to biological design:Premise: Whenever there is complex specified information, humans are the cause.Conclusion: Therefore, biological design is due to human design.Of course, this is ludicrous, but so is the ID argument. They still have no argument for extrapolating beyond human intelligence as the cause, as human intelligence is the only inferrable source for specified complexity. You must first assume, without evidence, that another intelligence exists to arrive at a conclusion that another intelligence exists. This is known as a logical fallacy.

quote:

---

Likewise there is the matter of observable light and how that affects our observations and the patterns we see: butterfly wings look different under ultraviolet light, which many butterfly predators can see, so which vision is the one the pattern is designed for?

---

Given the advances in technology, I don't think one can really argue this. We can transfer UV illumination by transferring those light wave excitations to wavelengths we can see. Also, Behe often references proteins that are too small to observe with the naked eye, and therefore do no depend on direct reflected light. I do understand what you are saying, but I don't think it applies to the shape or physical characteristics of something on the scale of organisms on this planet.

quote:

---

the point about scales is that they are looking with human eyes filtered by human brains with human ideas.

---

Point taken. This is why intersubjective is actually a better term than objective, since we all have the same bias due to interpretation through common mechanisms. However, without anything else to measure something to other than the experience of other human beings we loosely use "objective". I am not saying that objective evidence is actually subjective, only that humans come to the same agreement and therefore the the intersubjective becomes an agreed upon objective fact. Hope that wasn't confusing.

quote:

---

They spend virtually all their time critiquing natural explanations of observed phenomenon like creationists as it is easier to critique than it is to actually engage in scientific investigation.

---

And thus enters the fallacy of false dichotomy. They somehow think that if they are able to construct ANY theory, supported or not, that is opposed to evolutionary mechanisms, then all they have to do to prove their theory right is to knock the legs out from underneath the opposition. Evolution being false does not make ID true, as many have said here and elsewhere.

quote:

---

What is my point? If you are going to learn about ID you have to read the literature written by IDists.

---

Our point is that if you want to learn about constructing good science then you shouldn't look at ID literature. If you want to learn about constructing pseudoscientific theories that are not testable or falsifiable, then yes, read ID literature. Our argument is that ID is not science and is at the very least a circular argument and at most christian apologetics. ID is not and can not be used to further our knowledge. It's only use is to further religious evangelism. Such is the goal of the ID proponents who want to see materialism removed from science in a move to include the Christian God in science classes. This is why you don't see non-christians or the non-religious pushing ID theory with any enthusiasm whatsoever.

quote:

---

These make it clear that although there are similarities, only a creationist could be an IDCist. Why bother adding the ID on at all except to attempt to (in their minds) smear ID?

---

Because IDers and creationists use the same tactic, making their claims as circular as possible. Why is the earth and life created? Because it looks created. Why are things intelligently designed? Because they look designed. The same logical fallacy is used by both camps towards the same goal, trying to prove that God created life.

quote:

---

ID doesn’t have to say anything about a designer. By studying the design we may be able to ascertain something about the designer(s). Is knowing Einstein a pre-requisite for understanding that gravity bends light? I can understand airplanes without having to know the Wright brothers.

---

You are making a huge mistake. Einstein did not INVENT or DESIGN relativity. He discovered it. The Wright brothers did not invent aerodynamics, they discovered it. By analogy, you are saying that the designer discovered that life had design but had nothing to do with it's construction.Next, before you are able to infer what the designer was like you first have to rule out all other possible non-designer causes of design. This has not been done. Evolution is still able to construct IC systems and Evolution is able to create information in genetic systems. Therefore inferring a designer is superfluous and uncalled for without first demonstrating the presence of a designer outside of the design. For instance, we don't look for a cloud designer when we see faces in clouds because we know that natural mechanisms are sufficient. The same with evolution, natural mechanisms are sufficient to create the living systems we see today. We rule out natural mechanisms when looking at Mt. Rushmore because natural mechanisms are insufficient AND we know of the designer outside of the design.

quote:

---

And yet they both understood that which they were observing was part of God’s special creation. They both either inferred that or came to that conclusion using the same methodology still used today. No one is saying the methodology has to change.

