intelligent design

Jesus Juice

is it just me or are the people who believe in the theory of intelligent design very annoying??they try to disprove evolution by using anecdotes and jokes while saying that a cells are to complicated to have evolved so there must have been a higher being that designed them??this is the next big thing so creationism better watch out!

AtomicHorror

Jesus Juice wrote: »

is it just me or are the people who believe in the theory of intelligent design very annoying??they try to disprove evolution by using anecdotes and jokes while saying that a cells are to complicated to have evolved so there must have been a higher being that designed them??this is the next big thing so creationism better watch out!

Cheers, we'll watch out for that one.

You might be interested in the Creationism thread over on Christianity. Lots of shenanigans of that sort.

Jesus Juice

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Cheers, we'll watch out for that one.

just doing my bit...

ah dude if i go over there ill never get out

AtomicHorror

Jesus Juice wrote: »

just doing my bit...

ah dude if i go over there ill never get out

You might not, but an insane shell of a human resembling you might. We are the damned. Join us.

Black Swan

Jesus Juice wrote: »

theory of intelligent design... this is the next big thing so creationism better watch out!

Huh? I thought intelligent design was the new name for creationism?

Galvasean

Jesus Juice wrote: »

is it just me or are the people who believe in the theory of intelligent design very annoying??they try to disprove evolution by using anecdotes and jokes while saying that a cells are to complicated to have evolved so there must have been a higher being that designed them??this is the next big thing so creationism better watch out!

It's closer than you might want to think..
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055350631

Dades

Jesus Juice wrote: »

ah dude if i go over there ill never get out

I got out ages ago! Though my head was sore from banging it against the wall.

Galvasean

Dades wrote: »

I got out ages ago! Though my head was sore from banging it against the wall.

Ah we prefer AtomicHorror anyway

5uspect

shudders at time spent on that thread...

Edit: and now I see someone is abusing the tags on that thread. Very insulting to girls.

AtomicHorror

Galvasean wrote: »

Ah we prefer AtomicHorror anyway

:pac:

Goduznt Xzst

Yeah I watched an Anti-Evolution documentary there recently, it went into great detail about the whole irreducible complexity of the flagella and how DNA is irreducibly complex. Its dangerous stuff because they've coated it with enough BS that someone might believe it, and an Atheist, who isn't up to date could get bamboozled by it.

Once again its creationists and Intelligent design advocates clamping on to fringe issues that still have grey areas and pushing in a creator as the solution (much like all religions have done with unanswered questions throughout history)

Here's a good article to read written from a scientific point of view:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

AtomicHorror

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Yeah I watched an Anti-Evolution documentary there recently, it went into great detail about the whole irreducible complexity of the flagella and how DNA is irreducibly complex. Its dangerous stuff because they've coated it with enough BS that someone might believe it, and an Atheist, who isn't up to date could get bamboozled by it.

Once again its creationists and Intelligent design advocates clamping on to fringe issues that still have grey areas and pushing in a creator as the solution (much like all religions have done with unanswered questions throughout history)

Here's a good article to read written from a scientific point of view:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

Most of the raw numbers on various "irreducibly complex" systems make some minor incorrect assumptions. Such as, say, ignoring all of the known laws of physics and chemistry in favour of using combinatorial spaces alone.

Throw in some inaccurate analogies, get confused between evolution and abiogenesis and top it off with a straw man or two and you have the standard anti-evolution argument.

Goduznt Xzst

yeah the documentary was basically saying there is a coming "movement" of scientists against the theories that abiogenesis could happen by chance, all led by Michael Behe of course :rolleyes:

Joseph Kuhr

It doesn't matter what arguments creationists/intelligent designers come up with they can still be blown out of the water by an average thinking 4 year old with "OK so who created the creator?". I'm still waiting for an answer to that one about 25 years after asking it....

Besides, at the end of the day they're just simply scared of dying.

aidan24326

Joseph Kuhr wrote: »

Besides, at the end of the day they're just simply scared of dying.

That's about the bottom line of it alright.

PDN

Joseph Kuhr wrote: »

It doesn't matter what arguments creationists/intelligent designers come up with they can still be blown out of the water by an average thinking 4 year old with "OK so who created the creator?". I'm still waiting for an answer to that one about 25 years after asking it....

Besides, at the end of the day they're just simply scared of dying.

