Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 61 (9083 total)
99 online now:
AZPaul3, candle2, dwise1, nwr, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Phat, vimesey, xongsmith (9 members, 90 visitors)
Newest Member: evolujtion_noob
Post Volume: Total: 897,234 Year: 8,346/6,534 Month: 1,415/1,124 Week: 184/430 Day: 60/60 Hour: 2/10


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Power of the New Intelligent Design...
AnswersInGenitals
Member
Posts: 672
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 466 of 474 (894665)
05-25-2022 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 463 by mike the wiz
05-24-2022 12:41 PM


The Power of Evolution
If you have all the identifying features of sophisticated intelligent design, then you have something intelligently designed.
There is not a human (in fact not any human) that has all the features of an intelligently designed entity. A human (in fact every human) does have all the features of an evolved entity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 463 by mike the wiz, posted 05-24-2022 12:41 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 467 by dwise1, posted 05-25-2022 8:16 PM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5274
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


(2)
Message 467 of 474 (894666)
05-25-2022 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 466 by AnswersInGenitals
05-25-2022 7:41 PM


Re: The Power of Evolution
A human (in fact every human) does have all the features of an evolved entity.
One of the key characteristics of a product of evolution is a high degree of complexity.
An intelligent designer produces a well structured product. Evolution uses whatever there is to work with to perform new functions no matter what it takes just so long as it works. As a result, evolution give us Rube Goldberg machine, perhaps the furthest thing from an "intelligent design".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 466 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 05-25-2022 7:41 PM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 468 by jar, posted 05-26-2022 9:06 AM dwise1 has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 468 of 474 (894676)
05-26-2022 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 467 by dwise1
05-25-2022 8:16 PM


Re: The Power of Evolution
There's yet another clear evidence that life was not intelligently designed or in fact designed at all.
It is so common and so visible that we as a society have written laws to prevent or minimize that fact.
No even halfway good engineer, architect, programmer would not adopt and use a proven solution rather than invent yet another version. To prevent just that we have created copyright and patents and Trade Marks so the original creator retains all the rights to use the idea, process, method, mechanism, name or slogan.
But the ID and Creationism folk all claim that there is only one creator, not a spectrum of creators that cannot simply copy what works.
Second, in designed objects when an idea does get copied it will have slight adaptation that make it better in the single individual application.
But when we look at living stuff what we find is that pieces parts keep getting keep getting reused but without the individual modification that would make it better is some specific instance. So we end up with a poorly designed human eye and no padding on shins or funny bones and left over pieces that really don't make the critter better.
There are only three possible explanations.
First there was not one but a whole host of creators of varying talent constrained by some Heavenly Patent, Copyright, Trade Mark system.
Second, there were lots of creators and none of them were any good and they were all learning on the job.
Or there was no creator and what we see is simply evolution in action.

My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 467 by dwise1, posted 05-25-2022 8:16 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 469 by dwise1, posted 05-26-2022 11:25 AM jar has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5274
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 469 of 474 (894679)
05-26-2022 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 468 by jar
05-26-2022 9:06 AM


