Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > All About Antievolution > Intelligent Design > IDT vs. IDM

deepred Posts: 3 Joined: Dec. 2004 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2004,03:00    If you ask William Dembski what the theory of ID is, youll probably get some analogy with the idea of SETI. In short, an explanation of mathmatically deciphering between signs of non-intelligence and intelligence. And in the end youll get something like "If SETI is a geniune science why cant ID be?" But what is defined by ID proponents and what they actually do are two compeltely seperate things. If you see what Dembski and camp try to do youll notice they write books called "Intelligent Design the Bridge Between Theology and Science". And most recently what the intelligent design camp has done is brought stickers onto our highschool biology textbooks that read "Evolution is just a theory...". On the very recent article on the ARN homepage the headline reads "Evolution: Call a theory a theory". Proponents of ID ask that you only "Teach the controversy." If there is one thing proponents of ID -HATE-, it is to be categorized with Creationist. This has become very hypocritical, Creationist dont beleive evolution even occured as where ID'st say evolution could have occured but not by chance alone etc...and then again resort to the analogy of SETI. If this is trully so of ID proponents, then why do they say "Call the theory of evolution a theory?" And mark our highschool books with "Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered." If these propnents of ID are going to define ID as a perfect comparison to SETI, and a theory that doesnt denie the fact part of evolution, why are they calling -Evolution- a theory, just like any creationist? The proponents of ID when debating intelligent design are constantly attacking the idea of neo-darwinism as the explanation of evoluiton, yet what they do in the public school district and even in there own books, is consider the fact of evolution and its theory (neo darwinism) one in the samething. But why should attacking the theory (neo darwinism) of a fact (evolution), destroy the fact (evolution)? If they think this is so then they are no better than there counter part creationist. Critics of ID are no better in this mis-understanding, thouhg the blame can all be put on the IDst for the confusion in the first place. For example, if ID is a science in the same sense SETI is, then ID doesnt have to put forth a theory of ID like hoped for by many on this thread. For example if SETI found an intelligent signal from outerspace it wouldnt be SETI's job to understand and form a theory of the biological origins, organisms and there evolution, of the signal, in order to validate if it was made by intelligence. Theyve simply done there part in deciphering between the signs of intelligence and chance. If ID is going to keep moving forward, its proponents have to stop pretending like it needs to not just remove neo-darwinism but also evolution. They need to stop pretending like removing neo-darwinism -is- removing evolution as a whole. And if its critics are going to be correct in critizing it they must stop asking useless questions like 'what is the theory of ID?". What is the theory of SETI? Is it testable? ID shouldnt (if it is to be as Dembski defines it) seek to replace any theories of science. And it also doesnt claim to be a theory (if it is to be as Dembski defines it) of evolution. And therefore any questions of how do we test this theory is also irrelevant. Asking questions like how is ID better than Neo darwinism, is again irrelevant. They do -not-, because they -cannot- replace each other. This part of the intelligent design movement is maddening. Frustrating even. Ridiculous, and creates mass confusion even among its followers, or observors.

