The Merits of Intelligent Design Theory

[Botnik]

The recent excitement over the much-overhyped adapid fossil Darwinius masillae brings out a serious question for Darwinism and its adherents. A critical examination of neo-evolutionary "science" is needed, and the merits of Intelligent Design theory should be acknowledged as a sufficient alternative to Darwin's theory.

What could conceivably falsify the observation of design is a model that would show beyond a reasonable doubt that in fact organisms built up their form and function step-by-step from fortuitous mutations fixed in the genome over time. Instead, what we find in the fossil record are organisms that are taxonomically similar specimens living today.

Moreover, there is the overwhelming appearance of design in life today, and it is the goal of ID theory to identify patterns that constitute this design. Michael Behe's recent book The Edge of Evolution goes on to explain why complexity found in nature cannot stem from solely naturalistic processes.

Consider the eye. Some attributes that may be considered are accuracy, process capabilities, compatibility, dependability, durability, efficiency, flexibility, mobility, modularity, precision, seamlessness, simplicity, and stability.

In other words, different systems or parts of organisms could be rated along these dimensions. In addition, one would likely find that higher ratings across all those dimensions and a low rating on simplicity would make it much more difficult for any naturalistic process to result in a biological system possessing these attributes. Evolutionary processes may be able to produce a feature that has very high simplicity, and low ratings on all other system quality attributes. So, it’s not just irreducibly complex systems or complex specified information that evolution is incapable of producing, but also systems with certain configurations of quality attributes.

Falsifying Darwinian evolution is an undoubtedly a gargantuan task, given that we have not observed the macroevolution process firsthand, and cannot rely on the gaps of the fossil record. Yet it is the most promising method in which to falsify design. Can Darwinian evolution be falsified in this way? And if not, should it be discarded as an insufficient theory?

The test:

Provide a coherent defense of Darwinian macro evolution with empirical evidence to back it up. Note that Intelligen Design accepts Darwinian microevolution as an explanation for many of life’s changes, but not for an explanation of naturalistic life origins.

 

[w!zard]

nothing can disprove intelligent design. anything can be said to be made by an intelligent creator "because he wanted to make it that way." it is an unscientific explanation, and unscientific explanations for natural occurrences should not be taken seriously

 

[Nysyarc]

Instead, what we find in the fossil record are organisms that are taxonomically similar specimens living today.

This sentence doesn't really make sense, clarify please? If you mean that fossilized organisms are similar to animals that exist today, then yes, they are in some ways. Natural selection isn't necessarily a constantly active force. It comes into play when it is needed, and sparks evolution. Thus a species can potentially remain almost exactly the same for millions of years. Here is a famous example:

http://www.austmus.gov.au/fishes/fishfacts/fish/coela.htm

Moreover, there is the overwhelming appearance of design in life today

Yes I have been swamped of late by the vast amounts of miracles that point towards intelligent design. Care to venture that fact a little further with some examples that can't be proven wrong by science?

In other words, different systems or parts of organisms could be rated along these dimensions. In addition, one would likely find that higher ratings across all those dimensions and a low rating on simplicity would make it much more difficult for any naturalistic process to result in a biological system possessing these attributes. Evolutionary processes may be able to produce a feature that has very high simplicity, and low ratings on all other system quality attributes. So, it’s not just irreducibly complex systems or complex specified information that evolution is incapable of producing, but also systems with certain configurations of quality attributes.

A citation would be nice. If you want people to defend evolution here, you should probably make sure we have something valid to defend it from first.

Falsifying Darwinian evolution is an undoubtedly a gargantuan task, given that we have not observed the macroevolution process firsthand, and cannot rely on the gaps of the fossil record. Yet it is the most promising method in which to falsify design. Can Darwinian evolution be falsified in this way? And if not, should it be discarded as an insufficient theory?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

You can read that if you're up to the task, it will give you all the evidence of macroevolution you need.

Note that Intelligen Design accepts Darwinian microevolution as an explanation for many of life’s changes, but not for an explanation of naturalistic life origins.

Evolution doesn't explain life's origins. So I guess there's no problem here.

 

[über-venom]

Ok, so I just want to reconstruct the gist of your argument...

As an alternative to the irreducible complexity argument, your taking a "quality configuration" argument. I'll just call it that for brevity's sake. And it goes something like this.

1. Naturalistic processes cannot produce certain quality/attribute configurations.
2. There exists in the world, systems that have these kinds of attribute configurations, i.e. the eye.
Tf Naturalistic processes do not account for all the material systems in the world.