Unfortunately the "who created the creator" question will only prove a convincing response to intelligent design theory for those with the the mind of a 4-year old. Your response is confusing the teleogical argument with the cosmological argument. A thinking adult should be able to see the logical flaw straight away.

Intelligent design theory argues that certain phenomena betray evidence of a designer. However, it does not logically follow that the designer must also be designed.

Let's use a simple example. If we look at a Ford Fiesta car then it is obviously designed by someone. I think we all agree on that. However, most (all?) atheists believe that the designer is himself (or herself) not a product of intelligent design but rather of entirely natural processes such as evolution. Therefore you already accept that a non-designed entity can design another entity. So you would have to be a total hypocrite to argue that the evidence for a designer necessitates that the designer must Himself be designed or created.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Therefore you already accept that a non-designed entity can design another entity. So you would have to be a total hypocrite to argue that the evidence for a designer necessitates that the designer must Himself be designed or created.

A poor simile, since the people who design and build cars do not magick into existence the steel and so on from which the car is made, rather as the christian deity (or intelligent designer) is alleged to have magicked the entire universe into existence.

Incidentally, are you suggesting that the christian god may have evolved? If so, you will also have to accept that are other gods with whom the christian deity is in competition for limited resources, that at lease some gods are engaged in some form of deistic reproduction and that they most likely die. That's a proposal which has far more in common with Ancient Greek and Roman theology than anything specifically christian that I can think of.

Tigger

the christian god is a evolution of other gods

it is also a good model for survival of the fittest

PDN

robindch wrote: »

A poor simile, since the people who design and build cars do not magick into existence the steel and so on from which the car is made, rather as the christian deity (or intelligent designer) is alleged to have magicked the entire universe into existence.

Incidentally, are you suggesting that the christian god may have evolved? If so, you will also have to accept that are other gods with whom the christian deity is in competition for limited resources, that at lease some gods are engaged in some form of deistic reproduction and that they most likely die. That's a proposal which has far more in common with Ancient Greek and Roman theology than anything specifically christian that I can think of.

I think you are confusing yourself unnecessarily. The concept of intelligent design does not specify the designer as being God, or even as the Christian God. The designer may have used already existing materials and may or may not be the same as the Creator of those materials.

My metaphor simply demonstrates that the evidence for one designer does not logically entail a further designer or Creator. Therefore Josepk Kuhr's argument is invalid.

And, no, I do not believe that God evolved, although that belief is based on biblical revelation and has no connection with the theory of Intelligent Design.

AtomicHorror

The problem with ID is that it starts from the assumption that life forms are too complex to arise by chance and thus must have a designer. To them, all complexity is evidence of intelligence. If we take that to be true, we run into a paradox. The designer would need to be comparably complex in order to perform the design task and thus by the logic of the initial assumption would require a designer.

PDN wrote: »

My metaphor simply demonstrates that the evidence for one designer does not logically entail a further designer or Creator. Therefore Josepk Kuhr's argument is invalid.

But in ID, complexity requires design. Hence the paradox. Scientists don't need to worry about that one as we know that complexity can arise from both design and by chance.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

The concept of intelligent design does not specify the designer as being God, or even as the Christian God.

One must assume then, that it is a coincidence that the only people currently selling ID are religious fundamentalists, the vast majority of them christian. And that it was (AFAIR) "Of Pandas and People" which discussed 'creationism' at great length, until an ineptly-applied global search-and-replace turned it into the standard text on 'intelligent design' -- see the Dover trial transcripts for how this was discovered -- it's quite a funny story

PDN wrote: »

My metaphor simply demonstrates that the evidence for one designer does not logically entail a further designer or Creator.

As AH points out with his/her usual clarity, the central claim of ID is that "simple" things cannot produce "complicated" things and that therefore, ID is flatly contradicted by itself since it requires a more complicated "designer" to design the initial designer.

This simple rebuttal is explained at some length in The God Delusion.

AtomicHorror

robindch wrote: »

As AH points out with his/her usual clarity, the central claim of ID is that "simple" things cannot produce "complicated" things and that therefore, ID is flatly contradicted by itself since it requires a more complicated "designer" to design the initial designer.

For the record: His. :pac:

robindch

AtomicHorror wrote: »

For the record: His.

Duly noted, sir!

Goduznt Xzst

But isn't it held amongst Christians that God created time? So he neither has a beginning nor an end, thus God does not require a creator, he simple has always existed, as in existing outside of the constraints of a linear time.

I do not think arguing that God required a creator will help in the argument for the origins of life on this planet.