---

And yet if a designer was absent Newton's laws would not be falsified. In the absence of a designer, Pasteur's theories would not be falsified. So my question to you is why are you changing the methodology so that it relies on the presence of a designer?

quote:

---

That is false. Both were creationists. They both postulated outside agents. They both postulated that which they observe was part of God’s special creation. That is evident by reading about both of them.

---

And yet their creationist views did not enter their theories. Can you please show me where in their theories that they insert a creator or a designer. Could you please show me how their theories rely on the presence of a designer or creator. If Newton professed that he was an athiest would that mean his theories are wrong? Would an athiest be incapable of coming to the same conclusions as Newton?This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 08-27-2004 03:37 PM

quote:

---

In a similar way archeologists ascertain aspects of the population that lived at the find they are studying. I never said we would be able to, I said we may. I know, and have posted, that it isn't necessary to know anything about the designer.

---

When an archaeologist finds a pottery fragment, does he posit that it is left over from a martian colony? Of course not. Is it because the design inference requires that the designer be known separately from the design? Or is it because the archaeology departments world wide are trying to cover up the large mounds of evidence pointing to extraterrestrial life?ID theory takes it a step further. Not only do we have a sufficient natural mechanism for creating design in reproducing organisms, which would negate the potter analogy, but the supposed designer is not evident outside of the design process. Therefore, ID strikes out at every step of the design inference.

quote:

---

For me a having a creator - is very logical - See evolutionists cannot understand that it could just be a prime mover, period!!

---

Actually, most evolutionists have no problem with God or gods setting up natural laws that result in natural evolution. In fact, humans are now using evolution-like algorithms to design everything from radios to airplane wings. All they do is set up the selection process and allow the computer to randomly create variation in design. What results is a very functional but unguided process. However, once you move away from natural laws to supernatural events you start to move away from science.

quote:

---

Apparently scientists must always become philosphers too... Why not!!!

---

As scientists get on in years they do tend to right books about philosophy (and they usually make for a decent read as well). However, their philosophy never enters into their science.

quote:

---

But we are just the right distance from the sun, and life is to fragile to have it any other way - is this by chance - come on Ev's - use some reason - just a little...

---

So would you say that in every puddle the water was designed to fit perfectly into the depression in the ground? Or, did the water adapt to the depression? Evolution states that organisms adapted to fit the pre-existing environment, not the other way around. You might want to use a little reason yourself. Also, there isn't one organism that I can think of that is capable of living in every environment on Earth. Therefore, Earth was not made for any one organism or species.

quote:

---

But since you cannot see feel or touch this prime mover - We got to have a better explanation then - well - a creator...

---

If you can't sense the prime mover how do you know it exists? In science this doesn't work, but it does work with religious faith. This is why religion and science are separate endeavors.

quote:

---

And our distance away from the sun, by chance or not!!!

---

Chance. Is it chance that you born in the city you were born in? Let's pretend that there are 1 million hospitals in the world. Therefore the chances of being born in any certain hospital is 1 in a million. Also, there were probably about 4 billion people at the time you were born, so the chances of being born to you parents were 1 in [4 billion * (4 billion - 1)]. These are very low probabilities, so low in fact that I could claim that you weren't born.Take this analogy to all of the possible planets in the Universe that would be hospitable to earth like life. It really isn't that improbable.

quote:

---

Yet, People will do anything not to believe in God...

---

It might be worth mentioning that therre are thousands of christian scientists that work within evolutionary biology.

quote:

---

IOW you have faith that there is a natural mechanism for creating design in living organisms, because you haven't any evidence for it.

---

Natural mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection are capable of producing novel enzymes and proteins. This is all that is needed for evolution to occur. For instance, the nylon bug. Also, genetic algorithms are able to construct things associated with human design, such as a radio circuit. The process of random variation and selection are able to create design.Now, can you give me one instance of an OBSERVED CHANGE in biological design due to the intelligent agent responsible for life on earth? Can you even give us evidence of the designer outside of the design? Or do we have to take this on faith?

quote:

---

Also you haven't any evidence for life coming from non-life by nature acting alone- more faith required.