So an example of a quality configuration that naturalistic processes are inacapable of would be something like this: high simplicity + high accuracy and precision; high complexity + high durability; high stability + high mobility. These are obviously gross simplifications, but I'm concerned about how complex our arguments for and against this position would need to be if we wanted to do it any kind of justice. Just thinking about the undertaking makes me cringe. I almost think this stuff must be over Behe's head.

Anyway, I think I've made a fairly accurate reconstruction of what you've said. So I understand where this is going, but an argument of this magnitude is going to need a much deeper explanation. I'm interested in seeing how Behe's examples look. Maybe you could post a link or an excerpt on what he has to say specifically about the unique quality configurations of the eye? (or any other organ for that matter.) I just want to see how he does this.

 

[Eor]

You say it's impossible to falsify macroevolution, but that would actually be easy. For example, finding rabbit fossils in the Precambrian, or anything of that sort.

 

[AltF4]

Ok, so I just want to reconstruct the gist of your argument...

As an alternative to the irreducible complexity argument, your taking a "quality configuration" argument. I'll just call it that for brevity's sake. And it goes something like this.

1. Naturalistic processes cannot produce certain quality/attribute configurations.
2. There exists in the world, systems that have these kinds of attribute configurations, i.e. the eye.
Tf Naturalistic processes do not account for all the material systems in the world.


So an example of a quality configuration that naturalistic processes are inacapable of would be something like this: high simplicity + high accuracy and precision; high complexity + high durability; high stability + high mobility. These are obviously gross simplifications, but I'm concerned about how complex our arguments for and against this position would need to be if we wanted to do it any kind of justice. Just thinking about the undertaking makes me cringe. I almost think this stuff must be over Behe's head.

Anyway, I think I've made a fairly accurate reconstruction of what you've said. So I understand where this is going, but an argument of this magnitude is going to need a much deeper explanation. I'm interested in seeing how Behe's examples look. Maybe you could post a link or an excerpt on what he has to say specifically about the unique quality configurations of the eye? (or any other organ for that matter.) I just want to see how he does this.

I think the problem with this hypothetical situation (and with the "Irreducible Complexity" argument in general) is that it is scientifically backwards.

In science, one uses logic, deduction, and reason to come up with a good hypothesis. Then that hypothesis is tested empirically. If the experiments do not match up: then you were wrong. The essence of science is in putting things to empirical tests, rather than merely reasoning "A Priori".

The "Irreducibly Complex" argument goes:

1) I have "proven" on paper a biological structure to be Irreducibly Complex.
2) An example of that structure is found in nature.

C) The structure was not evolved through natural selection.


This is obviously fallacious. The conclusion should be: "The biological structure is proven to be NOT irreducibly complex, since it is found in nature."

This same business about qualities follows the same logic. The fact that the eye exists as it does now, and did not always exist as it does now, (hence has evolved to it's current state) demonstrates empirically that it MUST be possible to evolve naturally from its previous state to current.

 

[über-venom]

I think the problem with this hypothetical situation (and with the "Irreducible Complexity" argument in general) is that it is scientifically backwards.

In science, one uses logic, deduction, and reason to come up with a good hypothesis. Then that hypothesis is tested empirically. If the experiments do not match up: then you were wrong. The essence of science is in putting things to empirical tests, rather than merely reasoning "A Priori".

The "Irreducibly Complex" argument goes:

1) I have "proven" on paper a biological structure to be Irreducibly Complex.
2) An example of that structure is found in nature.

C) The structure was not evolved through natural selection.


This is obviously fallacious. The conclusion should be: "The biological structure is proven to be NOT irreducibly complex, since it is found in nature."

This same business about qualities follows the same logic. The fact that the eye exists as it does now, and did not always exist as it does now, (hence has evolved to it's current state) demonstrates empirically that it MUST be possible to evolve naturally from its previous state to current.

No, your interpretation of the argument strikes me as very odd. You're saying the conclusion that should follow from those two premises is: "The biological structure is proven to be NOT irreducibly complex, since it is found in nature." That in no way follows. BUT you could make it happen by adding an additional premise.

1. Naturalistic processes cannot produce certain quality/attribute configurations.
2. By employing a certain theory, A, we find that there exists in the world, systems that have these kinds of attribute configurations, i.e. the eye.
3. All biological structures in the world are produced by naturalistic processes.
Tf Naturalistic processes do not account for all the material systems in the world.
Tf Theory A is false

Basically I revised premise 2 slightly, added premise 3, and we come up with the conclusion you were talking about.