PDN

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The problem with ID is that it starts from the assumption that life forms are too complex to arise by chance and thus must have a designer. To them, all complexity is evidence of intelligence. If we take that to be true, we run into a paradox. The designer would need to be comparably complex in order to perform the design task and thus by the logic of the initial assumption would require a designer.



But in ID, complexity requires design. Hence the paradox. Scientists don't need to worry about that one as we know that complexity can arise from both design and by chance.

No, you are misrepresenting ID and thus creating a straw man.

The ID argument is that irreducible complexity requires design. So, for example, the pattern of a snowflake is complex but can be reasonably explained by purely natural processes. Therefore the snowflake does not require a designer.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

No, you are misrepresenting ID and thus creating a straw man. The ID argument is that irreducible complexity requires design.

The "requirement" for irreducibility makes no difference to the end result.

Here's why: if irreducibly-complex man requires a designer, then the designer must be either reducibly or irreducibly complex. If it is "reducibly complex", then ID has shot itself in the foot by having reducible-complexity (a designer god) produces irreducible complexity (man). If the designer is "irreducibly complex", then all we've done is shift the question of "how does complexity arise" from man to designer, and we're no nearer a solution than we were when we started.

Hence, quite apart from ID's rather obvious factual vacuity, it's a philosophical and logical nonstarter too.

AtomicHorror

PDN wrote: »

No, you are misrepresenting ID and thus creating a straw man.

The ID argument is that irreducible complexity requires design. So, for example, the pattern of a snowflake is complex but can be reasonably explained by purely natural processes. Therefore the snowflake does not require a designer.

Hardly a straw man PDN. If you want one of those check out J C's theory of spontaneous evolution. By comparable complexity, I was indeed referring complexity of the level that would fit into to the concept of "irreducible complexity". It is a concept that I, and most other scientists consider to be simply wrong. Courts in the United States seem to agree with the scientists.

At any rate, my "straw man" statement holds. I was stating that the complexity of the nameless creator must be comparable to the complexity of life (call it irreducible if you must). Wouldn't an omnipotent, universe-creating intelligence, a being of unimaginable creativity and sheer force, represent an irreducible complexity? If not, then the unsettling implication is that the creator of ID is in some manner much simpler than His/Her/It's creations. A Snowflake God, if you like. Irreducible complexity coming either from reducible complexity or from simplicity is something that the ID proponents are trying to tell us is impossible.

AtomicHorror

robindch wrote: »

The "requirement" for irreducibility makes no difference to the end result.

Here's why: if irreducibly-complex man requires a designer, then the designer must be either reducibly or irreducibly complex. If it is "reducibly complex", then ID has shot itself in the foot by having reducible-complexity (a designer god) produces irreducible complexity (man). If the designer is "irreducibly complex", then all we've done is shift the question of "how does complexity arise" from man to designer, and we're no nearer a solution than we were when we started.

Hence, quite apart from ID's rather obvious factual vacuity, it's a philosophical and logical nonstarter too.

I have to read your posts before I post. You've preempted me again!

robindch

AtomicHorror wrote: »

You've preempted me again!

Only once, as you did me earlier in the day

Anyhow -- PDN -- do you accept the rebuttals that AH and I put forward?

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Anyhow -- PDN -- do you accept the rebuttals that AH and I put forward?

Sorry for not responding sooner. I've picked up a few extra responsibilities at work and am having to travel a bit more.

No, I don't accept the rebuttals as outlined below.

Robin wrote:

The "requirement" for irreducibility makes no difference to the end result.

Here's why: if irreducibly-complex man requires a designer, then the designer must be either reducibly or irreducibly complex. If it is "reducibly complex", then ID has shot itself in the foot by having reducible-complexity (a designer god) produces irreducible complexity (man). If the designer is "irreducibly complex", then all we've done is shift the question of "how does complexity arise" from man to designer, and we're no nearer a solution than we were when we started.

Hence, quite apart from ID's rather obvious factual vacuity, it's a philosophical and logical nonstarter too.

ID theory argues that certain irreducibly complex features in nature cannot have arisen purely by natural selection. Therefore it is reasonable to posit a designer. This designer could be anything from God to aliens.

It is possible that such a designer could be an evolved creature, and therefore reducibly-complex. I don't see how that shoots anyone in the foot - unless they are trying to use ID as a 'proof' for God's existence.