Re: The Power of Evolution
I'm a retired software engineer, so I have had some practical experience in designing.
I would describe our design process as largely evolutionary. Yes, we would approach a new project in the traditional way: analyze the problem, devise a top-down or object-oriented structure, try to organize the data structures, etc. IOW, intelligently, which includes modularity and parsimony (KISS).
That worked fine for the first design of an all new project, but that was rarely the case. Instead, our assignment would be something like "Make it just like this other project only completely different in these several ways." So we would take an existing product and copy and modify it. And in many cases of a "new" project, we would still reuse components from other projects and modify them as needed. But then we would go even further and added new features to existing products by copying procedures (ie, functions or objects) and modifying them to serve their new functionality. I would routinely refer to such copy-and-modify techniques as "evolutionary programming."
An example of that is in "Hunt for Red October" in which the sonar software on the USS Dallas interpreted the sound of the caterpillar drive as a "seismic anomaly" because that software was a modified version of earthquake analysis software.
I would also point out that object-oriented programming (OOP) design involves defining a data-and-code structure called a class which act as a data type in its own right and which you then instantiate into objects which actually use that code and data. The only way the main program (or other objects) can use that code and data is through the class' interface. The alternative classic approach is to keep all the data and code as global and accessible from anywhere in the program, which thus would open the door to code in one part of the program diddling the data of the code in a completely unrelated part of the program, thus creating bugs that can be extremely difficult to find. Using OOP, you can compartmentalize the data and thus each object could protect its data from the rest of the program. Now that's intelligent designing.
Another intelligent design aspect of OOP is the ability to replace objects with entirely new object that have the same interface -- in hardware design, that would be a pin-compatible module. Internally, the new class could work entirely differently than the old one (eg, old one had a fixed set of dummy data points used for design testing whereas the new one would actually generate live data) and the program would not know the difference since they both look and behave the same (ie, they both have the same interface which is the program's only access to them). That is how you can replace an automotive component that used electro-mechanical relays with one that used transistors and then that with one that used integrated circuits and the car wouldn't know any different. You could even replace an American car engine with a Japanese engine and the car wouldn't know any different. Now that's intelligent design.
We can also go into an existing program and completely rewrite portions of it from scratch (believe me we were so tempted to do that so many times). That would also be the hallmark of intelligent design, the sudden appearance of entirely new and novel features. Unlike the modifications of preexisting features that evolution would give us.
So what do we see in nature? The plug-and-play pin-compatible interchangeable modules of intelligent design? No. Novel new features suddenly appearing out of nowhere? No. The copying and modification of existing features to perform new functions as we would expect from evolution? Yes.
 
Another aspect of evolutionary programming methods is increasing complexity. Every self-respecting programmer strives for elegant code, code which is precise and efficient and effective while still being kept to its minimal form -- a programming joke is of a game like "Name that Tune" in which competitors say "I can write that code in 8 lines!", "I can write it in 5 lines!", "Write that code!" But in the real world, code loses elegance as you have to add ever new cases to take into account and ever more testing, etc, until your code becomes a complex mass of kludges for special cases.
So, the hallmark of an intelligent design would be elegance, whereas the hallmark of evolved design would be ever increasing levels of complexity.
Which do we find in life? The elegance and parsimony indicating intelligent design? Or the incredible complexity indicating evolution?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 468 by jar, posted 05-26-2022 9:06 AM jar has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5274
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 470 of 474 (895263)
06-18-2022 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 312 by WookieeB
03-30-2022 3:03 PM


Re: Reply to WookieeB (what's wrong with Old ID)
Sorry for the delay. You posted your Message 312 in the middle of my stint in the hospital. I had had a polyp removed from my stomach, but then a few days later that surgery had turned into a bleeding ulcer which landed me in the hospital. Four months later I'm still working my way through that particular medical evolution.
Also, it didn't help that you had asked MrID about what I had written. If you had questions about what I had written, then why didn't you just ask me?
As for the old-ID, I do not see a problem with it. So I was curious to see the following list, and would like to see an how this is actual, instead of the strawman it appears to be.
ID's failure to take into account naturally occurring complexity by trying to equate complexity with "design" even though naturally occurring complexity is so much more complex than designed complexity could ever hope to be. That would also include how the most common characteristic of a product of evolutionary processes is high levels of complexity, such that if you find something in nature that is highly complex then that is evidence that it had evolved.
...
-- Rest of WookieeB's copy-and-paste job deleted in this quote-box since his removal of the formatting rather reduces its readability. The full and properly formatted list that I had written is below. I included the first and last paragraph of WookieeB's copy-and-paste so that the reader can identify the text that he was referring to.
Note that WookieeB copied that from my Message 290 instead of from MrID's Message 311 that he was ostensibly replying to in his Message 312, but copied in such a manner as to remove the formatting thus reducing its readability --