So, premise 3 would make your conclusion valid, but adding something like premise 3 is just bad form. I mean look, now we're arguing that ID is false by using a premise that practically assumes ID is false.


Regarding my original reconstruction, I don't see what's fallacious about it. All you're saying is that it's backwards, do you mean it's circular? And it's most definitely a posteriori. If you generate subarguments for Premise 2 you will inevitably make reference to experience or sense data.

There are controversial premises, all of which need subarguments (premise 1 in particular). Are you just trying to say that the premises by themselves are bad? Because I agree with that.

 

[AltF4]

I think it's more than reasonable to assume in any scientific argument that everything happens naturally.

If you have to suddenly consider supernatural causes, then nothing makes sense. Supernatural things are not falsifiable. Can we even define what "supernatural" means? And that's another point of failure in this whole ID nonsense, anyway.


Perhaps I could have just stated my point more simply as: A posteriori knowledge (IE: Empirical Evidence) always trumps A Priori reasoning. What is "scientifically backward" about ID is that it reasons A Priori, assumes that it is perfectly true, then shoves evidence in to support it.

A real scientific theory starts out as only a hypothesis, which is then supported by repeatedly failed attempts at falsifying it.



But ahhh... I'm not supposed to really "argue" in the Proving Grounds, lol.

 

[über-venom]

A posteriori trumps a priori?

I don't see how that works. You're gonna have to explain that. A priori reasoning is reasoning based merely on the "relations of ideas" as Hume puts it. It's like this:
1. x=y
2. x=2
Tf y=2

That is basically a paradigm case of a priori reasoning.

A posteriori reasoning, is not all that different from a priori. Only difference is it has the disadvantage of being inductive, which means it can never be perfectly justified. Why? Because a posteriori knowledge relies on sense experience. And the senses are fallible. It's that simple. This kind of reasoning is based on "relations of ideas" and "matters of fact" (also a Hume reference):
1. I see an apple in front of me.
2. My eyes are not deceiving me.
3. There is an apple in front of me.

Anyway...

If you have to suddenly consider supernatural causes, then nothing makes sense. Supernatural things are not falsifiable. Can we even define what "supernatural" means? And that's another point of failure in this whole ID nonsense, anyway.

ID is perfectly compatible with non-supernatural intelligent designers. Look, I know everybody always talks about ID as the religious psuedo-science. And that may very well be true. But if you're going to argue against it, you should only argue what's explicitly said in the details of the position, not what you think is implicated.

What is "scientifically backward" about ID is that it reasons A Priori, assumes that it is perfectly true, then shoves evidence in to support it.

Ahh, I see what you're saying. I think they base their theories on findings, like the fact that we have "information" in our DNA. Without that, they wouldn't be pushing the information theory. But that's just my opinion.

But ahhh... I'm not supposed to really "argue" in the Proving Grounds, lol.

Baah... Why not?

 

[w!zard]

A posteriori trumps a priori?

I don't see how that works. You're gonna have to explain that. A priori reasoning is reasoning based merely on the "relations of ideas" as Hume puts it. It's like this:
1. x=y
2. x=2
Tf y=2

That is basically a paradigm case of a priori reasoning.

A posteriori reasoning, is not all that different from a priori. Only difference is it has the disadvantage of being inductive, which means it can never be perfectly justified. Why? Because a posteriori knowledge relies on sense experience. And the senses are fallible. It's that simple. This kind of reasoning is based on "relations of ideas" and "matters of fact" (also a Hume reference):
1. I see an apple in front of me.
2. My eyes are not deceiving me.
3. There is an apple in front of me.

any a priori explanation that is not a direct result from logic cannot qualify as knowledge, nor are they reliable in any way

a posteriori reasoning can actually amount to useful explanations with predicative power

ID is perfectly compatible with non-supernatural intelligent designers. Look, I know everybody always talks about ID as the religious psuedo-science. And that may very well be true. But if you're going to argue against it, you should only argue what's explicitly said in the details of the position, not what you think is implicated.

but it is not compatible with science, which is why it should not even be considered

Baah... Why not?

cause he's a debate hall member

 

[AltF4]

A posteriori trumps a priori?

I don't see how that works.

History is abound with perfectly intelligent people making very well thought out logical arguments and predictions on paper... only to be proven miserably wrong by evidence.

When you're talking about trivial logic puzzles or math equations, then sure. A Priori reasoning is fine. But it's of little use to science.