If the designer is also irreducibly complex then it is true that we are no nearer a solution than when we started - in that case we simply accept that the natural order cannot be explained purely by natural forces. That is where we were before Darwinism.

Let me make something clear. Whether ID is valid or not makes no difference to my faith and belief in God. It neither validates nor invalidates that faith.

Atomic Horror wrote:

Courts in the United States seem to agree with the scientists.

Do you really want to use the decisions of courts in the United States as an authority? I mean really?

At any rate, my "straw man" statement holds. I was stating that the complexity of the nameless creator must be comparable to the complexity of life (call it irreducible if you must). Wouldn't an omnipotent, universe-creating intelligence, a being of unimaginable creativity and sheer force, represent an irreducible complexity? If not, then the unsettling implication is that the creator of ID is in some manner much simpler than His/Her/It's creations. A Snowflake God, if you like. Irreducible complexity coming either from reducible complexity or from simplicity is something that the ID proponents are trying to tell us is impossible.

I'm two thirds of the way through Behe's Darwin's Black Box, and I don't see him stating that to be impossible at all. He simply argues that irreducible complexity demands a designer. He makes no judgement as to whether that designer is itself irreducibly complex.

Why should it be unsettling that a creator can be simpler than its own creations? Do you, as an atheist, believe it to be logically impossible for a man to design something more complex (say in robotics) than himself?

AtomicHorror

PDN wrote: »

ID theory argues that certain irreducibly complex features in nature cannot have arisen purely by natural selection. Therefore it is reasonable to posit a designer. This designer could be anything from God to aliens.

That's their claim, however their recycling of creationist literature with some basic word replacement suggests that this is somewhat disingenuous.

PDN wrote: »

It is possible that such a designer could be an evolved creature, and therefore reducibly-complex. I don't see how that shoots anyone in the foot - unless they are trying to use ID as a 'proof' for God's existence.

If the designer is also irreducibly complex then it is true that we are no nearer a solution than when we started - in that case we simply accept that the natural order cannot be explained purely by natural forces. That is where we were before Darwinism.

Following the logic of ID: If the Designer is reducibly complex we are forced to explain how It arose. This just brings us back to some form of abiogenesis and evolution once again. If the designer is irreducibly complex we are forced to explain who designed the Designer.

PDN wrote: »

Let me make something clear. Whether ID is valid or not makes no difference to my faith and belief in God. It neither validates nor invalidates that faith.

Nor should it.

PDN wrote: »

Do you really want to use the decisions of courts in the United States as an authority? I mean really?

They are an authority, whether I consider it appropriate or not. I wasn't suggesting anything more than that the arguments against ID seem to make good sense to non-scientists when fully explored.

PDN wrote: »

I'm two thirds of the way through Behe's Darwin's Black Box, and I don't see him stating that to be impossible at all. He simply argues that irreducible complexity demands a designer. He makes no judgement as to whether that designer is itself irreducibly complex.

Which either way requires us still to address the origins of the Designer. For this to be proper science, we would also need a means to test for Its existence or influence beyond the mere notion of "irreducible complexity".

PDN wrote: »

Why should it be unsettling that a creator can be simpler than its own creations?

It isn't to me. To creationists I imagine it's not an acceptable notion.

PDN wrote: »

Do you, as an atheist, believe it to be logically impossible for a man to design something more complex (say in robotics) than himself?

I don't believe it to be impossible, however we are still faced with origin of the designer question irrespective.

The Mad Hatter

PDN wrote: »

No, I don't accept the rebuttals as outlined below.



ID theory argues that certain irreducibly complex features in nature cannot have arisen purely by natural selection. Therefore it is reasonable to posit a designer. This designer could be anything from God to aliens.

It is possible that such a designer could be an evolved creature, and therefore reducibly-complex. I don't see how that shoots anyone in the foot - unless they are trying to use ID as a 'proof' for God's existence.

If the designer is also irreducibly complex then it is true that we are no nearer a solution than when we started - in that case we simply accept that the natural order cannot be explained purely by natural forces. That is where we were before Darwinism.

Actually, I think 'God to aliens' is about it.

I think that what's being said is that it's fairly unlikely that a 'reducibly complex' lifeform created an 'irreducably complex' one.

They're shooting themselves in the foot because the creator must either be evolved (thus reducibly complex; thus simple) or irreducibly complex (thus created). Either one of these discounts the theory of creation.

