Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Analyzing Intelligent Design {a structural construction of ID theory}
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 1 of 99 (206433)
05-09-2005 10:52 AM


I wish to go into the basics of the intelligent design movement and their stated objectives as relates to the concerns they express on the scientific objectivity as well as the evidence they claim to be available for review.I have selected this site for the purposes of this discussion.
Intelligent Design Network – Seeking Objectivity in Origins Science
First off we have the presentation of what intelligent design is. I quote verbatim from the website.
The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.
In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection -- how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.
ID is controversial because of the implications of its evidence, rather than the significant weight of its evidence. ID proponents believe science should be conducted objectively, without regard to the implications of its findings. This is particularly necessary in origins science because of its historical (and thus very subjective) nature, and because it is a science that unavoidably impacts religion
Let us break this down into bite size pieces and thereby be clear as to what this theory is about.
The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.
So the theory is making the proposal that the patterns we se are the result of an intelligence.So is it not reasonable to expect that the nature of the intelligence be defined?
I must here also point out a subtle misunderstanding in that it is not wholly true that natural selection is undirected.It has no set purpose but physical rules do apply to the progression of evolution through natural selection.Even randomness within the structure of matter that applies to evolution are bound by rules which are termed probability.
This is where I wish to begin and I would like to limit the discussion by proponents of both sides to the defining of the intelligence that this theory is implying.After approximately 20 posts I should like to take the next setion of the opening definition of ID until we can clarify the issues herein.
I am certain that this is going to cycle through the 300 post mark many times over the next year but I would like to have this very clearly addressed and I am going to maintain a running folder on my computer as we specify points that are obscure and bring some rigorous lucidity to ID and the claims made by its proponents.
I hope I need not point out the obvious place for this topic.Thank you.
This message has been edited by sidelined, Mon, 2005-05-09 08:53 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by mick, posted 05-09-2005 1:17 PM sidelined has not replied
 Message 4 by Silent H, posted 05-09-2005 3:37 PM sidelined has replied
 Message 96 by Brad McFall, posted 05-15-2005 11:49 AM sidelined has not replied

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 99 (206454)
05-09-2005 11:40 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 3 of 99 (206487)
05-09-2005 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by sidelined
05-09-2005 10:52 AM


Hi sidelined,
Some have denied that ID is a hypothesis, but I think the quoted sentence makes clear claims about the natural world.
In order for those claims to be tested, we need:
1. A theoretical model for the distinction between purposeful design and unpurposeful design in the natural world.
2. An empirical test that permits us to distinguish between purposeful design by an intelligent cause, and unpurposeful design by an unintelligent cause, in the natural world.
I'd like some proponents of ID to address these specific points. Point 1 can be fairly mathematical and abstract. Point 2 would ideally consist of a number of empirical tests that can detect purposeful design in a number of different types of data (molecular, ecological, behavioural, etc). But all of these tests should be based explicitly in the model described in point 1.
What would a satisfying theoretical model of ID look like? We might begin by describing two separate dimensions to ID. The first dimension consists of purposeful/unpurposeful design. The second dimension consists of intelligent/unintelligent design. These two dimensions give us four clear types of design that might be present in the natural world:
a) Unpurposeful unintelligent design
b) Purposeful unintelligent design
c) Unpurposeful intelligent design
d) Purposeful intelligent design
Perhaps an ID theorist could elaborate on this scheme, and try to draw some distinctions in the kinds of artifacts that would result from each type of design in the natural world, and how we might distinguish between them.
Mick
[edited by mick to change the word "information" into "artifacts", in the last sentence. I think it is too early to be discussing "information"]
This message has been edited by mick, 05-09-2005 01:26 PM
This message has been edited by mick, 05-09-2005 01:42 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sidelined, posted 05-09-2005 10:52 AM sidelined has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 4 of 99 (206533)
05-09-2005 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by sidelined
05-09-2005 10:52 AM