A scientific theory cannot evade empirical evidence, and it must wield predictive power. I don't see ID as passing either one of those criteria.

ID is perfectly compatible with non-supernatural intelligent designers. Look, I know everybody always talks about ID as the religious psuedo-science.

Compatibility is not sufficient. What other "designer" can there be? Super intelligent aliens that even to this day evade our detection? Absurd. You have to give real answers to questions, not evasive half-answers that merely aspire to be "consistent".

You (well... not YOU, but you get the point) cannot hide behind silly assertions like "You can't prove me wrong!" when we're discussing what is supposed to be a scientific topic.

 

[Botnik]

History is abound with perfectly intelligent people making very well thought out logical arguments and predictions on paper... only to be proven miserably wrong by evidence.

When you're talking about trivial logic puzzles or math equations, then sure. A Priori reasoning is fine. But it's of little use to science.

A scientific theory cannot evade empirical evidence, and it must wield predictive power. I don't see ID as passing either one of those criteria.

Could you explain then how the generally accepted theory of abiogenesis (life arising from non-life) wields predictive power? Is this observable in the natural world today?

If not, it seems evolutionists have made an a priori assumptions themselves. This is what ID theory strives to accomplish--showing that life could not arise from a solely ateleological, naturalistic mechanism.

Compatibility is not sufficient. What other "designer" can there be? Super intelligent aliens that even to this day evade our detection? Absurd. You have to give real answers to questions, not evasive half-answers that merely aspire to be "consistent".

Aliens are merely a possibility among many others; not the sole possibility. The universe is infinitely large. There is a chance that life could have been "planted" or "seeded" here in some form or another, and microevolution can explain the various differences in organisms of relatively similar taxonomy.

You (well... not YOU, but you get the point) cannot hide behind silly assertions like "You can't prove me wrong!" when we're discussing what is supposed to be a scientific topic.

The goal of ID is merely to provide a postulation on how the complex organisms and mechanisms we see today came about.

Perhaps a question for you:

Cambrian explosion.

One explanation for the rapid evolution / coming into existence of over 50 phyla in this 10 to 80 million year time period is exoskeletons, or calcification’s first appearance. The problems I see:

1. Wouldn’t the first “tank” creature, or partial tank have total dominance and so reduce phyla? Yet we see phyla increasing? Eat everything in it’s path? Seems like a clear win in the evolutionary arms race. If the answer is “they all got hard structures at once”, then how? Horizontal gene transfer? But say quite a few did harden at once, isn’t this just a better case for less phyla, as certain creatures will only eat certain prey? But then the question would be: why the huge diversity of hardened creatures? What new advantage would spur these hardened creatures to further diversify into 50 phyla when we don’t see this happening now? The only option would be to say that there were already 50 soft phyla and they all became hard at once.

2. How come zero new phyla since then? In fact less than ever, we’re down to 30 something. Nothing can compete in the millions of years since with hardened parts to spur diversity?

 

[w!zard]

Could you explain then how the generally accepted theory of abiogenesis (life arising from non-life) wields predictive power? Is this observable in the natural world today?

If not, it seems evolutionists have made an a priori assumptions themselves. This is what ID theory strives to accomplish--showing that life could not arise from a solely ateleological, naturalistic mechanism.

we have never observed this, but that does not mean it is unobservable. life coming from non-life is the explanation that assumes least, so it is favored. the distinction between life and non-life is arbitrary anyways, so it should not be mentioned as if it were a critical point.

Aliens are merely a possibility among many others; not the sole possibility. The universe is infinitely large. There is a chance that life could have been "planted" or "seeded" here in some form or another, and microevolution can explain the various differences in organisms of relatively similar taxonomy.

the universe is not infinitely large.

microevolution IS evolution. if enough small genetic changes are accumulated, it can result in macroevolution

The goal of ID is merely to provide a postulation on how the complex organisms and mechanisms we see today came about.

ID has no merit over saying that unintelligent life-giving magic dust created life. neither explanation should be taken seriously because right now, all it is is creative speculation


your questions are on evolution, not abiogenesis. are you questioning evolution?

 

[über-venom]

1. any a priori explanation that is not a direct result from logic cannot qualify as knowledge, nor are they reliable in any way

2. a posteriori reasoning can actually amount to useful explanations with predicative power


3. but it is not compatible with science, which is why it should not even be considered

1. A priori, not a direct result of logic? An a priori explanation? I'm not sure you even know what a priori means.

2. Of course it can. I never said it couldn't. Both kinds of reasoning are extremely useful, when used properly of course.