Lord Timothy Posts: 6 Joined: Nov. 2004 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2004,18:03    Quote If you ask William Dembski what the theory of ID is, youll probably get some analogy with the idea of SETI. In short, an explanation of mathmatically deciphering between signs of non-intelligence and intelligence. And in the end youll get something like "If SETI is a geniune science why cant ID be?" But what is defined by ID proponents and what they actually do are two compeltely seperate things. If you see what Dembski and camp try to do youll notice they write books called "Intelligent Design the Bridge Between Theology and Science". And most recently what the intelligent design camp has done is brought stickers onto our highschool biology textbooks that read "Evolution is just a theory...". On the very recent article on the ARN homepage the headline reads "Evolution: Call a theory a theory". Proponents of ID ask that you only "Teach the controversy." If there is one thing proponents of ID -HATE-, it is to be categorized with Creationist. This has become very hypocritical, Creationist dont beleive evolution even occured as where ID'st say evolution could have occured but not by chance alone etc...and then again resort to the analogy of SETI. If this is trully so of ID proponents, then why do they say "Call the theory of evolution a theory?" And mark our highschool books with "Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered." If these propnents of ID are going to define ID as a perfect comparison to SETI, and a theory that doesnt denie the fact part of evolution, why are they calling -Evolution- a theory, just like any creationist? I believe it is because IDs have a different opinion about how things happened, and though admittedly evolution had some influence, ID’s would think it has more of a minor role rather than being the driving force behind the arising of new genera, families, classes, etc. Unlike creationists, IDs don’t believe in the immutability of species. Their quarrel with Evolution is mainly because they don’t believe natural selection or the other mechanisms of Evolution are adequate to explain the appearance, or design of living forms, and what appears in the fossil record. Though granted these mechanisms have some power, ID’s would argue that most change is a result of rapid infusions of genetic information into the biosphere.  So there is a distinct difference in the two ideas about our origins. Quote The proponents of ID when debating intelligent design are constantly attacking the idea of neo-darwinism as the explanation of evoluiton, yet what they do in the public school district and even in there own books, is consider the fact of evolution and its theory (neo darwinism) one in the samething. But why should attacking the theory (neo darwinism) of a fact (evolution), destroy the fact (evolution)? If they think this is so then they are no better than there counter part creationist. The problem here is in the semantics.  When you say “Evolution is fact” I know you are referring to the changing of frequencies of alleles in populations which lead to new species. Evolution, in the mind of the general public is quite different.  To the general public Evolution means neo-Darwinism, and the march of progress, common descent, and spontaneous generation.  They had to get the message across somehow. Quote Critics of ID are no better in this mis-understanding, thouhg the blame can all be put on the IDst for the confusion in the first place. For example, if ID is a science in the same sense SETI is, then ID doesnt have to put forth a theory of ID like hoped for by many on this thread. For example if SETI found an intelligent signal from outerspace it wouldnt be SETI's job to understand and form a theory of the biological origins, organisms and there evolution, of the signal, in order to validate if it was made by intelligence. Not biological origins, because SETI does not deal with Biology like ID does, but perhaps in its own field.   Quote If ID is going to keep moving forward, its proponents have to stop pretending like it needs to not just remove neo-darwinism but also evolution. They need to stop pretending like removing neo-darwinism -is- removing evolution as a whole. And if its critics are going to be correct in critizing it they must stop asking useless questions like 'what is the theory of ID?". What is the theory of SETI? Is it testable? ID shouldnt (if it is to be as Dembski defines it) seek to replace any theories of science. And it also doesnt claim to be a theory (if it is to be as Dembski defines it) of evolution. And therefore any questions of how do we test this theory is also irrelevant. Asking questions like how is ID better than Neo darwinism, is again irrelevant. They do -not-, because they -cannot- replace each other. I was with you (somewhat) up until the last half.  If you look at ID as Dembski does, then you would have to believe it is a theory.  The comparison with SETI does not define the entire theory, but the search for design, as a response to those who would claim that any search for design would not be scientific.  The Intelligent Design Theory is certainly a theory, because it is has all the essential elements e.g. it is testable, falsifiable, makes predictions, etc.  So either there will be a scientific revolution or there won’t be.  One theory will come out on top.

PaulK Posts: 37 Joined: June 2004 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2005,01:46    When you say Quote If you look at ID as Dembski does, then you would have to believe it is a theory. Do you mean that the ID movement does have an alternate theory to replace evolutionary theory - but they just refuse to talk about it ?  Or that Dembski has to believe that there is one even though there isn't ? SETI isn't a theory - its a (small) research program.  And it is rather better than ID has managed to do.  Partly because it is focussed on practical methods of investigating the question but more because it does not prejudge the result.  ID as it is actually practised is more like religious apologetics than science.