AtomicHorror

Plus it's not as if we have a lack of solid ideas on how life can arise from the non-living materials available right here on Earth. Our problem is actually that we have tons of possible options and can't yet figure out which one is the most likely.

djpbarry

PDN wrote: »

Do you, as an atheist, believe it to be logically impossible for a man to design something more complex (say in robotics) than himself?

That depends on how "complex" is defined, but it is certainly not possible for someone to programme a machine to do something that they do not know who to do themselves.

robindch

djpbarry wrote: »

That depends on how "complex" is defined

Creationists have not defined "irreducible" or "complex" in anything approaching a strict sense, so their results are useless. Most biologists believe that if you did define the terms that creationists need to define, then their arguments would collapse immediately. During the Dover trial, Behe was forced to admit that for ID to be admitted as a "science", then astrology would have to be too.

djpbarry wrote: »

, but it is certainly not possible for someone to programme a machine to do something that they do not know who to do themselves.

Nope, that's not true.

The University of Sussex has a department devoted to what they term "evolutionary electronics", or circuits which are evolved, not designed. And which, in the past, has produced elaborate circuits which work, but which are devilishly difficult to reverse engineer. There's an intriguing PhD thesis on this topic here.

There are plenty of other examples of evolution being used to solve engineering and other problems which are too complex to solve in other ways.

.

PDN

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Plus it's not as if we have a lack of solid ideas on how life can arise from the non-living materials available right here on Earth. Our problem is actually that we have tons of possible options and can't yet figure out which one is the most likely.

Well now we're talking about abiogenesis rather than Intelligent Design. They are related, but distinct, subjects.

As a non-scientific layman, one part of Behe's book that I found interesting was the section on blood clotting. He describes the various proteins involved and points out why they could not have evolved gradually and separately. The presence of some of these proteins would prove lethal if they gradually appeared one by one (eg. some would hinder clotting causing the organism to bleed to death at the slightest cut, but others cause clotting and would clog up the circulatory system). Therefore the creation of a clotting system by slight and gradual mutations would render the mutated life-forms less fit for survival than their peers and so natural selection should have killed them off. This would, to me, suggest that the odds against all the necessary mutations occurring together are astronomical.

Now, is this correct? Is Behe mistaken? Or would you say he is lying?

The reason why I'm asking this is that I'm reading Behe straight after reading The God Delusion. I can see how Dawkins arguments may be convincing to someone unschooled in philosophy, biblical studies, anthropology, theology or sociology. But to those who study such subjects his errors are fairly obvious. Therefore I am open to the possibility that Behe's book might have a similar effect on those of us who are not well-versed in science. That's why I am asking genuine questions rather than picking a fight over the science of ID.

As for the philosophical arguments - I'm happy to pick a quarrel.

Flamed Diving

PDN wrote: »

As a non-scientific layman, one part of Behe's book that I found interesting was the section on blood clotting. He describes the various proteins involved and points out why they could not have evolved gradually and separately. The presence of some of these proteins would prove lethal if they gradually appeared one by one (eg. some would hinder clotting causing the organism to bleed to death at the slightest cut, but others cause clotting and would clog up the circulatory system). Therefore the creation of a clotting system by slight and gradual mutations would render the mutated life-forms less fit for survival than their peers and so natural selection should have killed them off. This would, to me, suggest that the odds against all the necessary mutations occurring together are astronomical.

Now, is this correct? Is Behe mistaken? Or would you say he is lying?

I'm not sure about the point he is referring to there. But he made a similar assertion regarding the irreducable complexity of the flagellum of bacteria. He made similar noises about the 'astronomical' odds of something like that coming together through evolution. But, as always, the evidence showed him to be wrong with his premise, as explained by Kenneth Miller.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Irreducible_complexity_in_the_Dover_trial

As I said, I dont know about his above assertion. Maybe it is true, maybe it is the key to bring this whole evolution 'controversy' down to its knees. But I severely doubt it, and would expect that the evidence suggests otherwise. Personally, I have my doubts about Behe. He seems to be doing very well for himself off the back of this ID movement. One needs to account for that.

AtomicHorror

PDN wrote: »

Well now we're talking about abiogenesis rather than Intelligent Design. They are related, but distinct, subjects.