3. Why does everyone think his argument is a priori? If you generate subarguments for premise 2, it will inevitably bring up arguments from sense experience.

History is abound with perfectly intelligent people making very well thought out logical arguments and predictions on paper... only to be proven miserably wrong by evidence.

When you're talking about trivial logic puzzles or math equations, then sure. A Priori reasoning is fine. But it's of little use to science.

A scientific theory cannot evade empirical evidence, and it must wield predictive power. I don't see ID as passing either one of those criteria.

Ok, hold on. Before we go further, I should say that this whole a priori vs. a posteriori battle, is, though interesting, irrelevant. Why? Because the argument in question is a posteriori, and until you can convince me that it isn't, any points you make won't be devastating. Right now, it would not threaten my position to say that a posteriori reasoning is superior, when I think the argument is a posteriori to begin with. And to be honest, it's not so much what I think, it's a fact. That argument is undoubtedly a posteriori.

Other than that I have three things I want to just make sure people understand.
1. Science is a posteriori. Always. You can't even have a priori science. But that doesn't make a priori reasoning a bad method of gaining knowledge.
2. I am not arguing that ID fits into the realm of textbook science. In fact, the best I'd grant it would be frontier science, if anything.
3. I am not a proponant of ID.

Compatibility is not sufficient. What other "designer" can there be? Super intelligent aliens that even to this day evade our detection? Absurd. You have to give real answers to questions, not evasive half-answers that merely aspire to be "consistent".

You (well... not YOU, but you get the point) cannot hide behind silly assertions like "You can't prove me wrong!" when we're discussing what is supposed to be a scientific topic.

Sufficient for what? I was only saying your refutation based on the supernatural "requirement" was no good. Because ID doesn't even reference supernatural cause. It just says "intelligent" cause. And if you think about it, you don't even need to know who or what the cause was as long as you can prove that the cause had the property of intelligence.

To Botnik
**feels negected
Seriously though, do you have any kind of electronic access to that book you were talking about? The Behe one? I don't know if I'd be willing to argue against the theory as you have it laid out now. It just seems to me that you've only given a gist of it. I'd be interested in an account straight from the author's mouth. But if you could reconstruct one of his examples, like how he describes the unique attribute configurations of the eye, or any other organ, that'd be fine.

 

[AltF4]

Ok, hold on. Before we go further, I should say that this whole a priori vs. a posteriori battle, is, though interesting, irrelevant.

Agreed, it's more than a bit of a tangent.

Sufficient for what?

Being considered science, in any form. Merely being consistent with data is not sufficient to be considered science.

I was only saying your refutation based on the supernatural "requirement" was no good. Because ID doesn't even reference supernatural cause. It just says "intelligent" cause. And if you think about it, you don't even need to know who or what the cause was as long as you can prove that the cause had the property of intelligence.

Of course it does. It's no secret that Intelligent Design is just a poor attempt at getting public schools to teach christian nonsense as "science".

ID intentionally doesn't reference the christian god because that would cause it to get kicked to the curb immediately. Instead, they use some nebulous concept of an "Intelligent Designer". Who just-so-happens to have all the same qualities as the christian god.


I think, ultimately, that we agree here. I'm just far less tolerant than you when I see religious dogma being taught to public school children in a science class.

 

[w!zard]

1. A priori, not a direct result of logic? An a priori explanation? I'm not sure you even know what a priori means.

a priori knowledge is not based on observations. just being consistent with logic is not enough to make it valid.

3. Why does everyone think his argument is a priori? If you generate subarguments for premise 2, it will inevitably bring up arguments from sense experience.

it is not falsifiable, so it counts as a priori. being consistent with every possible observation is just as useful as being consistent with none

 

[über-venom]

Being considered science, in any form. Merely being consistent with data is not sufficient to be considered science.

All right, but I'm not arguing that since ID is compatible with non-supernatural designers, it is sufficient to be a science. I'm just saying that ID is compatible with supernatural designers.

Of course it does. It's no secret that Intelligent Design is just a poor attempt at getting public schools to teach christian nonsense as "science".

ID intentionally doesn't reference the christian god because that would cause it to get kicked to the curb immediately. Instead, they use some nebulous concept of an "Intelligent Designer". Who just-so-happens to have all the same qualities as the christian god.