Lord Timothy Posts: 6 Joined: Nov. 2004 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 07 2005,13:51    Quote Do you mean that the ID movement does have an alternate theory to replace evolutionary theory - but they just refuse to talk about it ? Or that Dembski has to believe that there is one even though there isn't ? Intelligent design IS an alternate theory, and Dembski believes it is a theory, so it you look at is as he does you believe it is a theory too.   Like Evolution, ID looks at the evidence, makes a conclusion, then extrapolates the conclusion to make predictions.  So how could it not be a theory? Quote SETI isn't a theory - its a (small) research program. And it is rather better than ID has managed to do. Partly because it is focussed on practical methods of investigating the question but more because it does not prejudge the result. ID as it is actually practised is more like religious apologetics than science. The common analogy using SETI does not define the entire theory, but it is analogous to a fundamental aspect of it.  There are many who would argue that a search for design is unscientific.  Most of them, however, would still regard SETI as scientific.  So to say ID is unscientific on that basis would be clearly contradictory.   How do probability calculations make a prejudged result?

PaulK Posts: 37 Joined: June 2004 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2005,14:58    Sorry, but intelligent design isn't a theory in the same sense that evolution is at all. Evolution proposes testable positive hypotheses and leads to more.  The main ID hypothesis is "there is somethong in the history of life that can never be explained by anything other than design". And it is not the search for intelligence that is deemed unscientific - it is the methods ID proposes using - and the fact that they seem unable to even apply those correctly.  Dembski's hopeless attamtp to show that a bacterial flagellum was designed when he managed to misrepresent Behe and seriusly misapply his own methodology is a case in point.  Meyer's recent paper contains equally bad blunders. To point out one significant difference SETI has worked out criteria in advance - ID does not.  Radio transmission is also far better understood than the details of evolutionary history.  So SETI has a far firmer basis than ID. And one final point it is all very well to talk about "probability calculations" in the abstract but we need positive examples where they have been done - correctly.  In fact there is one way to "fix' the result - do the wrong calculation and then claim success.  Which is exactly what Dembski did in No Free Lunch

Lord Timothy Posts: 6 Joined: Nov. 2004 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2005,23:04    Quote Sorry, but intelligent design isn't a theory in the same sense that evolution is at all. Ok well you are going to have to support that statement. Quote Evolution proposes testable positive hypotheses and leads to more.  The main ID hypothesis is "there is somethong in the history of life that can never be explained by anything other than design". Incorrect.  The Intelligent Design theory starts out by empirically testing for design.  Once Design is inferred, other predictions are made.  I beleive there are things that cannot be explained by any other way than design, but that certainly does not mean that the theory itself is not testable, if anything it means the very opposite.   Quote And it is not the search for intelligence that is deemed unscientific - it is the methods ID proposes using - and the fact that they seem unable to even apply those correctly. You are going to have to support that statement as well. Quote Dembski's hopeless attamtp to show that a bacterial flagellum was designed when he managed to misrepresent Behe and seriusly misapply his own methodology is a case in point.  Meyer's recent paper contains equally bad blunders. I beleive here you are alluding to the Assertion By Ken Miller in his article The Bacterial Flagellm unspun. You can see Dembski and Behe's response to his claim in Dembski's article STILL SPINNING JUST FINE.  Interesting that Behe does not seem to think he was misrepresented.   Quote To point out one significant difference SETI has worked out criteria in advance - ID does not.  Radio transmission is also far better understood than the details of evolutionary history.  So SETI has a far firmer basis than ID. Didn't it?  If the Design Theory was not able to implement new ideas, and revise itself, then it wouldn't really be a theory.  That is exactly what evolution has done throughout the years as new evidence was found, ID should have the same ability.   Quote And one final point it is all very well to talk about "probability calculations" in the abstract but we need positive examples where they have been done - correctly.  In fact there is one way to "fix' the result - do the wrong calculation and then claim success.  Which is exactly what Dembski did in No Free Lunch Ok there is your assertion, but once again I have to ask where is your support?   You have yet to show that those calculations have not been done correctly.