First a couple of side comments.
You might want to try discovery.org as well for info on the movement. I believe that was the first site and is the official site of the headquarters for publishing "fellows".
I also found my reread of this opening paragraph of their definition of ID telling...
The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.
It suggests that they chose their end conclusion before any evidence on the topic was available, and so approached science in a deductive way, treating evo as a competitive deductive, rather than inductive theory which is not competitive but falls or stands on its own merits.
So is it not reasonable to expect that the nature of the intelligence be defined?
In their defense I do not believe they need to define the nature of the intelligence. Whether it is a single god, many gods, aliens, or humans travelling back in time, is irrelevant, based on how ID is constructed.
Their point is that they want to show that certain necessary steps in abiogenesis, or genetic evolution are impossible according to all possible natural (noncotrolled) mechanisms. With natural mechanisms removed as a possibility, the believe the only remaining mechanism must be controlled mechanisms.
Now this is a bit of a fallacy as some things, like abiogenesis, may have a mobius type relationship. Say timetraveling humans zip back and drop some unsterilized garbage... bingo they leave behind the bacteria which causes life such that it can be dropped by the future timetravelers. No need for chemical abiogenesis, as a time loop creates the cause.
But lets forget that and buy into the stock dilemma. It is controlled or not controlled, and removing one as a possible mechanism means the other must be the case.
They only need to prove that they have a mathematical modeling system capable of distinguishing between controlled and noncontrolled created objects. That is it can accurately identify in some blind study that an object was the product of a controlled process, and that the other was not.
I think one thing they might end up having to do, is address the nature of the interaction of the designer. Regardless of what the designer was, how it interacted with the material world to make things happen would seem to be important. At the very least they could then show calculations showing a probability that a bioentity could be assembled via that mechanism.
After all once it is proved as having no other source but a controlled process, we coud then abandon all future research into natural methods to simply figure out how we can engineer it. In that way we would come to now the nature of how the designer interacts with the world.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sidelined, posted 05-09-2005 10:52 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by sidelined, posted 05-09-2005 4:46 PM Silent H has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 5 of 99 (206543)
05-09-2005 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Silent H
05-09-2005 3:37 PM


holmes
In their defense I do not believe they need to define the nature of the intelligence. Whether it is a single god, many gods, aliens, or humans travelling back in time, is irrelevant, based on how ID is constructed.
I must disagree.In the case of an alien intelligence we can determine intelligence in a similar way to our own which is the operation of a brain according to physical laws that produce thought via electrical properties of organic matter.How that matter is put together is irrelevant since it is still constituted of matter within the universe.That kind of intelligence could be defended somewhat though there are many hurdles to even that.
A god is another matter altogether.How can what we term intelligence exist in that which is incorporeal? When an intelligence whose presence cannot even be defined operationally then how can any validity be assigned to the presence of intelligence necessary for the design aspect put forth by ID proponenets? This is in my view the single greatest impediment to the whole structure of their assumption.
Then we also need contest the means by which this god implements design in a physical world.What evidence is there for this molding of matter into these designs?How is that intelligence forging the matter on a continuous basis necessary to explain ongoing phenomena as evolutionary theory models do without being apparent to out investigations?
No.I maintain that without definition of this intelligence we allow pretty much anything to be substituted and thus gain no useful further insight into the world.After all this intelligence substitues for natural selection whose properties are documented and demonstratable.ID er's need be at the least as rigourous in their pursuit.
This message has been edited by sidelined, Mon, 2005-05-09 02:55 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Silent H, posted 05-09-2005 3:37 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by mick, posted 05-09-2005 6:56 PM sidelined has replied
 Message 17 by Silent H, posted 05-10-2005 3:19 AM sidelined has replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 6 of 99 (206587)
05-09-2005 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by sidelined
05-09-2005 4:46 PM


