Re: How New a "Science" is Intelligent Design?


Lee Bowman wrote:
On 29 Mar 2006 03:26:42 -0800, "Sverker Johansson" <lsj@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Lee Bowman wrote:
rev.goetz wrote:

I think evolutionary ID may have potential, but not antievolutionary
ID.

Absolutely. As I and others have stated, microevolution is primarily
for 1) adaptation, and 2) diversity. Evolution beyond species is
something else, perhaps an automation to aid in a design process by,
let's see: an unknown intervening agent or agents.

Now why does this remind me of my old .sig:
"Definitions:
Micro-evolution: evolution for which the evidence is so
overwhelming that even the ICR can't deny it.
Macro-evolution: evolution which is only proven beyond
reasonable doubt, not beyond unreasonable doubt."

As we both know, microevolution is easily demonstratable; i.e.
selection within the taxon, and longer survival of those best suited.

As we both know (or ought to know, in your case) macroevolution
is easily demonstrable beyond _reasonable_ doubt. But you
appear to follow my definitions above.

For the sake of this argument, let's assume a designer. Why would
dez* not include in the reproductive process microevolutionary
ability.

Any reason why he wouldn't include macroevolutionary abilities
as well? Any reason (apart from faith) to distinguish between
micro- and macro-abilities, in the first place?

Otherwise, 1) each new generation would be a clone of itself
(same hair, eyes, build, tendencies, etc). And of course, 2)
adaptability. Variability, *within* the taxa, so that if ecological
changes occur, those more suited will survive longer, and have more
liklihood of producing similar types.

And in the long run, a good likelihood of producing not-so-similar
types. IOW macroevolution.

At this juncture,
evidence of this is 1) complexity,

"I can't figure out how this evolved, so it must be designed."
That's all there is to the complexity argument, once you
clear away the smokescreen of fancy words and maths that
Dembski and Behe put up.

Let's say then that it wasn't designed, *or* evolved. Give me a third
scenario.

Why should I? It is you and the other IDeologists who claim to
be able to prove design through exclusion of all alternatives.
The onus is on you to prove, not just that we haven't figured
out a third way, but that no third way is _possible_.

In the absence of that, design is more likely, when complex
functions are observed, since they would have to evolve in steps, and
interim forms would not meet the criteria of survival of the fittest,
since the interim parts, not yet functional, would serve no purpose.

IOW, you can't figure out how this evolved, so it must be designed.
Are you totally unable to grasp the possibility that evolution of a
feature need not proceed in a straight line, adding components
one at a time, with no possible function other than the final one?
See e.g. Thornhill, R H & Ussery, D W (2000) 'A classification of
possible routes of Darwinian evolution', J Theor Bio 203:111-116
for alternatives.

They would therefore not survive utilizing the 'fittest' method of
selection. In the eye, for example, how many separate steps would be
needed to arrive at the final, even partially functional organ? Many.

2) aesthetic features of lifeforms,

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Are you sure you've taken
into account the evolution of the beholder?

I don't necessarily mean perceived beauty, like that which a male
rhinocerous might see in his mate, but no one else would see. I am
referring to things like facial structure that results in balance and
symmetry.

Which you perceive as beautiful in a potential mate, much like
the rhino above.

Cheeks and chin are designed to cushion blows, the eye
orbits are sunken for protection, with the brow (and eyebrow) aiding
in that. Hair on the head serves as protection from sun and direct
blows, and when wet with perspiration acts as a wick and cooling
device. The external ears act as sound directors, but a simple cone
would work fine, so why all the complex design features? Asthetic
variability to add interest is a possibility.

IOW if you can't figure out the function of something, it
must be designed.

It's been argued that extreme coloration in male birds helps to
attract the female, and is thus due to evolution. It may be true
today, but if a male and female bird looked the same, and then one was
born with patterened coloration through some genetic accident, it
would more likely scare the hell out of the female, and bring the
wrath of other male birds down upon it. It would *not* survive.

Why are you putting up a hopeful monster as a strawman?
Or are you actually so ignorant of evolution that you believe
this is the way it's supposed to work?

3) mechanisms (organs, primarily) with dual or multi-functionality.

Why on earth would this be a problem for evolution? Re-using
and tinkering with existing stuff to add new function is SOP.

