The I in ID

ID man requests:

quote:

---

Show me a recorded or observed act of nature alone creating life.

---

I have two kids. Nobody considers an egg or a sperm "alive," but together these contain the genetic material necessary to begin the process of cell division that leads to the development and birth of a living baby. Does this process require a designer at any step? Did I or my wife design our children?An acorn is not "alive" either, but under the right conditions it begins the same process of development that leads to the growth of an oak tree. Did the tree design its offspring? Was an intelligence necessary for this process to unfold?Intelligent-design creationists usually answer that the DNA process itself requires a designer, but that's not the question. Non-life is truly producing life, and the basis of the process is biochemistry, not intelligence. Darwinism explicitly denies the distinction between the design and the process that gave rise to it. The above examples are instances where life emerges through a natural process. If there is intelligence involved, please point out where it is in the hereditary mechanism.IDC'ers also counter the life-is-natural claim by saying that the origin of life itself had to require intelligence. However, this claim assumes what it's supposed to be demonstrating. We're never told why intelligence is necessary for the emergence of life, and since intelligence seems unnecessary elsewhere in biology, the claim is meaningless.regards,
Esteban Hambre

Intelligent-design creationism is so ill-defined that it's difficult to establish a coherent theory from the pronouncements of its advocates. It seems no two IDC proponents agree on the amount of biological change that requires intelligent intervention, the kind of complexity that points to an intelligent origin, or even the definition of some of their basic terms. Here are a few IDC standbys, courtesy of the fuzzy thinkers who have made their way here to EvC:The mechanism is Design. Evolutionists all agree that certain things like outboard motors and Stonehenge were the products of intelligent design, but at least we can establish the mechanisms through which the intelligent agents produced these artifacts. When we want to explore the development of things like the bacterial flagellum and the blood-clotting cascade, we try to establish how these systems could have emerged. Looking at homologous systems or genetic similarities gives us a good idea of how the Darwinian mutation-selection machine could have produced them. To say that the design itself is the mechanism is only self-evident when you already understand the underlying mechanism. We are discovering more of the cranes of RMNS every time we analyze the design work that went into creating these systems. The IDC use of 'Design is the mechanism' is a mere tautology, since they don't understand either.The Intelligence is inferred from the evidence. This is meant to make intelligent-design creationists look like the stalwart scientific investigators they manifestly are not. Despite the fact that they demand eyewitness evidence of every evolutionary transition, IDC'ers do in fact realize that science is largely based on inference from a multitude of observations. However, what constitutes the evidence from which they infer intelligent design? Why, take your pick: irreducible complexity, complex specified information, specified complexity, or any of numerous other factors that the IDC theorists put forth as the fingerprints of the Designer. Unfortunately, this evidence can only be defined in terms of what the IDC theorists consider impossible for unguided, material processes to create. For example, they infer that the DNA replication system is a product of intelligent design not because there is independent evidence that shows biological replication systems being produced by intelligent agents, but because it contains some attribute that they already assume can't emerge through natural processes. So the evidence points to intelligence because they've already decided that intelligence is the only explanation for the evidence. Note that the fact that the attribute can be found in nature would ordinarily falsify their assertion, but IDC'ers are adamant that their case is airtight.Life exists in nature but that does not mean nature produced life. This is a fairly recent non-sequitur that we have seen peddled frequently from IDC advocates. This is the shell game at its essence: are they saying nothing is "natural" if it required intelligence to produce it? Or if the natural process that produced it requires intelligence? The goalposts move so fast in this debate that evolutionists can be excused for assuming that their opponents are merely taking the piss. Why else would they assert that babies or trees are the products of intelligent design? Their point is that all the information necessary to begin the process of producing any living organism was front-loaded in the "program" billions of years ago by the intelligent agent responsible for creating the original life-form. Of course, this notion has been found wanting on several bases. If only very few descendents of a bacterium acquire a the ability to digest nylon, then the nylon-digesting ability can't have been present in the original bacterium. Furthermore, why don't we have untranslated genes for that ability, as well as genes for the ability to produce chlorophyll and whatever other genes we (and all other life on Earth) obviously should have inherited from our front-loaded ancestor? It's apparent that the genetic mechanism has evolved along with the organisms that have carried it through the countless rounds of selection that have taken place throughout the history of life on our planet. The process requires no guiding intelligence, and the novelty that fuels evolution is the product of random, undirected mutation.The identity of the Designer is irrelevant. This is perhaps the most glaring of the IDC fallacies. Actually, understanding the identity, motives, and capabilities of the intelligent agent is crucial in such fields as forensics and archaeology, with which IDC claims a methodological kinship. There is every reason to reject a design inference if the proposed agent could not have conceivably been responsible for the act or design. However, this loophole is a boon to IDC, which can claim that intergalactic gene-tinkerers or omnipotent celestial beings have tampered with our biosphere in some way, at some time, and for some reason. The notion of disconfirming evidence goes out the window when we can assume the existence of agents who must possess limitless and unprecedented powers, but whose designs never have to be optimal. In addition, the origin of complex life itself is hardly explained using such agents, since they must have been living and complex themselves. The pre-existence of such agents is very relevant to the issue of origins, whether intelligent design creationists want to admit it or not.regards,
Esteban Hambre