As a non-scientific layman, one part of Behe's book that I found interesting was the section on blood clotting. He describes the various proteins involved and points out why they could not have evolved gradually and separately. The presence of some of these proteins would prove lethal if they gradually appeared one by one (eg. some would hinder clotting causing the organism to bleed to death at the slightest cut, but others cause clotting and would clog up the circulatory system). Therefore the creation of a clotting system by slight and gradual mutations would render the mutated life-forms less fit for survival than their peers and so natural selection should have killed them off. This would, to me, suggest that the odds against all the necessary mutations occurring together are astronomical.

Now, is this correct? Is Behe mistaken? Or would you say he is lying?

Option B. Mistaken. Behe assumes that the system as a whole would have to have been created "in one shot" as it were. However, the clotting cascade exists in varying levels of complexity in many organisms right down to the simplest mammals. We can see many elements in humans that are entirely missing in less complex organisms. This indicates that it is quite viable for the system to have come into being gradually. Of course organisms would have existed with leathal coagulation systems. Countless times. They die and don't pass their genes on. Of note is Factor XII, which Behe cites as critical, but which is entirely absent from Whales. They survive just fine without it.

Behe also fails to note that systems which are "vital" need not always have been so. Redundancy is very common in biology. All that is needed for that to happen, is for one of two redundant parts/genes to mutate to non-functionality for the other to become vital.

Further, although the clotting systems of mammals share many common elements, (which ID proponents put down to a common designer, rather than common descent) horseshoe crabs have their own coagulation system. It performs the same functions with completely different components. Parallel evolution.

Galvasean

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Option B. Mistaken. Behe assumes that the system as a whole would have to have been created "in one shot" as it were. However, the clotting cascade exists in varying levels of complexity in many organisms right down to the simplest mammals. We can see many elements in humans that are entirely missing in less complex organisms. This indicates that it is quite viable for the system to have come into being gradually. Of course organisms would have existed with leathal coagulation systems. Countless times. They die and don't pass their genes on.

I was about to say something like that. Obviously not as eloquently.

GothPunk

PDN wrote: »

Now, is this correct? Is Behe mistaken? Or would you say he is lying?

Behe is not just mistaken, he is lying. He deliberately misrepresents the facts. It's one thing to give an alternative interpretation of evidence and results - I'm sure we can all agree that's a major part of how the scientific community works. Either Behe just doesn't bother reading all of the relevant research, he doesn't understand it, or he is lying and pushing his agenda.

Here is an excellent example of both evolution and 'reducible complexity' in action, and an example of Behe's failure to understand the research (or his intellectual dishonesty). It might be a bit of a heavy read, but it's truly an excellent piece of research.

In fact search that blog for 'Behe', and I'm sure you'll find a wealth of information on I.D. and it's pitfalls.

AtomicHorror

GothPunk wrote: »

Behe is not just mistaken, he is lying.

I dunno, I think most of the ID/Creation bunch are just victims of wishful thinking. For some reason the scientific version of origin of species is scary to them.

PDN

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Further, although the clotting systems of mammals share many common elements, (which ID proponents put down to a common designer, rather than common descent) horseshoe crabs have their own coagulation system. It performs the same functions with completely different components. Parallel evolution.

Have you actually read any of those ID proponents for themselves? Behe, for example, appears to have no problem with common descent. His argument is that the odds necessary for such descent to have occurred, particularly in regard to complex systems such as blood clotting, suggest that evolution from a common ancestor must have been guided by a designer.

As I've already stressed, I am no scientist. But it seems to me, as a layman, that attempts to conflate ID with Creationism are less concerned with honestly examining the merits of ID than they are with damning it by guilt through association.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

But it seems to me, as a layman, that attempts to conflate ID with Creationism are less concerned with honestly examining the merits of ID than they are with damning it by guilt through association.

Well first of all the "association" is on their side. Behe regularly is an expert witness in Creationist law suits (Creationist, not ID), for example earning $20,000 to give a depositions about a Creationist biology text book. I've read the deposit and if anyone doesn't think Behe is a Creationist after reading it I don't know what is wrong with them.

But also there is the little fact that ID doesn't have any merits. It is nonsense pseudo-science. Which is fine, nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't belong in science or anywhere near a science class room.

AtomicHorror

PDN wrote: »

Have you actually read any of those ID proponents for themselves?

I must confess that I have not extensively read Behe. To be honest, he lost me very early on. A decent science undergraduate student could probably pick holes in many of his examples. He lost me on his eye argument. That one is hackneyed and not at all mysterious to biologists. To claim that a thing is so complex that it could not have evolved without intervention is all well and good. Explaining why we see all the intermediate stages in the fossil record in a very gradual lineage and why various versions of the eye have arisen entirely independently... well he doesn't seem to have convincing arguments there.