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2005,10:40    Quote Ok there is your assertion, but once again I have to ask where is your support?   You have yet to show that those calculations have not been done correctly. The M/N ratio calculation is off by 65 orders of magnitude. See http://www.antievolution.org/features/fimpcalc.php There are manifold problems with Dembski's supposed example of use of his "explanatory filter/design inference". See http://www.antievolution.org/people/wre/papers/eandsdembski.pdf -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

PaulK Posts: 37 Joined: June 2004 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2005,09:33    I would think that it is up to you to provide evidence that Intelligent Design represents a significant body of knowledge relevant to the history of life on Earth.  After all how would it be possible for me to prove that there isn't some theory hidden away somewhere ?  If you want to claim it is there, then where is it ? To the best of my knowledge ID has very little in the way of - for example - testable mechanisms (how does the designer implement its designs ?) or predictions.  Nor does it seek to provide - even in outline - any representation of that history (indeed ID refuses to even discuss the age of the Earth which would seem rather important to producing any such history). As to Dembski's calculations for the flagellum all I have to point out is that Dembski manages to confuse the assembly of an individual flagellum with the acquisition of the flagellum as an inheritable trait.  He does not deal with how flagella actually do grow - looking only at random assembly.  In fact the growth of a flagellum is explained by regularity.  Dembski didn't even consider the real problem. Moreover, I note that the quote from Behe in "Still Spinning Just Fine" does NOT endorse Dembski's original claim that evolution could not even in principle produce an IC structure.  Probably because Behe did not make any such claim in Darwin's Black Box - he  just argued that it was improbable.  Dembski's argument relies on arguing that it is impossible - a "proscriptive generalisation".  To apply his own methodology properly  he would have to show that the probability of a flagellum evolving is below an appropriate probability bound.  This he has not done. Meyer's paper is even worse since Meyer confuses the common idea of "Specificied Complexity" with Dembski's idisyncratic usage of the term (better and less misleadingly describied as Specified High Improbability). So long as Meyer fails to realise that Dembski's information is improbability and "Complexity" simply represents improbability above a specified bound he cannot correctly deploy Dembski's concept.  Yet he uses the term throughout without even specifying a bound (as Dembski's term requires) or calculating the relevant probabilities. And I have no idea how your response to my point on SETI is meant to help ID.  I did not say that ID must choose a fixed set of criteria and stay with that for all time.  But ID must choose strong criteria which it can justify - as SETI does - and only change them in ways that can be equally justified.  Instead ID seems content to declare success without even adequately justifying the criteria they do use (when they use any at all, that is).

Darth Furious Posts: 4 Joined: Jan. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2005,01:16    It is apparent to me that many people are confused with the theory of Intelligent Design. True Designists, such as myself, or those who follow the theory the same way Michael Behe does strongly believe in evolution.[U] The only thing that separates us from the Evolutionists is the fact that we believe evolution occurs on a minor level and not on a major level. Evolution is a theory which seems to simplify Biology. We only wish to point out the complexity of it; Richard Dawkins and Charles Darwin each state that evolution is filled with many small simple steps. We stress that this is not so because the biological components of life are far too complex for these small simple steps to take place on a major scale. Therefore the evidence of these major scale changes seem to point in the direction of a Designer. We simply follow the evidence where it leads, and if it leads to a designer then so be it.

PaulK Posts: 37 Joined: June 2004 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2005,13:09    Quote (Darth Furious @ Jan. 30 2005,01:16) It is apparent to me that many people are confused with the theory of Intelligent Design. True Designists, such as myself, or those who follow the theory the same way Michael Behe does strongly believe in evolution.[U] The only thing that separates us from the Evolutionists is the fact that we believe evolution occurs on a minor level and not on a major level. Evolution is a theory which seems to simplify Biology. We only wish to point out the complexity of it; Richard Dawkins and Charles Darwin each state that evolution is filled with many small simple steps. We stress that this is not so because the biological components of life are far too complex for these small simple steps to take place on a major scale. Therefore the evidence of these major scale changes seem to point in the direction of a Designer. We simply follow the evidence where it leads, and if it leads to a designer then so be it. You call yourself a "designist" but your argument is indistinguishable from similar arguments used by YECs. Let me also state that you are NOT following the evidence where it leads.  Since you do not have adequate grounds to rule out evolution from your "major scale changes" (whatever you mean by that) your claim that such changes should be considered "evidence of design" is trivially false.