...
ID's worship of the God of the Gaps. This view argues that finding natural explanations for things works to disprove God, which would mean that our inability to explain something works to prove God. That would lead to an agenda which strives to preserve ignorance and to impede the growth of knowledge. Note that this worship of the God of the Gaps is also quite common among YECs.
Here is what I had written in my Message 290; restoring the formatting makes it somewhat easier to read. BTW, I added bolding to the list in question to make it easier for the reader to pick out:
DWise1 writes:
Maybe he can show us how his IDv2 improves over science.
I've returned to preparing my questions of that, though my approach is to learn how his "new ID" is supposed to address and correct the problems with the "old ID". Here is the opening section in my draft:
DWise1's_draft writes:
AZPaul3 in his Message 152:
AZPaul3 writes:
I want to know about your new ID v 2. You got any ID? Show me your ID.
MrID really needs to present his "new ID", especially if it's supposed to replace the "old ID."
I mean, if there was nothing wrong with the old ID, then why replace it with a "new" ID? Obviously MrID must think (if I may use that term so loosely) that there's something wrong -- or at least deficient -- about the "old" ID that it needs to be replaced.
So then just what does MrID think is wrong with the "old ID?" What does he identify as its problems? And just how is his "new" ID supposed to correct those problems?
I'll follow that with a list in HTML's Definition List format of a few of the many well-known problems with ID including a <DD> discussion section. Those problems include:
  • ID's failure to take into account naturally occurring complexity by trying to equate complexity with "design" even though naturally occurring complexity is so much more complex than designed complexity could ever hope to be. That would also include how the most common characteristic of a product of evolutionary processes is high levels of complexity, such that if you find something in nature that is highly complex then that is evidence that it had evolved.
  • ID's fatal confusion of science's practice of methodological materialism ("We are incapable of working with the supernatural, so we do not include it.") with philosophical materialism ("The natural universe is all there is.").
  • ID's political and social agenda to transform science by forcing it to include the supernatural. Their motivation in pushing that travesty comes from the previous point in which they are unable to understand how science works.
  • ID having to always resort to explaining everything away with "God Did It" (AKA "goddidit"). More specifically, they point out how highly complex something is such that they have difficulty explaining it completely, so they jump to their go-to "conclusion" of "goddidit".
    Of course, that "answer" not only answers nothing at all, but it also blocks any further investigation of that question. As we discussed in my topic, So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? (SUM. MESSAGES ONLY), "goddidit" effectively kills science.
  • ID's worship of the God of the Gaps. This view argues that finding natural explanations for things works to disprove God, which would mean that our inability to explain something works to prove God. That would lead to an agenda which strives to preserve ignorance and to impede the growth of knowledge. Note that this worship of the God of the Gaps is also quite common among YECs.
So I want to know how MrID's "new ID" is supposed to address those central problems with the "old ID". What he has presented so far is that the only change in his "new ID" is that he replaced the made-up meaningless "magic words" of "old ID" with his own set of made-up meaningless "magic words", such that his "new ID" ends up being just as meaningless as the "old ID", if not more so.
The second half of my Message 290 goes through a list of the natural processes that form the basis of evolution (AKA "how life does what life naturally does"), each item of which has no need for any kind of external intelligence (MrID's arguments require external intelligence acting every step of the way, as far as we're able to figure out what he's trying to say). Go back to that message (Message 290) to read more -- it's interesting, but not part of your question and hence not pertinent here.
 