---

Evolution doesn't deal with the beginnings of life, that is abiogenesis. The theories of evolution would not be changed if an alien deposited bacteria on earth and that bacteria evolved into the biodiversity we see today.

quote:

---

Yes they did. All you have to do is read what they wrote. Newton invoked God. He understood his observances were part of God's creation. He even wrote about it.

---

Can you please show me where in Newton's laws that God is required for them to work? Can you please show me one theory used in science today, put forth by Newton or anyone else in science, that requires the interference of supernatural powers for the theory to work? If not, then the religious beliefs of these scientists does not enter their science as IDer's seem to believe. I don't care if a scientist invokes God, but their theories should not rely on the input of a supernatural deity as ID theories do.

quote:

---

So YOU are saying the lac operons in E. Coli are/ is IC? How so? And then you have to show that random mutations and NS are solely responsible. Case far from closed.

---

If you remove one piece of the evolved lac operon then the whole system won't work. That makes it IC. Secondly, it was observed to evolve through mutation and natural selection. Therefore, IC systems are evolvable. Reference: http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Darwin/DI/AcidTest.html

quote:

---

I disagree. Leaving aside the still-murky area of adaptive mutation, the admirably-careful work of Hall involved a series of micromutations stitched together by intelligent intervention. He showed that the activity of a deleted enzyme could be replaced only by mutations to a second, homologous protein with a nearly-identical active site; and only if the second repressor already bound lactose; and only if the system were also artificially supported by inclusion of IPTG; and only if the system were also allowed to use a preexisting permease. Such results are exactly what one expects of irreducible complexity requiring intelligent intervention, and of limited capabilities for Darwinian processes.

---

And yet a new system was constructed using just mutations and selection, something that IDists like yourself claim can't occur in IC systems. Therefore, mutations and selection are all that is needed.Secondly, Behe likes to cry foul every time an experiment is done. No matter the outcome he claims that it is only the result of intelligent intervention. This is a poor claim, since then ID theories are themselves are obtained through intelligent intervention and can not detect natural mechanisms. If ID is incapable of detecting natural mechanisms then they can not claim that natural mechanisms are insufficient.

quote:

---

Miller stands refuted by the evidence. Remember this was Hall's experiment not Miller's.

---

What evidence? That Hall relied on a gene having a similar active site? Excuse me, but the gene didn't work without being mutated, that the gene was previously used for another purpose besides lactase production? That sounds like a pretty weak argument to me. That he relied on IPTG to shut down the old lac operon? Of course he would, so that a new system would evolve. That the new system used an existing permease? Of course it would, that is how evolution works, through coopting existing systems such as the type III transport system being part of the bacterial flagellum. Everything that Hall did is equivalent to natural pressures that real bacteria face when they lack a control mechanism for lactase production. Behe's only real complaint is that Hall shows something that Behe believes, through faith, is impossible.

quote:

---

Miller's page does not exist in a peer-reviewed journal.

---

Neither does anything from "Darwin's Black Box". And, Hall's paper does exist in the peer reviewed literature: EVOLUTION OF A REGULATED OPERON IN THE LABORATORY | Genetics | Oxford Academic . Hall's work stands on it's own and has yet to be refuted by Behe.

quote:

---

Then there isn't any evidence that the mutations were random. What is it- just a stroke of luck or a miracle that those mutations showed up in the locus (loci) that needed them at the time they were needed?

---

Yes, it was luck. That is why they call it random. Start with a billion bacteria and you are sure to come up with a beneficial mutation at some point. Also, can you name all of the other possible loci that would have resulted in the same enzymatic activity? I sure can't, but you seem to think that this was the only possible mutation. Care to show us how you came to that conclusion?

quote:

---

What anti-IDists don't understand is that they are starting (or start) from the complexity that needs to be explained in the first place.

