Help me understand Intelligent Design

ID is a coalition of various creationists. The leaders seem to be mostly OECs with some YECs (e.g. Paul Nelson).They try not to talk about it too much (except when speaking in front of religious groups) because if ID were identified as religion it would never be allowed in to science classes in U.S. schools.Also since the entire point of ID is to paper over the cracks between the positions they find it hard to actually get behind any positive proposals (i.e. anything that implies an old earth would be unacceptable to YECs - so it can't be supported).So mostly it's attempts to criticise evolution. And they really haven't done too well at that either. Behe seems to be the only one even trying to do serious work and he isn't getting anywhere.n

If ID is to be offered as an alternative to evolution in science classes then it is reasonable to expect that a scientiifc theory of ID would be produced - one that explains the same data as evolution, as well as evolution does, in terms of a designer.But in fact there is no chance of the ID movement producing such a theory. Mainly because any such theory would have to deal with the desires and capabilities of the proposed designer - and to the vast majority of ID'ers the designer is God.

Well there are a number of problems with what you say:1) ID IS anti-evolution. That's the only thing they DO work on. Behe's IC is an anti-evolution argument. Dembski's CSI would be an anti-evolution argument if he ever did the work required to actually use it to produce an argument. Wells' Icons of Evolution is specifically an attack on evolution and on scientists.2) Most ID supporters would NOT be happy with a designer who simply initiated the process of evolution. Behe wants the designer to be directly responsible for IC systems somehow. And he's something of a moderate compared to Dembski or Wells or Johnson (although Dembski at least has done a lot of backpedalling over recent years).3) So long as a designer serves no useful role in theory there is no need to propose one. The comment attributed to Laplace (IIRC) "I have no need of that hypothesis" applies, and so long as it remains true, you've got no valid reason to insist that the possibility of a designer be raised at all. Any more than we should raise the possiiblity of diembodied "Intelligent pullers" to "explain" gravity.

1) Can you name any major figures in the ID movement who aren't anti-evolution in some way ? (Even Denton still is to some extent - but he was mainly part of the ID movement for his earlier work).2) Since ID is a movement it's position is naturally constrained by the position of its members. If most of the leaders AND the vast majority of the members are against something then the movement could never favour it.3) Since evolution is science, then you have no objection to evolutionary theory being presented as if there were no designer.

1) You asserted that some of IDs proponents were anti-evolution. Now you admit that you can't think of a single significant figure in the ID movement who isn't. By your own admission your statement was misleading.2) Presumably you are claiming to either hold a significant posiiton in the ID movement or that your views are shared by a significant number of members of that movement. If not, your personal beleifs have no bearing on what ID does or does not claim.3) It wuld bemore correct to say that evolution presmumes the non-existence of a creator that acts in any detectable way, within the domain of evolutionary theory. Just as other scientific theories presume a similar lack of overt interference by undetectable entities..

1)

quote:

---

I used the term proponent and you used the term leader.

---

Not true. I used the term "major figure", not "leader". The example I referred to (Denton) was never a leader although his old ideas were influential.The DI IS an anti-evolution organisation. ALL the people I've listed have been associated with the DI (typically at Fellow level or above)2) By your own admission, then. your personal beliefs are not likely to have any inflence on the position of the ID movement.3) You're welcome to your opinions.

1) Cosmological ID doesn't necessarily contradict evolution. However despite some public backpedalling the mainstream of ID was founded on the notion that we could scientifically prove that God had intervened in the decelopment of life. ID is based on denying evolution and most ID work consists of attacks on evolution.2) Even if ID were a scientiifc alternative to evolution it would not be appropriate to teach it in science classes until it had progressed to the point of being a serious challenger in scientific circles. Since ID proponents are not willing to do the work needed to make that happen ID can't even be considered a fringe scientific view.3) The theory of evoution has been heavily tested.4) Do you mean the public pronouncements of ID or the real beliefs of ID supporters ? In private the majority of the ID leadership appears to consist of Christian Old-Earth creationists. And at least on Christian Young Earth creationist. The affiliation of supporters of ID is harder to work out but it would be surprising if they were not mainly Christians and Creationists - whether Old Earth or Young Earth creationists is harder to tell - ID has certainly tried to recruit YECs but has been denounced by YEC organisations for not taking an explicit YEC line.

quote:

---

I could be wrong but this almost sounds like you're implying that ID's goal is simply to discredit evolution.

---

No, their main goal is to make the U.S. science curriculum more in agreement with their beliefs. Attacking evolution is a tactic.

quote:

---

I agree, but like I said in the above post, I thought ID is science, isn't that why so many people in the US is supporting it, not to mention your president?