... , instead of the strawman it appears to be.
I wrote about what I know and have observed about ID, though that includes how YEC has incorporated ID ideas in order to play their new game of "Hide the Creationism". Contains no straw to my knowledge. I'll go through each of those items:
DWise1 writes:
  • ID's failure to take into account naturally occurring complexity by trying to equate complexity with "design" even though naturally occurring complexity is so much more complex than designed complexity could ever hope to be. That would also include how the most common characteristic of a product of evolutionary processes is high levels of complexity, such that if you find something in nature that is highly complex then that is evidence that it had evolved.
  • A distinguishing characteristic of ID arguments is to equate complexity with the need for an "unnamed, unidentified intelligent designer" (please note "creation science's" game of "Hide the Bible" included "postulating" "some unnamed unidentified Creator" ). This does indeed fail to take into account naturally occurring complexity which is indicative of evolution and the opposite of what we would expect of an intelligent design. BTW, I am an intelligent designer, AKA "engineer". I discussed engineering work in Message 283, Message 467 and Message 469.
    Actual intelligent design strives towards elegance, a clean, minimal solution to a problem which works. Evolutionary processes and approaches, like life itself, are messy and results in very complex products -- a Rube Goldberg machine, the furthest thing from an intelligent design, is what we do find in nature. Hence, when we see something in nature that is highly complex, then that is evidence of evolution, not of any "intelligent designer".
    DWise1 writes:
  • ID's fatal confusion of science's practice of methodological materialism ("We are incapable of working with the supernatural, so we do not include it.") with philosophical materialism ("The natural universe is all there is.").
  • This is one of the earliest criticisms of ID that I heard. In reading the Discovery Institute's Wedge Document I saw them repeatedly rant against materialism.
    However, they rant against philosophical materialism, which is entirely different from methodological materialism, a very simple statement of fact concerning the limits of science.
    For example, I could design a system to read barcodes on products being processed. My design can only read barcodes and not the printed words on the packages. My design does not assume a philosophical position that the printed word does not exist, but rather acknowledges that the tech that my design is based on cannot deal with the printed word, but rather only with barcodes.
    Science can only deal with the physical universe (AKA "material universe") and cannot deal with the supernatural. Therefore, the methodology of science can only include the natural universe and cannot include the supernatural. That is not a statement about whether the supernatural exists or not (HINT: cannot be determined scientifically), but rather that science cannot deal with the supernatural and hence will not even try. Says nothing about the supernatural but rather everything about science.
    ID cannot seem to understand such simple concepts.
    DWise1 writes:
  • ID's political and social agenda to transform science by forcing it to include the supernatural. Their motivation in pushing that travesty comes from the previous point in which they are unable to understand how science works.
  • Again, that was laid out in the Discovery Institute's Wedge Document which I did take the time to read. For example (text transcribed at The Wedge Document | National Center for Science Education ):
    quote
    FIVE YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN SUMMARY
    The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip Johnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.
    The Wedge strategy can be divided into three distinct but interdependent phases, which are roughly but not strictly chronological. We believe that, with adequate support, we can accomplish many of the objectives of Phases I and II in the next five years (1999-2003), and begin Phase III (See "Goals/ Five Year Objectives/Activities").
    ...
    GOALS
    Governing Goals
  • To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
  • To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.
    Five Year Goals
  • To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.
  • To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.
  • To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.
    Twenty Year Goals
  • To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
  • To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its influence in the fine arts.
  • To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.
  • And for the consequences of forcing science to include the supernatural, I will refer you yet again to my topic, So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? (SUM. MESSAGES ONLY).
    DWise1 writes:
  • ID having to always resort to explaining everything away with "God Did It" (AKA "goddidit"). More specifically, they point out how highly complex something is such that they have difficulty explaining it completely, so they jump to their go-to "conclusion" of "goddidit".
  • OK, so one ID claim/"explanation" after another always ends with a "gee, this is all so complex that we cannot figure it out, so it must have been intelligently designed." Please explain to me why that is not "goddidit!"
    This one is so painfully obvious, dude. How could you argue over this point?
    DWise1 writes:
  • ID's worship of the God of the Gaps. This view argues that finding natural explanations for things works to disprove God, which would mean that our inability to explain something works to prove God. That would lead to an agenda which strives to preserve ignorance and to impede the growth of knowledge. Note that this worship of the God of the Gaps is also quite common among YECs.
  • True, you IDiots undoubtedly don't talk about the God of the Gaps, especially given that any kind self-reflection or self-examination is unknown to creationists. But I see so much false God of the Gaps theology operating constantly in ID as well as in other creationist endeavors.
    Basically, God of the Gaps teaches that knowledge dispells God, so God can only continue to exist within the gaps of our knowledge. God of the Gaps is closely tied to "goddidit" in that if we have no explanation for something, then "goddidit" and that is proof of the God of the Gaps.
    {ABE:
    Finding refuge for your religion in the God of the Gaps has negative consequences:
    • First, by creating the illusion of having found an "answer" (ie, goddidit) you then stop looking for the real answer. Self-imposed ignorance and lack of curiosity even to the point of resistance and even hostility towards learning.
      As I discussed in my topic, So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? (SUM. MESSAGES ONLY), imposing "goddidit" and the God of the Gaps on science (ie, ID's explicitly stated goal of transforming science to include the supernatural) would actually kill science by destroying its ability to ask questions and to seek answers.
    • When our ignorance (ie, gaps in our knowledge) is believed to be proof of God, then attempts to diminish our ignorance (eg, by seeking answers) will be seen as attempts to disprove God and hence will be opposed. As Wakefield concluded in his investigation into Gentry's uranium halos:
      quote
      Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
      ("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)
    • When "goddidit" and the God of the Gaps are "answers" to a particular question, then any attempts to continue asking that question and to find the actual answer will be seen as questioning God and will be dealt with as such by believers.
    • Furthermore, since the purpose of "goddidit" and the God of the Gaps is to serve as "proof of God" (as in Wakefield's assessment that to them Mystery = God), then by seeking the actual answer you will in effect be "trying to disprove God." Even though that is not your intent, that is how believers will see you and they will deal with you accordingly.
    • All that "you're questioning God!" and "you're trying to disprove God!" leads to a false worldview that science is anti-God, hostile to religion, and is actively attacking religion as it seeks to "disprove God."
      Utter nonsense, but we see that worldview expressed all the time, especially in ID with its rants against "scientific materialism" and against science for not including supernaturalistic "explanations". Indeed, most of ID polemics appear to be based on that utterly nonsensical false world view.
    }
    Interestingly, almost all ID and YEC arguments seem to reduce down to "We don't know, therefore God." That is God of the Gaps, pure and simple.
     