sidelined writes:
we also need contest the means by which this god implements design in a physical world.What evidence is there for this molding of matter into these designs?How is that intelligence forging the matter on a continuous basis necessary to explain ongoing phenomena as evolutionary theory models do without being apparent to out investigations?
Sidelined, be careful. This is a warning from a Darwinist. Just because ID theorists have this simplistic view of design doesn't mean that you have to have it.
Monsanto crops and Dolly the sheep were intelligently designed. The important point is that Darwinism doesn't preclude intelligent design. It only remains for theologically-oriented ID-theorists to explain why the "design" has to be carried out supernaturally.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by sidelined, posted 05-09-2005 4:46 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by sidelined, posted 05-09-2005 7:46 PM mick has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 7 of 99 (206600)
05-09-2005 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by mick
05-09-2005 6:56 PM


mick
Sidelined, be careful. This is a warning from a Darwinist. Just because ID theorists have this simplistic view of design doesn't mean that you have to have it.
Monsanto crops and Dolly the sheep were intelligently designed
I do not disagree that these examples were intelligently designed however we can show the existence of the designers and being human are endowed by what we define as intelligence.
The important point is that Darwinism doesn't preclude intelligent design.
I am not per se precluding it,I am asking where the source of the intelligence that does the design comes from since it seems to me that it is necessary for a designer to be of a greater complexity than that which it designs.This in itself opens the question of the greater complexity that designed our intelligent designer etc...
It only remains for theologically-oriented ID-theorists to explain why the "design" has to be carried out supernaturally
If they can do so then the process whereby natural phenomena are set in motion need be shown as well as why such a process does not reveal itself.
It still remains for the intelligence itself to be defined else all of the rest is moot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by mick, posted 05-09-2005 6:56 PM mick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by mick, posted 05-09-2005 8:22 PM sidelined has not replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 8 of 99 (206608)
05-09-2005 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by sidelined
05-09-2005 7:46 PM


sound and fury, signifying nothing
I do not disagree that these examples were intelligently designed however we can show the existence of the designers and being human are endowed by what we define as intelligence
Yes. That's right.
Have you noticed that no ID supporters have responded to your post so far? It is because you set them the challenge of outlining the theoretical basis and empirical basis of intelligent design in a biological context.
They cannot do this. In post number 2 I tried to move the debate into neutral theoretical territory. But they don't want to get involved.
The simple reason is that they are charlatans. They are frauds. They are afraid of putting thier ideas down on paper. They are terrified of empricism. They are full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
This message has been edited by mick, 05-09-2005 08:23 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by sidelined, posted 05-09-2005 7:46 PM sidelined has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-09-2005 9:57 PM mick has replied
 Message 10 by coffee_addict, posted 05-09-2005 10:03 PM mick has not replied

  
Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 99 (206617)
05-09-2005 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by mick
05-09-2005 8:22 PM


Re: sound and fury, signifying nothing
quote:
Have you noticed that no ID supporters have responded to your post so far?
Um...Mick, does it occur to you that the reason no one is responding is that the OP is a load of horse hockey? Who ARE these people? Anyone can put up a Web Site.
There's simply nothing true in the entire thread, so far. So why would you think an ID theorist would waste their time with it.
You also might want to watch the name calling. It detracts somewhat from the opinion I had formed earlier of you.

Design Dynamics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by mick, posted 05-09-2005 8:22 PM mick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by sidelined, posted 05-10-2005 1:36 AM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied
 Message 12 by sidelined, posted 05-10-2005 1:37 AM Jerry Don Bauer has replied
 Message 14 by sidelined, posted 05-10-2005 1:45 AM Jerry Don Bauer has replied
 Message 43 by mick, posted 05-11-2005 11:36 AM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 476 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 10 of 99 (206619)
05-09-2005 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by mick
05-09-2005 8:22 PM


Re: sound and fury, signifying nothing
I'd actually have to side with Jerry on this one regarding the name callings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by mick, posted 05-09-2005 8:22 PM mick has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 11 of 99 (206646)
05-10-2005 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-09-2005 9:57 PM