I fully agree with Sidelined and RAZD that your scattershot logic is making ID anything you want it to be. And the thing you don't want it to be is exactly what it is: creationism.When creationists denigrate "materialistic naturalism" (or whatever combination of those terms they use pejoratively), we're supposed to think there's any other sort of scientific methodology. Unfortunately for them, there is not. No, Pasteur and Newton didn't use anything different than materialist, naturalistic science when they were revolutionizing biology and physics. They never postulated any outside agents or mystical forces, just the same verifiable, measurable, and detectable variables that scientists use today. The reason methodological naturalism is universally accepted as the basis of empirical evidential inquiry is not because of a materialist prejudice, but because there's no way to do science unless we limit our presuppositions to what can be empirically verified in some way. If ID denies this, then it joins creationism in the realm of pseudoscience.When creationists say that God created matter or life, obviously that's a short-cut intended to stand in for a real explanation of origins. The origin of a fairy-tale God who has always existed doesn't require an explanation, according to creationists. When the ID people say that life began with a designer, they're really saying the same thing. The need for an explanation for the origin of a presumably complex living designer is irrelevant because it's a religious question, not an honest scientific one.The ploy of calling this brand of creationism 'Intelligent Design' is to distance its advocates from the easily-refuted brands of young-Earth creationism and to sneak it into secular school curricula under the guise of legitimate science. It is nothing but creationism, and nothing like science.regards,
Esteban Hambre

[quote][S]aying an acorn isn't alive is, well, dumb. Life may be hard to define but I sure think we can agree to draw the line with the acorn (or other sex cells) on the "alive" side.[/quote]You're right. What I intended to stress is that the reproductive process is materialistic, and the development of a tree from its seed stage or a baby from the union of egg and sperm is based on the naturalistic mechanics of cell division, not intelligent agency. I'd rather have egg on my face than sperm.regards,
Esteban HambreThis message has been edited by MrHambre, 08-25-2004 11:53 AM

ID man alleges:

quote:

---

From what we do know about irreducibly complex structures is that it takes more than nature to design and contruct (sic) IC systems.

---

I thought what we 'know' about IC systems is that their component parts are so well-matched and interdependent that if one is removed, the system does not work. That seems obvious to me, but that point is quite different from the conclusion that the system requires intelligence to construct. And are you at least admitting that Nature designs and constructs all those non-IC systems? Isn't that giving Nature credit for some pretty significant design capabilities?

quote:

---

Life is such evidence [i.e., of intelligent design]. From what we do know only life gives rise to life. Nature is not life. Life exists in nature but that does not mean nature produced life.

---

So only if life didn't exist could we conclude that intelligence is unnecessary to produce life? Talk about stacking the deck.

quote:

---

Biological organisms contain DNA & RNA. We have never observed either molecule forming in nature. We have observed humans synthesize these molecules.

---

Oh. Kay. Since my kids and I saw a guy at Boston's Museum of Science create lightning with a Van der Graaf generator, and no one has ever witnessed it being 'created' naturally, lightning must require an intelligent agent. Does that sound facetious? Well, the crux of your argument is that it's more probable that some sort of designer entity spliced genetic material together billions of years ago than that there was some sort of material mechanism responsible for its creation. Since no one witnessed it, you say your view is just as scientific, falsifiable, and valid as ours. Now that's facetious.regards,
Esteban Hambre

Personally, I think you're giving creationism way too much credit. I only lump ID in with creationism by recognizing creationist dogma in its anti-scientific rhetoric and First-Cause irrationalism. You seem to be trying to construct some creo family tree and identifying the subtle differences in the beliefs of each weird sect. Mammuthus would probably agree with me that it's like trying to differentiate between shit and garbage.It all boils down to how much design power one can ascribe to a blind, purposeless process. If someone's guilt, indoctrination, or incredulity is such that he retains his a priori need to see intelligence behind any design, then we shouldn't be surprised that he subscribes to some brand of creationism regardless of his avowed religious affiliation or lack thereof.regards,
Esteban HambreThis message has been edited by MrHambre, 08-27-2004 06:10 AM

I would never claim that IDC has formulated its own alternative methodology for scientific inquiry, but they're just as loud in criticizing the scientific establishment as dogmatically biased against teleology. Even Behe attempts to portray science's "commitment to naturalism" as some sort of blind spot. The IDC advocates we meet here are taking this criticism to its logical (i.e. preposterous) conclusion by rejecting all naturalistic explanations out of hand.regards,
Esteban Hambre

