Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy...

Thanks Fiver for the excellent suggestion. Now we need to start compiling a list of Scientists That Don't Support Intelligent Design Theory.And a statement to agree to ... Think I'd have any signers?Enjoy.

---

Here is an example of a dog's coat that was obviously designed by a higher power. Is this an example of Intelligent Design or Silly Design?

I'd go for option number three, pareidolia.TTFN,WK

Hi Catholic Scientist, I think that calling it Intelligent Design would be a big fallacy.Enjoy.

Friends,
I believe the literary technique given Paul and written in all his epistles for the revelation of the mystery of Christ is in regards to the days of Creation in the first oracles of Genesis 1 and the days of Creation from the sixth chapter of Revelation.Blessings and Peace,
Ken

If poor design is evidence against the thesis that rational, intelligent design has played a role in the history of life on earth, then rational design would be evidence in favor of that thesis, would it not?My approach goes like this: if a given biological feature seems to be poorly designed, then that's lowers our confidence that that feature was designed by intelligence; but if a given biological feature - like for example, the genetic code, or the bacterial flagellum - displays properties of rational design, then that's a clue in favor of the thesis that that system was designed by intelligence.Any thoughts on this?

Your "approach" is that this intelligent designer only designs half-ass? He puts forth his intelligence into some things and not others? Yes. The genetic code is GREAT. The genetic code that says some people are predisposed to disease no matter what. Was the designer so intelligently lazy that it used practically the same code on all of life so as to give the appearance of a common ancestor? Without mentioning Behe, explain what is so great about the bacterial flagellum.Lastly, your approach is simply "count the hits, ignore the misses" unless your designer is a bumbling fool.

quote:

---

Your "approach" is that this intelligent designer only designs half-ass? He puts forth his intelligence into some things and not others?

---

The problem with the above statement is that you're assuming that I'm arguing for one particular model of ID, and that is the thesis that an intelligent designer(s) has intervened continually during life's history. You further assume, unfortunately, that common ancestry and ID are not compatible. This is evidenced by this statement of yours:

quote:

---

The genetic code that says some people are predisposed to disease no matter what. Was the designer so intelligently lazy that it used practically the same code on all of life so as to give the appearance of a common ancestor?

---

Common descent and ID are compatible under the front-loading hypothesis. Briefly, the ID hypothesis of front-loading proposes that the earth (or more broadly, the solar system) was seeded with unicellular organisms that contained the necessary genomic information to shape future evolution in a particular direction. This hypothesis answers your objection "He [why assume the designer(s) is a "he"?] puts forth his intelligence into some things and not others?"According to front-loading, the first life forms had the optimal, universal genetic code found in virtually all taxa with the exception of secondarily derived genetic codes. The first life forms had molecular machines like ATP synthases etc., which were designed into the first genomes on earth. Subsequent evolution would produce biological systems that would be hodge-podge and display properties of poor design. There's room for the blind watchmaker and teleology, here. Try not to think in terms of black and white.So, if the flagellum was designed into the initial genomes (or if it was front-loaded), then it would be expected to display properties of rational design. But the blind watchmaker could produce biological features like blind cavefish, and it could tinker with genomes, filling them up with transposons et al.

quote:

---

Yes. The genetic code is GREAT.

---

Indeed, it is. Some people say it is predisposed to disease? Who exactly are these people and what is their claim specifically? The scientific literature is pretty unanimous in that the genetic code is optimal - a property of rational design.

quote:

---

Without mentioning Behe, explain what is so great about the bacterial flagellum.

---

It is efficient, and it's not hodge-podge. The flagellum-specific ATP synthase fits neatly into the FliF pore: under the non-teleological hypothesis, it could have easily been otherwise. It could have been that the ATP synthase partially clogs up the pore with one or more F1 subunits - but this is not the case. Etc., etc. There is no molecular version of the eye's backward wiring in the flagellum.

I believe Dr. Suess had a unique grasp of language and a keen insight into what amused both children and adults.My observation is similar to yours in that it has absolutely nothing to do with this topic.Mine is different from yours in that it it based in reality.

Have there been breakthroughs in ID since the Wedge Document or Dover? I didn't realize the ID movement had multiple "models". Damn skippy I do. Especially since the ID movement is creationism repackaged and sold as "SCIENCE!! (insert jazz hands here). You guys even use sciencey sounding words. Jenny McCarthy does that too. This "hypothesis". Is there somewhere I could find it published? Preferably in a mainstream journal? It sounds an awful lot like panspermia to me.

quote:

---

Have there been breakthroughs in ID since the Wedge Document or Dover? I didn't realize the ID movement had multiple "models".

---

ID movement? Well, I'm not part of the ID movement, so your above comment isn't particularly relevant to my arguments.

quote:

---

Damn skippy I do. Especially since the ID movement is creationism repackaged and sold as "SCIENCE!! (insert jazz hands here). You guys even use sciencey sounding words. Jenny McCarthy does that too.

---

It doesn't seem, to me at least, that you're responding to my specific arguments. In response to your assumption that ID and common descent are incompatible, I described the ID hypothesis of front-loading - common descent is a necessary component of that hypothesis. This means that some ID models are indeed compatible with common descent, and I think that answers your assumption.

quote:

---

This "hypothesis". Is there somewhere I could find it published? Preferably in a mainstream journal? It sounds an awful lot like panspermia to me.

---

It is an extension of Crick and Orgel's directed panspermia hypothesis. However, it goes a step further and states the the "course" of evolution has been biased in certain directions, due to the initial, designed state of the first genomes on earth.An idea need not be peer-reviewed in the scientific literature in order to have merit as an idea that deserves discussion.That said, I am sure you will kindly respond to (a) the evidence that the bacterial flagellum displays properties of rational design, and (b) my query as to who are arguing that the genetic code is predisposed to disease and what their arguments are specifically. Thanks.

The first problem is developing criteria to determine whether something exhibits "properties of rational design," given that we can observe things that we know are not rationally design but nonetheless appear to exhibit properties of rational design. In other words, how do you distinguish between naturally occurring and rationally designed?

You've given none. You stated that it was, but saying so isn't evidence.

quote:

---

The first problem is developing criteria to determine whether something exhibits "properties of rational design," given that we can observe things that we know are not rationally design but nonetheless appear to exhibit properties of rational design. In other words, how do you distinguish between naturally occurring and rationally designed?

---

Good question. However, my approach (to give credit where credit is due: Mike Gene developed this approach) is that once we have established that a given system displays properties of rational design, then this is one factor out of several that increases the confidence in our hunch that teleology was involved in the origin of this system. Simply because a biotic system displays properties of rational design doesn't mean it was designed. But if you couple this with other factors, then it's a clue in favor of the telic hypothesis.Also note that explaining the origin of a molecular machine with tightly integrated, discrete components through Darwinian evolution is hard enough, but when you also have to account for that molecular machine's rational properties, then things really are starting to get "suspicious": i.e., it really would be a good clue in favor of the telic hypothesis. (Hopefully, what I just said makes a little sense)

quote:

---

You've given none. You stated that it was, but saying so isn't evidence.

---

Well, actually, I did. But let me elaborate on this. The efficiency of the energy conversion of the flagellum is very close to 100% - and, of course, efficiency is a hallmark of rational design. Further, structurally speaking, it is rationally designed. The flagellum-specific ATP synthase fits neatly into the FliF pore - it could easily have been otherwise; e.g., it could have been that one or more F1 subunits partially clogged up the FliF pore. But this is not the case.I could go on about how the structure of the flagellum displays properties of rational design, but the above should suffice.