Yeah, see, I sympathize with that approach, but you guys have already had a thread about ID in schools. In this thread, just for the sake of fairness, we should try to drop the political baggage, and just treat it as a new theory. I mean hey, at least it's a new argument. Or at least I haven't seen it before.

I think, ultimately, that we agree here. I'm just far less tolerant than you when I see religious dogma being taught to public school children in a science class.

Yeah, I think so too. At least on all the relevant points.

a priori knowledge is not based on observations. just being consistent with logic is not enough to make it valid.


it is not falsifiable, so it counts as a priori. being consistent with every possible observation is just as useful as being consistent with none

ok just so we're clear. a priori knowledge, is knowledge attained through logic that is not dependant on observations. Validity, refers strictly to the logical consistency of the argument, so it's kind of funny you would say something like that. Perhaps you meant sound? And argument can be valid yet unsound if it has any false premises.

And that second thing you said. I'm sorry but you're gonna have to explain that.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Ok, I think most people are agreeing, but we're having weird tangent disagreements.

This seems to be the agreed-upon response to the OP (which I agree with as well):

1. There are no "merits" to intelligent design. This theory is no more credible than any other theory we could come up with.

2. Unless evolution is disproved, it's our most accurate theory so far; even if it is disproved, ID doesn't gain any merit.

3. Of course not everything from the past can be answered by the evolution theory. That's why it's a theory, not a law. It's still developing.

Nothing that has been said here gives any merit at all to ID, so I think this discussion is over.

 

[AltF4]

Of course not everything from the past can be answered by the evolution theory. That's why it's a theory, not a law. It's still developing.

Don't get caught up in the naming of things in science. There are lots of terms people use for ideas. You'll hear things called theories, hypotheses, laws, maxims, propositions, corollaries, and who knows what else.

Ultimately, these are used quite interchangeably (for the most part). In mathematics, there is a difference between a hypothesis and a law. Because in math you can actually prove stuff! But in science you can't.

So a "law" in science is fairly meaningless. But we use the term anyway. Like the "Law of Averages", or "The Second Law of Thermodynamics". They get "broken" all the time, but we persist...

 

[KrazyGlue]

True.

Anyway, my point was that there's no point in arguing that evolution isn't proven because we all know it isn't. It's just that it has more merit than ID as of now.

 

[über-venom]

Ok, I think most people are agreeing, but we're having weird tangent disagreements.

This seems to be the agreed-upon response to the OP (which I agree with as well):

1. There are no "merits" to intelligent design. This theory is no more credible than any other theory we could come up with.

2. Unless evolution is disproved, it's our most accurate theory so far; even if it is disproved, ID doesn't gain any merit.

3. Of course not everything from the past can be answered by the evolution theory. That's why it's a theory, not a law. It's still developing.

Nothing that has been said here gives any merit at all to ID, so I think this discussion is over.

1. Disagree
2. Agreed but change "accurate" to "resilient." Because I'm anal like that.
3. Agreed

There are merits. But not enough to put it under science, or let it compete with evolution.

And no! The discussion is not over! I'm waiting for Botnik to post the Behe material! That's what I've been for this whole time!

GEEZ!!!

j/k but seriously, this whole thread has gone by and the OP's main point hasn't even been touched.

 

[KrazyGlue]

There are merits. But not enough to put it under science, or let it compete with evolution.

Could you explain these merits? I'm interested. Why does it have more merit then for example, the statement that:

unintelligent life-giving magic dust created life

Like w!zard said, it's all just speculation.

And no! The discussion is not over! I'm waiting for Botnik to post the Behe material! That's what I've been for this whole time!

GEEZ!!!

Lol, my bad.

j/k but seriously, this whole thread has gone by and the OP's main point hasn't even been touched.

I kind of addressed that when I said evolution can't be proven. If someone tries to respond, Botnik will just give them some problem with the evolution theory that nobody knows the answer to. To answer the OP's title, I don't believe there are any merits to ID.

 

[über-venom]

It's merited in that it forces evolutionists to answer questions about the nature of DNA information.

Additionally, the irreducible complexity arguments really are very insightful. As in, if we were to find something that was truly irreducibly complex, it should really shake people's world views. But I don't know of anything like that.

It's just thought provoking if you really are open to it.

But, honestly, I don't really want to go into a debate on whether ID has "merits." sorry, it's just too broad, and it's not a particularly meaningful topic either.

Anyway, Botnik had a specific theory that he was pushing forward. The title of the OP was not the OP's central point.

 

[Nysyarc]

It's merited in that it forces evolutionists to answer questions about the nature of DNA information.