ID Man,How very presumptuous of you to claim that any opposition to ID creationism is based on ignorance. I'm not alone here at EvC in having read works of various Discovery Institute fellows, especially Phillip Johnson and Michael Behe. I have a sincere interest in reading criticisms of Darwinism, and perhaps you would benefit from discovering first hand the scope and breadth of anti-ID sentiment among scientists.Look, Newton and Pasteur were believers, but so was a hardcore evolutionist like Dobzhanski, and so is Behe-basher Kenneth R. Miller. Newton's mechanics and Pasteur's germ theory did not postulate mystical entities to explain their conclusions, but were equally intelligible, verifiable and repeatable by believers and atheists alike. It seems you need a lesson in scientific methodology, and you won't get it at creationist websites.Intelligent design is mere creationism for the very reason you and Mike Gene say it's not: it concludes the reality of an intelligent designer without either producing independent evidence of such an entity, or defining what the capabilities or motives are that such a designer would have. In other words, you have no right to draw an inference from irreducible complexity to intelligent design without first telling us why this unverifiable intelligent designer is a more likely explanation than any verifiable materialistic mechanism for the biological structure in question. The ID camp refuses to answer questions about the designer for the same reason garden-variety creationists do: the designer is assumed to be self-evident and all-powerful, so why couldn't he create irreducibly complex organs? If it looks, sounds, and smells like creationism, I call it creationism.regards,
Esteban HambreThis message has been edited by MrHambre, 08-27-2004 03:56 PM

ID man,It's desperate of you to accuse me of knowing little about a subject that I've studied at length. Obviously the notion of scientific methodology seems boring or irrelevant to someone under the influence of intelligent-design creationism, but that doesn't mean that the subject has no bearing on the issue at hand. IDC advocates have no trouble talking about "evidence," but they seem to have trouble telling us exactly what this evidence is or why we should accept it according to the logic of empirical evidential inquiry.Quite simply, if you don't know anything about the designer, you can't conceivably ascertain exactly how he would design the artifacts you claim are his handiwork. Your archaeologists don't work backward like IDC theorists: they know they're searching for human artifacts, and so already understand the motives and capabilities of their proposed designers. That creationists have convinced you otherwise is a testament to your susceptibility to their powers of persuasion, but it doesn't say a thing about actual scientific inquiry.The only thing we know about irreducibly complex systems is that they need all their components to perform their current function.
The assertion that they cannot be the product of step-by-step Darwinian evolution is a ridiculous canard, and the notion that they are "evidence" of intelligent design is mere wishful thinking on the part of creationists.Please do us the favor of answering our questions concerning the real "evidence" supporting ID creationism, and don't waste so much time telling me I'd understand it perfectly if I weren't so crazy and ignorant.regards,
Esteban Hambre

Ooook! asks,

quote:

---

Which aspects of the 'tree' of evolution do you think can be explained by mutation and natural selection? Start at humans and trace it back. At what point is the magic finger of a creat...sorry designer absolutely required?

---

Good questions. In post #47, I brought up the exact same thing. How much design can we ascribe to a blind, purposeless process?As always with the shell game known as intelligent-design creationism, it's unclear whether the mutation-selection machine has any design capability whatsoever. IDC'ers claim that only irreducibly complex systems are evidence for intelligent design. I'm not sure that means that non-IC systems are the product of material processes or just that they're not as persuasive evidence for intelligent design.Either way there seems to be problems for IDC. If non-IC biological systems (like arms and legs, I suppose, or antennae, or intricate molecular machines like hemoglobin) are the work of material mechanisms, that's impressive design power. What is essentially different about IC systems that this design power couldn't produce?On the other hand, if even non-IC systems can't be attributed to material mechanisms, then ID creationism is basically saying that everything is the product of intelligence. This makes intelligent agency an 'explanation' for absolutely any phenomenon, removes what little empirical significance IC ever had in the first place, and renders it utterly unfalsifiable.regards,
Esteban Hambre

quote:

---

you haven't studied ID at any length.

---

1) If someone disagrees with you, it's because he's ignorant.

quote:

---

ID isn't about the designer or how it was designed. ID is about the design.

---

2) You can assume something was designed if you don't have any idea how the item would look if it weren't designed.

quote:

---

Even IF we knew something about a designer that wouldn't mean we knew how that designer designed.

---

3) You can know how a designer's design would look even if you don't know how the designer designs.

quote:

---

We also know IC systems, every one we have observed (outside of biology) is the product of an IDer.

---

4) If some things are designed by a intelligent designer, they all are.

quote:

---

Your continued assertion that ID is creationism, in light of the evidence that refutes that notion, is proof of that.

---

5) Mentioning evidence is the same as presenting it. Refutations can't be refuted.

quote:

---

Falsify ID if you can.

---

6) The burden of proof is always on your opponents. Unfalsifiability is the hallmark of a good theory.

quote:

---

Sorry Mr. Hambre but your "arguments" against ID are sophmoric at best and blatant misrepresentation at worst.

---

7) Claiming victory is the same as winning a debate. Spell check is overrated.regards,
Esteban Hambre