It could also be design simplification. Having one duct for solid
food, liquids and air has been said to be bad design, or an
evolutionary mistake. Most mammals have this system, and with the
eppiglotis, choking is seldom a problem. Man with his need to rant
during meals brings this on himself. But the existing system gives
you a means to clear the air duct by swallowing, spitting,
sneezing/blowing nose, or simply breathing throught the mouth. The
constant stream of mucus is necessary to filter dust and debris, and
it would not work well without the means to clear it.

As long as IDeologists refuse to take a stand on the properties of
the designer, _anything_ could be "explained" as design.
But if anything can be design, then design totally lacks
predictive power, making it utterly unscientific.

I also feel that features of support systems, including food (fruits,
primarily), display features that would have no use to the plant,
other plants, the environment (except to produce oxygen), and
therefore would not have been arrived at due to the plant's self
interest (survival or the fruitiest?).

To begin with, you haven't forgotten that the plants we usually find
at the supermarket have been bred by humans for human purposes,
have you?

Selective genetic breeding improves fruit, but it's been used as a
food source over eons. My question is: How and why did fruit form?
Modern breeding aside, how did the early forms develop?

I answered that in the part you snipped.

Edible plants preceded vertebrates, and that in itself is an
indication that they were 'designed' as a needed adjunct to support
animal life.

Fruit did not precede vertebrates.

Plants that did precede vertebrates did not have parts
that appeared designed to be eaten by vertebrates.

As for normal plant parts, like leaves, they haven't
evolved to be eaten. Instead, herbivores have evolved
to eat them. And the plants do their best to evolve
unpalatable leaves, filling them with sharp edges and
noxious chemicals.

<snip>

The bees and flowers do form a synergy as you stated.

<Intel snip>

. . . . . . Not to denigrate an intelligent designer, but why would
he/they not use functionally similar tools in the design process, no
matter how smart? You set the code, perhaps with data reduction
tools, and let the embryo create the product.

That's the way a designer with finite capacity would design complex
stuff. But the designer the IDeologists are thinking of, behind the
smoke screens of 'an unknown intervening agent or agents' (as you
expressed it above) has inifinite capacity, and no need of such aids.

But I'm not from the fundamentalist camp, and believe that the
designer(s) do *not* have infinite ability. I do not endorce the
Genesis account, Jonah and the whale, or a 6-10,000 year earth and
universe, as depicted in the Pentateuch, canonized by the early
Christian church, and included in the Torah and the Quran.

Possibly you don't. But many of your fellow travellers do,
however much they may deny it when they need to hide their agenda.
The ID movement as a whole is an obvious creationist scam.
If you side with scam artists, don't blame us for assuming that
you're part of the scam.

The arguments for (and *against*) design should be based on
observation, deductive reason, statistical evidence, empirical
evidence, but *not* on religious beliefs.

Which excludes the current ID movement, as it is totally based
on a religious agenda.

There are basically two
camps parked outside your gate. The fundamentalist camp is one; the
reason based camp the other.

They only reason-based camp around is _inside_ my gates.
ID is a fundamentalist scam trying to label itself "reason".
I'm not falling for their scam. Are you?

Don't get the two confused. Despite
claims that ID is fundamental creationism renamed, and the fact that
religious organizations are doing most of the challenging of
evolution, there are those who seek to the answer the question of
design by evidence only, and yes, scientific inquiry is a tool in tht
quest.

Yes, there are those who seek to answer the question by
evidence only. They are on the side of evolution.

If life were really designed using finite-designer tricks, then this
would
be evidence _against_ it being designed by the god of ID.

As I stated, omnipotence is not assumed in a core definition of ID,

The "core definition of ID" is clearly designed to hide the fact
that the designer of the IDeologists is the Xian god.
Their evasiveness on the nature of the designer is just
a smokescreen.

and thus, is not an argument against finite design. The word
'intelligent' is a relative term, and can mean level or ability. My
purpose is not to define and analyze a designer, but to merely
establish intervention or non-intervention. Period.

Yeah, right. If true, then you ought to distance yourself from
religious scam artists. _Saying_ that the designer need not be
their god doesn't cut it, as the scam artists are saying the
same thing, as part of their camouflage.

And Dembski acknowledges the history of teleological thought while
Dembski claims that ID is unique in that it involves testible
hypotheses.

So where are those testable hypotheses?

I believe that it's a work in progress ...

"Work in progress" implies that progress is actually being made.
I'll believe that when I see it.

--
Best regards,
Sverker Johansson
-----------------------------
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy,
education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would
indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of
punishment and hope of reward after death." - Albert Einstein
------------------------------

.