---

What IDer's don't understand is that complexity is not a problem for evolution. However, it is a problem for IDer's since there is excessive complexity in biological designs compared to observed human constructs. Somehow IDer's forgot that Rube Goldberg's comics were meant to be funny because they were more complex than was necessary for the job they were doing. Behe thinks that Goldberg like machines display intelligent design when in fact they display unintelligent design.

quote:

---

Miller only conflates the facts. If he had something it would have been published in a peer-reviewed journal. That was Behe's point-

---

Uhh, can you you point me to the volumes of ID papers and experiments in the peer reviewed journals? Can you point me to the methodology that they use to detect design AND non-design in genetic systems? Can you point me to the experiments that they have done to test ID theory?

quote:

---

And that, my unworthy opponents, is what IDists have been saying for years. That is what Behe says- organisms have the information already within them to evolve.

---

The information they have is no different than the information found in a single, inorganic carbon atom. It is chemical information, not abstract information such as human language or computer code. So you are saying that random mutations and selection are all that is necessary as long as DNA of some kind is present. Great, then you agree with evolutionists that no other kind of intervention is needed.What you are saying is that all that is needed is atoms. Therefore, for life to arise all we need are atoms. This is what abiogenesis researchers have been saying all along. This is what evolutionists have been saying all along. Nature is all that is needed, no matter the origin of nature.

quote:

---

MatNat has to show where that information came from in the first place.

---

It came from the formation of atoms. The formation of atoms is due to quantum fluctuations. Quantum fluctuations are not bound by time or space, therefore they are outside of space/time. Quantum fluctuations have been observed to create matter and atoms throught the Cassimir effect.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LM:
The information they have is no different than the information found in a single, inorganic carbon atom.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

ID man: That is pure unsubstantiated crap.

---

No, it is not crap, it is observation. Does carbon require information to form carbon dioxide when it reacts with heat and oxygen? Does carbon require information to form carbohydrates when it reacts with hydrogen and oxygen? Does carbon need information to form into nucleotides and form polymers through the binding of pyrophosphates? If not, then the production of an RNA molecule through simple, non-information containing chemical reactions can result in a cyclic chemical reaction. If no information is needed for a catalytic RNA molecule to form, then replicating reactions, and therefore the begining of life, do not need information to get started. Once you have a replicating chemical reaction with RNA then evolution takes over and creates complexity through variation and selection. Life is a chemical reaction. Can you show me any part of biological life that is not governed by chemistry or physics?

quote:

---

More assertion. We are finding out it is like a computer code. Even Bill Gates sees this.

---

Well, if Bill Gates says so it must be true (rolls eyes). Give me a break. You will have to actually form an argument instead of relying on appeals to authority (and poor authorities at that).

quote:

---

I agree with the IDists who say no further intervention is required. Everything a population required was programmed in before that population came to be.

---

Great, let's run an experiment. I will post two different DNA sequences. One will be random (made up by myself) and another will be from an organism. Your task is to tell me which one is from an organism and which one is random. Also, you must show me the criteria or theories that you used to come to your conclusions. Ready? Oh, and no cheating, you can't look up either sequence using an online database.Sequence A: tgaaataaac ctgggatacc taggatttaaSequence B: tgggattttg cttcaaaata tccaaaaaaaCould you also show me what parts are programmed and what they are programmed to do when the organism is met with new selective pressures?

quote:

---

Again you are wrong. However IF [the presence of atoms] was all that was needed it tells me the scientists involved with the materialistic naturalisms' search for the origins of life are utterly useless. They are clue;ess. Maybe you should give them a hand.

---

So how did the first designers come about? If the first designers did not come about through purely natural mechanisms, how did they come about and what evidence do you have to support their origins?

quote:

---

That is your assertion anyway. I bet you think the information on your hard drive arrived when the compounds that make the disk were mixed together.

---

The information on my hard drive is not chemical, it is abstract computer code. It only contains information because human intelligences have agreed on a certain syntax and rules. To an alien, there would be zero information on my hard drive. Therefore, information only exists because humans organize it to make it appear. The information in genomes is a human contrivance due to our ability to organize data.