Darth Furious Posts: 4 Joined: Jan. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2005,22:02    Major scale changes are large changes or macro level changes if you will. For example, so called evolutionary mutations that change eye colour (macro level changes). We believe that there are adequate grounds to rule out evolution from "major scale changes" due to the complexity of the eye. Minor simple mutations cannot possibly be enough to change the eye in such a manner. If you believe evolution is enough to explain these complex changes, then please do so at your convenience; I would love to hear what you have to say.

PaulK Posts: 37 Joined: June 2004 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2005,03:48    In other words you haven't actually examined the matter at all.  You just assume that the eye (and which eye is "the eye" ?) can't evolve because those that you have looked at are complex.  So much for your claim that you were following the evidence. The real fact is (as even Darwin knew) that there is a good deal of variation in eye structures - including simpler versions (such as those nautiloids that lack a lens - relying on the pinhole-camer principle to focus).

Darth Furious Posts: 4 Joined: Jan. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2005,19:07    First of all, I don't think you have studied the matter thoroughly. Second of all, Darwin lived in a period of time when scientists believed that the cell was a simple structure. They lacked scientific knowledge to be aware of the complexity of Biology. Thirdly there was little known about the structure of the eye, for example, Biologists for the past 100 years thought that rods and cones were only light sensing cells within the eye, it is possible that during the time of Darwin, Biologists were not even aware of the function of rods and cones; therefore your statement about Darwin knowing that there is a great deal of variation within the eye is flawed. Finally, I assume nothing; if you wish for me to get into the biology of the eye, I will do so. You will then see how complex this biological structure truly is.

PaulK Posts: 37 Joined: June 2004 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2005,02:19    Quote (Darth Furious @ Jan. 31 2005,19:07) I don't claim to have studied the matter in any great depth.  Just in greater depth than you have.  Which is hardly difficult since you seem to know almost nothing. And as for your claim that Darwnin could not have known of the variations in eye structure at the time he wrote - it is a complete absurdity.  And to follow that by claiming that you assume nothing - when assumption is the main basis for your claims is an obvious falsehood.   Well in fact "assumption" is too weak a word for it - your argument is pure invention on your part.  Would it really kill you to try to find out what WAS known in the mid-19th Century rather than making excuses to deny that they knew it ? Finally there is no need to go into the complexity of the eye.  What IS needed is an explanation of how you can be "following the evidence" without knowing what that evidence is.  Here's a hint the complexity of the eye is NOT an important piece of it - comparative anatomy is and your refusal to accept that

Darth Furious Posts: 4 Joined: Jan. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2005,23:58    Sure, you've studied in greater depth than I have; when you are the one who is dismissing the complexity of the eye, and when infact complexity is the basis of the Intelligent Design Movement. There is a difference between assumption and observation, and observation is the main basis for my claims, not assumption. My earlier statement about the cones and rods is accurate, in simpler terms little was known about their function at that time. There are many cells with many important functions within the the structure of the eye, as I stated earlier, cells were considered simple structures. As a result, the complexity of the eye is decreased dramatically. So I state again, that Darwin would never have imagined how complex they eye truly is. I just don't understand why you don't see the design behind the construction of the cell. Everything works together harmoniously, it is really quite beautiful when you look at it. It's a shame you can't see that; I really wish you could.

PaulK Posts: 37 Joined: June 2004 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2005,01:51    [quote=Darth Furious,Feb. 01 2005,23:58][/quote] I'm not dismissing the complexity of the eye. I am dismissing it as SIGNIFICANT EVIDENCE OF DESIGN.  And you have provided no reasoning to explain why you disagree.  And that is how I know that you have not studied the subject in any great depth - vague handwaving about complexity doesn't even touch the real issues in the evolution of the eye - it is simply the same objection that Darwin first answered in 1859. You say that there is a difference between observation and assumption.  Well did you OBSERVE what 19th century naturalists knew of the comparative anatomy of the eyes of various species or did you assume that they knew nothing of the subject ?   Remember THAT was your claim, not that Darwin did not know about the complexity of cells. The reason I don't "see" the design of the cell is because "design" is a subjective inference.  There is no objective evidence that "the" cell is designed.