---

ID claims to be science but really it isn't even trying to be science. And sicne I'm not a US citizen or resident Bush isn't my president.

quote:

---

Same question as my above post, if evolution has been tested and accepted in the scientific community, why are there so many people against it?

---

In the case of the vast majority becuase it contradicts their religious beliefs. Only a tiny fraction of scientists working in relevant areas support ID.

quote:

---

Hmmm, would it be correct for me to say that YECs and OECs are all IDs, but not all IDs are YECs or OECs?

---

It's hard to work out what qualifies as ID and what doesn't. YEC and OEC beliefs are explicitly recognised as ID. Raelian beliefs are not. But there seem to be very few ID supporters who aren't some form of creationist.

quote:

---

But other then pointing out Sermonti's obvious taxonomic errors, I was extremely disapointed at the way Bottaro danced around technicality while systematically avoiding to adress the real centralissue. Which is, how does it look JUST LIKE A LEAF by random chance?

---

But that ISN'T the real central issue. The REAL issue is whether Sermonti's cliam, repeated by Behe was true or false. And Bottaro took that issue head on. It is false.It is also false to suggest that Bottaro did not address the issue - although there was no detailed explanation because it is so well known: And he's right. A greater resemblance to a tick menas a greater chance of not being noticed by a predator. Even a diguise that will nt bear direct examination may be able to pass a casual glance. This is a wel-known issue which is why Sermonti made the claim that he did. Mimciry is no mystery - but mimicry can't work if there is nothing to mimic - an insect can't be mistaken for a leaf if there are no leaves.

quote:

---

So when I read his, among others, very 'dance around to issue' as claimthat this IS the "definite response" to ID, I was like, that's it?? And I haven't even read Behe's side of the story yet. Which in turn, got meinterested to do so.

---

That's your complaint about the article ? THat it isn't enough to actually address the subject ? That it must instead be aimed specificially to educate you on every relevant point that you do not understand ?

quote:

---

Here is Borrato's "dance around" response and the dogmatic comments of atheist fanatics who for many, couldn't remain objective enough to see the obvious flaw in Borrato's response:

---

Since the "flaw" is simply an error on your part - and thereofe completely absent from Bottaro's post - it hardly takes a "fanatical atheist" to ignore it. I

quote:

---

Sermonti's claims about the taxonomy of these bugs are false. I mentionned this in my response if you paid attention. But it ISN'T the central issue.

---

It IS the central issue of the article you linked to. That is the chosen subject. You can't legitimately complain about the article just because it deals with a subject other than the one you wanted it to.

quote:

---

But it ISN'T the central issue. The central issue is, why does it look like a leaf, by pure chance.

---

That is a peripheral issue to the subject of the essay. It isn't central at all. And the answer - as I pointed out - is that it ISN'T pure chance. There is a selective force favouring camouflage as defence from predators.Thus the non-random element is the selective force which influences which traits are passed on to future generations. The mutations are "random" (in the sense that the probability of their occurrence is not related to their usefulness) but selection ifnluences whether mutations are retained and spread through the gne pool or lost.

quote:

---

Let's remember that when PaulK wrote this, we were talking about a bug, that looks just like a leaf. A....leaf.

---

Let us remeber also that in the previopus post I also pointed out that there were degrees of resemblance. Simply looking enough like a leaf or stick to evade a casual glance or to stand out that much less against the background would be helpful. It is not an all-or-nothing thing - there are degrees of resemblance that are progressively more helpful.

quote:

---

I'd say, yes the selective process favoured it's survival, absolutely. But that the probability of the actual mutation's occurrence is not
related to it's usefulness?? I say this is where Fisherite neo-ev gets in trouble.

---

It's a series of mutations spread over a long period of time. As Bottaro pointed out different species have different degrees of resemblance. If there were a non-random force mutating the insects wht wouldn't all species acquire the same degree of resemblance ? Why would some come to look like leaves and others like sticks ?

quote:

---

And Borrato, in all his attempts, was not able to deal with that point in his article. Maybe that wasn't his intention, but don't be surprised if I continue to raise the objection though.

---

Maybe ? It's prefectly obvious that Bottaro did not write the articlew specifically to address your education. Sicne the article was about Sermonti's claim and Behe's endorsement of those claims - and neither Sermonti nor Behe raised the point you are trying to argue. So far as can be told they do not challenge the conventional view on the grounds that it could not work in principle. Rather they challenge it on the basis of the claims that Bottaro actually DID answer - e.g. the assertion that the leaf insects were mimicing leaves before any leaves existed.

quote:

---

I think Bottaro is guilty of the same bait-and-switch argumentation that he accuses Behe of doing.