Parallel evolution in general seems to knock holes in the design notion. It might make sense to suggest a common designer if eyes tended to be mere variations on a theme, modified to fit the circumstances. But why create such disparate and entirely unrelated designs as the octopus eye for the same function as a fishes eye?

Behe cops out on that. He suggests that we simply cannot know the motives of the Designer. So, he makes the case that some elements of life are too complex to be explained by conventional evolution. Assuming this were true, it is a massive leap to suggest an intelligent designer and is a proposal that actually creates many more questions. Not only that but Behe says we can't understand the Desiger, thus closing those questions. That's not science.

PDN wrote: »

Behe, for example, appears to have no problem with common descent. His argument is that the odds necessary for such descent to have occurred, particularly in regard to complex systems such as blood clotting, suggest that evolution from a common ancestor must have been guided by a designer.

Well, we can discard the blood clotting argument. It's certainly a complex cascade but there's no evidence at all that it could not have emerged via conventional evolution. There's plenty of evidence that says it did. Most of the work in modern evolutionary biology is highly mathematical. The likelihoods and timescales regarding the evolution of sight have been found to sit quite neatly in line with the fossil record without needing the invocation of any strange parameters. So where is the need for one? And why assume it is a sentient intervention?

PDN wrote: »

As I've already stressed, I am no scientist. But it seems to me, as a layman, that attempts to conflate ID with Creationism are less concerned with honestly examining the merits of ID than they are with damning it by guilt through association.

Well I certainly wouldn't equate them. But there's very convincing evidence that ID is an offshoot of creationism. This means that the founding assumption is that a designer is required for complex life. Given that the Discovery Institute is generally accepted to be a Christian rather than secular organisation, it's not much of a jump to suggest that this is an attempt to make some form of creationism that fits the superficial requirements needed to infiltrate a secular education system. That is a valid point against ID and one that shouldn't be ignored. The irreducible complexity arguments did not start to show up until about 10 years after the ID movement was founded and have been challenged and refuted effectively in their own right.

nozzferrahhtoo

PDN,

You seem to have been some what affected by the clotting system argument Behe uses. I would suggest strongly you put the name kenneth miller into you tube.

The first result will be a 2 hour video, the first 1 of which is a talk and the second 1 is Q&A.

During the first hour Miller talks about the blood clotting claims by the liar M. Behe. He shows how you can remove the elements of the human clotting system one at a time and find that clotting mechanism somewhere in nature. He was able to, for example, remove something like 5 or 6 of the elements and behold we had the exact clotting used by the modern pufferfish. Remove others and you get that used in whales and dolphins.

Any suggestion by behe therefore that all the elements had to come together are either lies of the highest order, or he really, despite his qualifications, doesnt know a thing about the field. Who am I to judge which it is, but i know where my money lies.

However, heartily recommend the 2 hour video. Its great stuff. Miller himself is a strongly beleiving catholic so you cant even claim atheist bias in his talk.

AtomicHorror

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Any suggestion by behe therefore that all the elements had to come together are either lies of the highest order, or he really, despite his qualifications, doesnt know a thing about the field. Who am I to judge which it is, but i know where my money lies.

I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt. I consider it mostly to be argument from ignorance or from a lack of imagination rather than something sinister. I doubt it's a career move. The jobs in conventional science are more numerous and better paid, after all. It smells more like conviction to me.

Flamed Diving

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt. I consider it mostly to be argument from ignorance or from a lack of imagination rather than something sinister. I doubt it's a career move. The jobs in conventional science are more numerous and better paid, after all. It smells more like conviction to me.

Really? Its seems that Behe is doing very well for himself from this ID stuff.

AtomicHorror

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Really? Its seems that Behe is doing very well for himself from this ID stuff.

Perhaps he recognised that he'd do better as a big fish in that small pond. It's speculation though.

Flamed Diving

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Perhaps he recognised that he'd do better as a big fish in that small pond. It's speculation though.

Are you talking about prestige? I don't agree that Behe would have earned more had he remained a scientist. I think the primary driver for him being involved in ID is:

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

AtomicHorror

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Are you talking about prestige? I don't agree that Behe would have earned more had he remained a scientist. I think the primary driver for him being involved in ID is:

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

No, that's what I meant. That his prospects were better in that niche. He'd have been an unremarkable scientist.