    So, how was any of that any kind of strawman?

    Edited by dwise1, : ABE: For last item, added consequences of resorting to GotG

    Edited by dwise1, : changed subtitle

    Edited by dwise1, : slightly clearer wording in the beginning


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 312 by WookieeB, posted 03-30-2022 3:03 PM WookieeB has not replied

      
    MrIntelligentDesign
    Member
    Posts: 148
    Joined: 09-21-2015


    Message 471 of 474 (896742)
    08-18-2022 3:50 AM
    Reply to: Message 1 by MrIntelligentDesign
    01-19-2022 9:31 PM


    GOD of THE GAPS or dirtdidit?
    is the new ID a some form of GOD of THE GAPS or dirtdidit, real intelligence-did-t?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 01-19-2022 9:31 PM MrIntelligentDesign has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 472 by PaulK, posted 08-18-2022 4:01 AM MrIntelligentDesign has replied

      
    PaulK
    Member
    Posts: 17250
    Joined: 01-10-2003
    Member Rating: 2.0


    Message 472 of 474 (896743)
    08-18-2022 4:01 AM
    Reply to: Message 471 by MrIntelligentDesign
    08-18-2022 3:50 AM


    Re: GOD of THE GAPS or dirtdidit?
    The “new ID” is the ramblings of an individual suffering from mental illness. He should get help.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 471 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 08-18-2022 3:50 AM MrIntelligentDesign has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 473 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 08-18-2022 4:58 AM PaulK has replied

      
    MrIntelligentDesign
    Member
    Posts: 148
    Joined: 09-21-2015


    Message 473 of 474 (896744)
    08-18-2022 4:58 AM
    Reply to: Message 472 by PaulK
    08-18-2022 4:01 AM


    Re: GOD of THE GAPS or dirtdidit?
    WHAT? What is your basis?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 472 by PaulK, posted 08-18-2022 4:01 AM PaulK has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 474 by PaulK, posted 08-18-2022 5:29 AM MrIntelligentDesign has not replied

      
    PaulK
    Member
    Posts: 17250
    Joined: 01-10-2003
    Member Rating: 2.0


    (1)
    Message 474 of 474 (896745)
    08-18-2022 5:29 AM
    Reply to: Message 473 by MrIntelligentDesign
    08-18-2022 4:58 AM


    Re: GOD of THE GAPS or dirtdidit?
    My basis is documents you wrote and publicised on this thread.
    Please get help. You need it.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 473 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 08-18-2022 4:58 AM MrIntelligentDesign has not replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.1
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022