---

It is perfectly obviosu that you have no grounds for doing so.You ask in another post why people are so "hard" on ID. Well it seems claer that the answer is honesty. Apparently you see something wrong in raising truthful critcicisms of ID but regard the riasing of completely spurious attacks against criticisms of ID as morally required - perhaps even divinely commanded. That's a pretty warped view.

quote:

---

I agree with you Paul, it isn't an all-or-nothing. However, you mention yourself the specific usefulness of looking just like a leaf to escape predators. At the same time, you take a bug, that mimmics, the word Borrato uses is mimmic, a leaf. Which also happens to be it's food.

---

That it hapens to be its food is irrelevant. And "mimic" in this case merely refers to a resemblance in appearance. And as you seem to agree this could appear gradually through cumulative selection.And the name is "Bottaro"

quote:

---

If the process is random, which I've already explained in details what random means in the mutation process (and it also has purpose), then Barroto shot a fatal blow to his stance.

---

Well I haven't seen your explanation, but I don't need to. All it means is that the probability of a mutation occurring is not directly related to whether it would happen to be useful.

quote:

---

Because it makes no sense for a bug, with absolutely no conscious capacity to guide this mimmicing process willingly, to mimic randomly. Even over time. That's why I said in another post, that "you won't randomly mutate into Mr. Potato-Head if you eat nothing but potatos for 2 000 000 years straight, even if you and your ancestors live in a potato field for that amount of time." Even if it's convenient, either to protect myself from wolves, or catch potato hungry rabbits.

---

Well the eating is a complete red herring, it has absolutely nothing to do with the actual subject. As for the rest of it if you can show that you have an actual argument THAT WOULD ALSO APPLY TO LEAF INSECTS then go for it. But if all you have is the ability to write a silly parody then you don't have a real case.

quote:

---

So if the bug doesnt pocess the conscious nor the regulative mutational faculty to "mimic" a leaf, over time, of it's own accord, but YET... it is, as you say, useful for it do so, what or who guides this mimicary of it's immediate, I repeat, mimicary of it's immiadiate environment?

---

As I have already told you: selection.

quote:

---

See by ackowledging the verb "to mimic", even the least objective rational mind will admit that Borrato shot himself in the foot. Apparentely, he and his cohorts seem to be the only ones who don't realise that? Because mimicing leaf to that much perfection, when we thoroughly understand what mutation is during the evolution process, is too unlikely to be taken seriously.

---

A truly objective mind would not automatically agree that your subjective opinion - which is all you are offering - must be correct. Thus if anyone has shot himself in the foot it is you - by once again betraying your biases

quote:

---

Thus far, I find that when we look at the two propositions, that of neo-darwinism's anti-teleology school vs. every other prominent thinkers in the last 4 000 years and present proponents of a teleological or "Intelligent Design" what have you, it's examples like the bug leaf and many others that put nails on Fisher & cie's coffin of Nietzschian-type non-teleology

---

Unfortuantely for you, your personal opinions do not constitute proof. Until you can present an objective case your assaults are futile.

quote:

---

You said it yourself, it is useful. But did random chance produce this useful mutation? To copy the stick of a tree, the leaf of a plant? As Mr.Fisher said, although he was talking about selection not mutation, that would be an examle of producing an extremely high degree of improbility

---

As I have stated it is a selective process retaining helpful mutations which shape some lineages of these insects to a more leaf-like shape. And your reference to Fisher is puzzling since Fisher's whole point is that selection CAN do this.

quote:

---

So here we have two possible candidates for Final Cause; A) Intelligent Design (God) or whatever name you wish to use, an B) Extremely High Degree of Improbility. Which in turn, purely on the basis of mathematics (I happen to love statistics myself and respect Mr.Fisher in that field), but it is easier, using Ockham's Razor I guess, to conclude Intelligent Design instead of Extremely High Degree of Improbility when you compare the two and watch the results.

---

So you respect Fisher so much that you declare that he must be wrong and no objective person could possibly believe him. That doesn't sound much like respect to me.Of course if you actually accepted what FIsher said then Occam's Razor would conclude Natural Selection - given a process known to operate capable of producing the result there is no need to postulate any additional entity. Thus unless you can show that Fisher was wrong your argument utterly fails.

quote:

---

Fine, therefore I should forward this thread to Mr.Bottaro? But in the end, we both know he focused on the technical errors of Behe to discredit Behe's position in general. This, he did not achieve

---

This is very questionable. More likely he did so to undermine attempts to use Behe as an authority. ID supporters with qualifications in the life sciences - and a record of publishing science are quite rare. But by showing that Behe makes claims about biology that are clearly false, Behe is shown to be unreliable as an authority.

quote:

---

Now your just assuming this, I already said I haven't read a single book form IDers yet. If this is directed at me I find that comment a little ludacrous.