lpetrich Posts: 12 Joined: Jan. 2003 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2005,06:46    And Dembski has it all wrong about the methods of SETI. SETI researchers devise their strategies by trying to work out what some extraterrestrial-signal designer might want to design, rather than use some measure of "complex specified information" or "specified complexity" or whatever. For instance, most search strategies have involved searching for very narrowband signals, something like 1 Hz bandwidth for a typical frequency of 1.4 GHz or thereabouts. No known astrophysical source can produce such narrowband signals, while radio-transmitter technology can easily do so. Also, narrowband signals are more prominent against the interstellar background than broadband ones, because their power is concentrated in a smaller frequency range.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2005,18:42    Quote (Darth Furious @ Jan. 30 2005,01:16) It is apparent to me that many people are confused with the theory of Intelligent Design. There's a theory of intelligent design?   Great !!!!!!! What does it say? What is this theory? What, according to this theory, did the designer do, specifically.  What mechanisms did it use to do whatever the heck this theory thinks it did.  Where can we see these mechanisms ina ction today. Perhaps a concrete example will help --- IDers keep telling me that the bacterial flagellum was designed.  Great.  Glad to hear it. How. What did the batcerium look like before the flagellum was added. What, specifically, did the designer do to add a flagellum.  Did the designer just POOF it there?  Did the designer use its Super Duper DNA Re-Sequencer to add a flagellum?  Did the designer use an itty bitty tube of super-glue to slap a flagellum onto a poor unsuspecting batcerium's butt? Or is "an unknown thing did an unknown thing at an unknown time using unknown methods", the best, uh, "scientific theory" that ID has to offer? So far, the argument I've seen for teaching ID boils down to: (1) we think there is a designer (2) we don't know what it is (wink, wink) (3) we don't know what it does (4) we don't know how it does it, and (5) we don't know how to go about scientifically answering any of these questions, but (6) we want you to teach about it anyway. Is there soemthing in there that I've missed?  Does ID have a real "theory" to offer, after all? If so, please please pretty pleasre with sugar on it, show it to me. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Lord Timothy Posts: 6 Joined: Nov. 2004 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2005,14:15    Since you seem to argue against anything anyone says let's get your idea. Paul K, how about you give me your definition of a theory, and I will tell you whether or not ID fits it, and why that is true. OK?   Quote What, according to this theory, did the designer do, specifically. ...Design.

Lord Timothy Posts: 6 Joined: Nov. 2004 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2005,14:46    Quote The M/N ratio calculation is off by 65 orders of magnitude. See http://www.antievolution.org/features/fimpcalc.php I am not a mathematician, so I won't comment on that, but I do know that the paper you cited: http://www.antievolution.org/people/wre/papers/eandsdembski.pdf has been rebutted by Salvador at Brainstorms. http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000543.html I know you invited him here for a discussion about it as well.

PaulK Posts: 37 Joined: June 2004 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2005,16:32    Quote (Lord Timothy @ Mar. 03 2005,14:15) Since you seem to argue against anything anyone says let's get your idea. Paul K, how about you give me your definition of a theory, and I will tell you whether or not ID fits it, and why that is true. OK?   Quote What, according to this theory, did the designer do, specifically. ...Design. Before I answer your question I would like a response to the opening paragraph of my last reply to you: "I would think that it is up to you to provide evidence that Intelligent Design represents a significant body of knowledge relevant to the history of life on Earth.  After all how would it be possible for me to prove that there isn't some theory hidden away somewhere ?  If you want to claim it is there, then where is it ?" Since you have had more than 5 weeks to find an answer I think it is only reasonable for you to deal with this point first.

Lord Timothy Posts: 6 Joined: Nov. 2004 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2005,14:57    Quote Before I answer your question I would like a response to the opening paragraph of my last reply to you: "I would think that it is up to you to provide evidence that Intelligent Design represents a significant body of knowledge relevant to the history of life on Earth.  After all how would it be possible for me to prove that there isn't some theory hidden away somewhere ?  If you want to claim it is there, then where is it ?" Since you have had more than 5 weeks to find an answer I think it is only reasonable for you to deal with this point first. Ok I could do that, Irreducible and Specified complexity for example are evidence of design, I think the easiest way to fulfil your next question is for you to give YOUR definition of a theory like I proposed.