Re: sound and fury, signifying nothing
Removed incomplete post
This message has been edited by sidelined, Tue, 2005-05-10 12:15 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-09-2005 9:57 PM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 12 of 99 (206647)
05-10-2005 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-09-2005 9:57 PM


Re: sound and fury, signifying nothing
Removed incomplete post
This message has been edited by sidelined, Mon, 2005-05-09 11:48 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-09-2005 9:57 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-10-2005 1:44 AM sidelined has not replied

  
Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 99 (206648)
05-10-2005 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by sidelined
05-10-2005 1:37 AM


Re: sound and fury, signifying nothing
Well there ya go then, whoever the heck that is. Run with it. But you won't see me in here discussing that nonsense.
Enjoy your thread. I won't be cluttering it up any further.
Thanks

Design Dynamics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by sidelined, posted 05-10-2005 1:37 AM sidelined has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 14 of 99 (206649)
05-10-2005 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-09-2005 9:57 PM


Re: sound and fury, signifying nothing
Jerry Don Bauer
Um...Mick, does it occur to you that the reason no one is responding is that the OP is a load of horse hockey? Who ARE these people? Anyone can put up a Web Site.
Let's see. According to the website.
John H. Calvert, JD, is a lawyer and a Managing Director of Intelligent Design network, inc
Mr. Calvert is co-author (with William S. Harris, PhD) of Intelligent Design: The Scientific Alternative to Evolution (National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, Autumn 2003
William S. Harris, Ph.D.
Managing Director
William S. Harris, PhD is a native of Kansas City with an undergraduate degree from Hanover College in Chemistry and a PhD in Nutritional Biochemistry from the University of Minnesota.
Joseph D.
Renick, M.S.
Joseph D. Renick, M.S.
Executive Director, IDnet of New Mexico
Joseph Renick graduated in 1960 from Texas A&M with BS in Aeronautical Engineering and served nine years active duty with the USAF, accumulating 2300 hours flying time, including 1500 hours in the F-102A and F-104A. He served an additional 17 years in the Air Force Reserves and retired with the rank of Lt Col. He received his MS degree in Mechanical Engineering from Arizona State University in 1971 and was immediately employed by the Air Force Weapons Laboratory in Albuquerque, NM as a Mechanical Engineer working in the area of nuclear weapon blast and shock effects simulation.
And last but probably least
David Clounch studied physics, engineering, and computer science at California State University's at Fullerton and Hayward, and received a Bachelor of Science in Computer Science in 1983. Employed as a software engineer for over twenty years, he has maintained an active interest in physics and cosmology and has followed the controversy in origins science since the 1970's. He has two children in high school and is interested in promoting objectivity and academic freedom in science education.
Jerry Don Bauer writes:
There's simply nothing true in the entire thread, so far. So why would you think an ID theorist would waste their time with it.
Would you care to do more than make a claim as to nothing being true in the entire thread? Maybe instead of putting forth a tirade of anger you would care to explain what is untrue and correct us as to the "true" nature of Intelligent Design that you are implying.
Are you an ID theorist? Good! Then we can have you establish the actual theory of Intelligent Design and set the record straight rather than leave us with the impression of hiding behind a percieved slight against yourself to avoid having to explain your position on this.
I patiently await your explanation of this Theory and what it actually is Jerry.Please proceed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-09-2005 9:57 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-10-2005 1:58 AM sidelined has replied

  
Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 99 (206651)
05-10-2005 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by sidelined
05-10-2005 1:45 AM


Re: sound and fury, signifying nothing
quote:
I patiently await your explanation of this Theory and what it actually is Jerry.Please proceed.
I could, but it would just be a repeat of the *foundations of ID* thread and the *intelligent design in the universities* thread where all of that is already laid out in detail. Hate to bore everyone silly on here.
You can read the (major)points that have been made thus far HERE

Design Dynamics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by sidelined, posted 05-10-2005 1:45 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by sidelined, posted 05-10-2005 2:17 AM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024