I'm pretty sure the nature of DNA information was being studied long before ID was ever thrown into the mix. Besides, that's not really a merit, it doesn't make ID any more valid as a theory.

But I don't know of anything like that.

If nothing that is irreducibly complex exists or has been discovered yet, than it can't really count as a merit for ID.

But, honestly, I don't really want to go into a debate on whether ID has "merits." sorry, it's just too broad, and it's not a particularly meaningful topic either.

It's not that broad really, supporters of ID find merits and supporters of evolution attempt to refute them. At this point, I can't imagine that ID has amassed an ominous array of evidence that would take hours to list.

As for the support of macroevolution (as Botnik mentioned in the OP), microevolutionary changes (which ID apparently supports) are just small steps towards macroevolution. Macroevolution is not something that happens quickly; wild wolves did not become docile dogs overnight. A series of minor, microevolutionary changes occur over a long period of time through natural selection, eventually resulting in macroevolution.

About 10,000 years ago was when the evolutionary process from wolves to dogs began. Wild wolves realized that eating scraps from the outskirts of human camps was easier than hunting, and the more tame a wolf was, the closer it would venture to the camps, and thus the better chance of surviving it would have. Natural selection eventually changed the wolves who continually got more and more dependent on the humans, eventually being adopted into the humans' lifestyle. Minor changes occurred first, but over time, and through natural and artificial selection, we now have Chihuahuas that were once wild wolves.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/dogs/about.html

 

[AltF4]

j/k but seriously, this whole thread has gone by and the OP's main point hasn't even been touched.

I think you're right, you know...

The test:

Provide a coherent defense of Darwinian macro evolution with empirical evidence to back it up.

This is kind of a silly "test" to ask of this thread. Not only would a sufficient answer entail many books of writing, not a mere forum post. But evolutionary biology is an entire field of study.

It'd be like me waltzing into a debate about the Big Bang, and demanding a complete and rigorous explanation of the origin of the universe from start to present day. The answer is not trivial! But there is one.

Note that Intelligen Design accepts Darwinian microevolution as an explanation for many of life’s changes, but not for an explanation of naturalistic life origins.

Life origins? Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with "life origins". Nothing. Abiogenesis is something totally different and unrelated. Governed by completely different theories, speculations, flaws, unknowns, etc... Very little is known about abiogenesis. (other than it happened!)

This is usually a mistake made by someone who doesn't know better. (usually someone who's pastor has given then a heaping handful of mis-information) But your other posts lead me to believe that you have at least a decent grasp on some of the science behind this, Botnik.

So are you intentionally trying to confuse the subject with more mis-information? Or do you just not know better?

 

[w!zard]

And that second thing you said. I'm sorry but you're gonna have to explain that.

an explanation that is consistent with every possible observation (such as ID) means that any reality with it being true is indistinguishable from any reality where it is false. to accept it as truth would require that it be a priori because it cannot be based on observation.

 

[über-venom]

I'm pretty sure the nature of DNA information was being studied long before ID was ever thrown into the mix. Besides, that's not really a merit, it doesn't make ID any more valid as a theory.

Look, a merit isn't necessarily something that makes ID a more valid theory. It encourages a certain kind of skepticism. That's healthy in science.

If nothing that is irreducibly complex exists or has been discovered yet, than it can't really count as a merit for ID.

But if they WERE to be found. Point is, it is a good criteria for disproving evolution.

It's not that broad really, supporters of ID find merits and supporters of evolution attempt to refute them.

Ok, you define "merit" and then tell me it's not broad.

As for the support of macroevolution (as Botnik mentioned in the OP), microevolutionary changes (which ID apparently supports) are just small steps towards macroevolution. Macroevolution is not something that happens quickly; wild wolves did not become docile dogs overnight. A series of minor, microevolutionary changes occur over a long period of time through natural selection, eventually resulting in macroevolution.

About 10,000 years ago was when the evolutionary process from wolves to dogs began. Wild wolves realized that eating scraps from the outskirts of human camps was easier than hunting, and the more tame a wolf was, the closer it would venture to the camps, and thus the better chance of surviving it would have. Natural selection eventually changed the wolves who continually got more and more dependent on the humans, eventually being adopted into the humans' lifestyle. Minor changes occurred first, but over time, and through natural and artificial selection, we now have Chihuahuas that were once wild wolves.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/dogs/about.html

Hey, no argument there. I'm an evolution proponant if you haven't noticed.

an explanation that is consistent with every possible observation (such as ID) means that any reality with it being true is indistinguishable from any reality where it is false. to accept it as truth would require that it be a priori because it cannot be based on observation.