---

Now that really is rubbish. I said nothing about your having read a book by an ID supporterIt is a fact that you have accused others of being "hard" on ID.
It is a fact that you have attacked an article criticial of ID
It is a fact that your attacks are groundless
It is a fact that you called people who commented on the article "fanatical atheists"
It is a fact that you linked that accusation to the fact that nobody else made the same groundless attack that you did.
It is a fact that all of these things appear in this thread.None of these are assumptions. None of these have ANYTHING to do with whether you have or have not read books written by ID supporters.

quote:

---

Not if I consider what Ronald Fisher has to say about it.

---

It sounds like the reason you reject what Fisher said is on the grounds that Fisher said it. Is that your only reason ?

quote:

---

But certainly not by chance. Not when we look at what is involved in the actual "randomness" of mutatation itself. It's Highly Improbable enough to be dismissed.

---

Is it ? Please make your case that it is.

quote:

---

You are not adressing the improbability factor here, you're refusing to deal with it with great lack of objectivity...So you always comeback to something I'm not even arguing about. Therefore, your arguements keep getting shut down at every turn.

---

You are very badly wrong. Firstly you have yet to establish that there is an actual problem here. Simply insisting that your subjective opinion is objective fact is not a valid argument.
And you certainly haven't "shut down" my arguments - ignoring them is not good enough.

quote:

---

Right, a million and one time. I understand, but the selection is not a function of the mutation, mathematically speaking. It's like whenever your cornered with the fallacy of the random mutation question, you shoot back the evolution equation but backwards. The Selection variable is not a function of the mutation variable, it's the other way around.

---

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Selection has no effect on which mutations occur - and I haven't said that it does. It DOES have an effect on which mutations are retained, and spread through the gene pool. And that is where our argument fails. That is Fisher's point.

quote:

---

The real question is, before there can even be a NS, does the mutation occur randomly?

---

As I have stated the answer appears to be yes in the sense that the probability of a mutation is not directly influenced by whether or not it will prove useful in the current environment.

quote:

---

According to Fisher, the step-father of non-teleological darwinism, it's an Extremely High Degree of Improbability,

---

That is not what Fisher said. Fisher was talking about the result of selection, and certainly not individual mutations. And that really IS objective.

quote:

---

so therefore, in light of Ockham's razor, I would have to say no. It doesn't. You can't shoot back Selection to that question/objection because it's mathematically embarrasing when you do so.

---

Since your argument relies on grossly misrepresenting Fisher, and in fact the quote from Fisher agrees with my position I'm hardly the one who should be embarrassed.

quote:

---

Big deal, so the man quoted a man who made a wrongful taxonomical estimate. I'll reject the taxonomical error as such, sure, but the fundamental question still stands, that's my point.

---

Behe endorsed a major error.
And as I have pointed out even Behe and Sermonti - biased against evolution as they are - accept that the "fundamental question" has been answered.

quote:

---

Right, again with the arguement backwards. Selection has no effect on mutation. You said it, but therefore, what are we arguing about? Think about it? What are we arguing about then?

---

Evolution, which combines the effect of selection and mutation.

quote:

---

We are arguing about the probability of the mutation resulting into a leaf-like bug.

---

Wrong. We are arguing about the probability of EVOLUTION producing a bug resembling a leaf.

quote:

---

We all know that in order to get there, it had to have a genetic construct of such potentiality, but that this potentially, in reality, would result in a bug-like creature is the EHDI part of that equation, so that by Ockham's razor, it's alot more logical to conclude that it was Designed that way by a Designer, then to say it was random.

---

That is very unclear. After all we are starting off with a "bug-like creature". That is a given for this discussion. We are discussing whether it is possible or not for this species to evolve so that its descendants resemble a leaf.

quote:

---

That being said, if you tell me that the Selection Process, in and of itself, is what Fisher refered to when he said EHDI, that would make no sense.

---

The quote - your quote from Fisher is: Thus your EHDI is the outcome produced by selection. That is what the quote says.

quote:

---

The Highly Improbable part, is that it mutates to the point that it would then be naturally selected.

---

That is certainly not what Fisher said - the quote does not even mention mutation.