PaulK Posts: 37 Joined: June 2004 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2005,17:50    Quote (Lord Timothy @ Mar. 14 2005,14:57) Quote Before I answer your question I would like a response to the opening paragraph of my last reply to you: "I would think that it is up to you to provide evidence that Intelligent Design represents a significant body of knowledge relevant to the history of life on Earth.  After all how would it be possible for me to prove that there isn't some theory hidden away somewhere ?  If you want to claim it is there, then where is it ?" Since you have had more than 5 weeks to find an answer I think it is only reasonable for you to deal with this point first. Ok I could do that, Irreducible and Specified complexity for example are evidence of design, I think the easiest way to fulfil your next question is for you to give YOUR definition of a theory like I proposed. Well on Irreducibe Complexity Behe never got around to showing that indirect routes were as unlikely as he claimed, and given that he and Dembski seem to prefer fiddling with the definition to actually addressing the point I think we have to say that the claim that IC is evidence of design still needs work. As to Specified Complexity do you mean Dembski's definition (which has yet to be applied to biology) or the more usual idea ?  Only the former can be considered evidence for design and then only when the Complexity (i.e. improbability) exceeds a calculated bound.  And it seems to be completely impractical to calculate the "Complexity" in the sorts of situations that ID would like to apply Dembski's ideas to. I think you can agree that a couple of underdeveloped speculations falls short of being a genuine theory.  If that is the best you have to offer, then why claim that ID has a theory ?

deepred Posts: 3 Joined: Dec. 2004 (Permalink) Posted: April 28 2005,06:32    Quote (PaulK @ Jan. 30 2005,13:09) Quote (Darth Furious @ Jan. 30 2005,01:16) It is apparent to me that many people are confused with the theory of Intelligent Design. True Designists, such as myself, or those who follow the theory the same way Michael Behe does strongly believe in evolution.[U] The only thing that separates us from the Evolutionists is the fact that we believe evolution occurs on a minor level and not on a major level. Evolution is a theory which seems to simplify Biology. We only wish to point out the complexity of it; Richard Dawkins and Charles Darwin each state that evolution is filled with many small simple steps. We stress that this is not so because the biological components of life are far too complex for these small simple steps to take place on a major scale. Therefore the evidence of these major scale changes seem to point in the direction of a Designer. We simply follow the evidence where it leads, and if it leads to a designer then so be it. You call yourself a "designist" but your argument is indistinguishable from similar arguments used by YECs. PaulK I have to disagree with all of your post as of far. You keep trying to claim that ID as a theory or Science like SETI must also explain how that Signal was orginated. Thats irrelevant, if SETI recieved what it considered an intelligent signal, they wouldnt have to come up with an origins story about the origin of the designer of the signal. The whole point is to assume intelligence from the signal not verify the intelligent agent. In this sense ID doesnt even have to be a supernatural event, but even one from intelligent causation. Meaning the Darwinistic princibles that apply to biology remain correct, but the physics or cause behind every event is desired and ID is still true. ID can be true (in the SETI sense), and so can evolution. Meaning it doesnt have to come up with any theory to 'replace' evolution. Its means of existance as a theory is based on detecting signs, not offering an explanation for those signs. Neither does it need explain the where when and who. This upsets many critics of ID because they want to test that explanation of where when and who. But once the detection work has already been done the theorys passed its test, prediction and falsification period by its own definition of existance. And need not give any alternative to any theory of science that explains un-observable history. If ID theory existed purely in this sense, titles to websites like 'antievolution.com' dont even make sense. Most on this forum dont want to agree with the argument/criticism of the ID movement I presented in the first post because they realize if they do then shouting phrases like creationism are acknowledged to be irrelevant. But if they disagree with the idea then SETI isnt a valid science or way of discerning IS (Intelligent Signals). Of course SETI and ID dont operate on the same math, but the point of this thread is is that the philosophy behind them is both the same. That being there are ways to detect intelligence, wether or not signs of intelligence exist in biology of course is a whole nother debate.