Ok I still don't see how that works. Give me an example of how that happens.

 

[Botnik]

Life origins? Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with "life origins". Nothing. Abiogenesis is something totally different and unrelated. Governed by completely different theories, speculations, flaws, unknowns, etc... Very little is known about abiogenesis. (other than it happened!)

This is usually a mistake made by someone who doesn't know better. (usually someone who's pastor has given then a heaping handful of mis-information) But your other posts lead me to believe that you have at least a decent grasp on some of the science behind this, Botnik.

So are you intentionally trying to confuse the subject with more mis-information? Or do you just not know better?

Excuse me for confusing the issue. What I meant by that post, and in previous ones detailing the complexity of specific systems (such as the eye, or for example the clotting cascade in hemoglobin), was that evolution cannot account for the vast variances we have in organisms we have today. Instead, ID postulates that instead of organisms gaining "new" information via mutation, information can only be lost; thus resulting in variances within a species (e.g., dogs).

I realize that evolutionary theory does not attempt to explain where life came from, but macroevolution postulates that more complex forms arise from simpler ones. If we take this to the beginning, then life must have arisen from some form of simple non-life, and that is what ID attempts to refute.

 

[AltF4]

macroevolution postulates that more complex forms arise from simpler ones. If we take this to the beginning, then life must have arisen from some form of simple non-life, and that is what ID attempts to refute.

ID attempts to refute that life came from non-life? Am I reading this correctly? Are you asserting that abiogenesis did not occur?

That seems like an odd assertion. We can reasonably assume that there was a time in the universe where there was no life. (Before the cooling of the first stars, for example) Today, we do have life. Therefore, life MUST have come from non-life. Unless you're also going to be a "young Earth creationist".

 

[RDK]

Did someone say information?

I wish I could join this debate without destroying the conversation.

 

[Botnik]

ID attempts to refute that life came from non-life? Am I reading this correctly? Are you asserting that abiogenesis did not occur?

That seems like an odd assertion. We can reasonably assume that there was a time in the universe where there was no life. (Before the cooling of the first stars, for example) Today, we do have life. Therefore, life MUST have come from non-life. Unless you're also going to be a "young Earth creationist".

No, nothing of the sort, although a lot of YEC's may fall under the umbrella of Intelligent Design.

There is the possibility that life was planted here at a time when there was previously no life. The only difference between my views and your views are that instead of simple, non-living chemicals and substances developing into living ones, life was instituted on Earth by some sort of intelligence, be it alien or deity.

 

[Nysyarc]

macroevolution postulates that more complex forms arise from simpler ones. If we take this to the beginning, then life must have arisen from some form of simple non-life, and that is what ID attempts to refute.

The only difference between my views and your views are that instead of simple, non-living chemicals and substances developing into living ones, life was instituted on Earth by some sort of intelligence, be it alien or deity.

Once again, evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis. Someone could, for example, accept evolution and understand how it works, and yet believe at the same time that an intelligent designer created life to begin with. Following macroevolution to the beginning would end at the point where life first began, not before life began. A non-living object cannot evolve, thus abiogenesis (unrelated to evolution) had to occur first, before the evolutionary process of natural selection could begin.

 

[w!zard]

Ok I still don't see how that works. Give me an example of how that happens.

when attempting to find truth, the only function of observations is to disprove. if an explanation is consistent with every possible observation, that means there is no observation that can disprove it, so there are no observations that it can be "based" on. it must be independent of observation

 

[über-venom]

when attempting to find truth, the only function of observations is to disprove. if an explanation is consistent with every possible observation, that means there is no observation that can disprove it, so there are no observations that it can be "based" on. it must be independent of observation

Yeah, like I said, an example would be nice...

 

[w!zard]

it doesn't get much simpler than the theory

instead of giving you an example, how about you tell be an observation that an indisprovable explanation such as ID can be based on and how the explanation is supported by it

 

[über-venom]

You want me to give an example of what you're trying to explain? Look, stop being lazy. The onus is on you right now. If you can't give me an example, then it's clear to me you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[w!zard]

no, i want you to give me an example of what you believe is true: the ID is not a priori.

i've already explained my position adequately. if you do not understand the basic theory i presented, you won't be able to understand it through further explaining by me. rack your brain and give me an observation that ID can be based on. if that isn't possible, ID cannot be based on observation