deepred Posts: 3 Joined: Dec. 2004 (Permalink) Posted: April 28 2005,06:47    Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Feb. 26 2005,18:42) Quote (Darth Furious @ Jan. 30 2005,01:16) It is apparent to me that many people are confused with the theory of Intelligent Design. There's a theory of intelligent design?   Great !!!!!!! What does it say? What is this theory? What, according to this theory, did the designer do, specifically.  What mechanisms did it use to do whatever the heck this theory thinks it did.  Where can we see these mechanisms ina ction today. Perhaps a concrete example will help --- IDers keep telling me that the bacterial flagellum was designed.  Great.  Glad to hear it. How. What did the batcerium look like before the flagellum was added. What, specifically, did the designer do to add a flagellum.  Did the designer just POOF it there?  Did the designer use its Super Duper DNA Re-Sequencer to add a flagellum?  Did the designer use an itty bitty tube of super-glue to slap a flagellum onto a poor unsuspecting batcerium's butt? Or is "an unknown thing did an unknown thing at an unknown time using unknown methods", the best, uh, "scientific theory" that ID has to offer? So far, the argument I've seen for teaching ID boils down to: (1) we think there is a designer (2) we don't know what it is (wink, wink) (3) we don't know what it does (4) we don't know how it does it, and (5) we don't know how to go about scientifically answering any of these questions, but (6) we want you to teach about it anyway. Is there soemthing in there that I've missed?  Does ID have a real "theory" to offer, after all? If so, please please pretty pleasre with sugar on it, show it to me. How is any of this relevant to wether or not intelligent designs exist and or can be discerned from un-intentional blindly created structures? Again why must ID explain how something was designed and what scientific mechanism was involved? If Dembski constructed a valid way of discerning Intelligent systems in biology from unintentional ones (that everyone could agree upon) and discovered that some of them where, and everyone could agree. Would you say this is not from intelligence simply because you cant possibly imagine how it was designed? How is that any more valid than the ID'st who criticises Darwinism for lack of an explanation for IC yet still believes it was caused from natural causes? When you dont have a knowable darwinistic source for something that exist - thats ok - but when an intelligent sign is discerned thats not ok because it doesnt have a knowable intelligent source?

PaulK Posts: 37 Joined: June 2004 (Permalink) Posted: April 28 2005,07:45    Well it's odd that the material you chose to quote is not the one you happen to disagree with. But your disagreement with me is based on some clear errors.  Firstly the discussion is on ID's status AS A THEORY - not on whether it is true.  SETI is NOT a theory, therefore no comparison betwen SETI and ID could show that ID is a theory.   Secondly SETI does consider what a designer would do - for instance: http://www.planetary.org/html/UPDATES/seti/alien_signal.html Quote Our first assumption is that the signal will be received at or around the frequency of 1420 MHz. This is the spectral frequency of hydrogen, the most common element in the universe, and therefore a universal reference point for different intelligent species And of course it deals with ordinary radio signals - a simpe extrapolationf rom human behaviour!  What SETI does NOT do is to go look at astronomical phenomena and look for excuses to declare them designed.  So SETI is very different from ID. Thirdly our normal intuitive "design detection" does not rest on pure elimination.  Instead it rests on comparing hypotheses.  It has yet to be shown that pure elimination is a practical method.  So there is a very good reason why ID should be trying to frame design hypotheses even IF they are only trying to detect design. Fourthly there is every reason for websites such as this to oppose the ID movement even if there is no real theory of ID.  ID's claim to be science is part of the propaganda used by the political ID movement.  How can that be countered other than by showing that the claims are false ? Finally as stated in my first point the question is whether ID offers a theory to replace (or supplement) evolution.  The requirement to generate explanations for biological observations - rather than just claiming to have detected desgn - is not arbitrary as you would have it.  It is simply asking that ID should do what evolutionary theory already does - which is an obvious necessity if it is to offer a genuine replacement.   Far from disagreeing with me that ID does not have such a theory your response indicates that in fact, you agree. So lets sum up, you have quoted one of my posts to disagree with a point I made in other posts that in fact you actually agree with.  Might I suggest a little more care and thought in future ?

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard