ID's refusal to speak on the designer(s) is highly suspect

Originally posted by Rren
They're saying they know of no way to test for the identity and/or nature of the "designer." They're not going as far as you think. Were they, you'd cry, 'see, it aint science, just like I told ya." You don't seem to understand what the idea is. re: predictions, good question. I'm not sure, to be honest. We'll know when and if ID theorists get around to some wet work. The real arguments are good...typical critics' talking points are crap, but valid criticisms are out there (from philosophy, theology & science). I am undecided wrt ID as a science. It's hard to tell, when you've crossed over the line (philosophy/science)

Table 2. Predictions of Design (Hypothesis):
(1) High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.
(2) Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors.
(3) Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.
(4) The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA".

You can easily conflate ID with the various ideas re: directed evolution and/or front-loaded evolution. See: Endogenous Adaptive Mutagenesis as an example.

If you can't test for something, then why waste the energy fighting for its inclusion in science? You claim to be sitting on the fence but I'm not sure about that. From your post, I have learned that we don't know how to test for evidence of intelligent design & ID can't be used to make useful predictions about biological processes. No one has done any experiments to even try to characterize intelligent design (they haven't gotten around to "wet-work") & that theology, a faith-based concept offers valid criticisms to a concept championed by people who insist ID should be science, an objective, observable and testable collection of concepts. Am I on the right track here?

Next, we are presented with a table listing hypotheses ID seeks to test (in keeping with the scientific method)
1. Are there any examples of irreducibly complex mechanical structures in biology? With an avalanche of techniques at our disposal for the elucidation of molecular structure (protein crystallography, X-ray diffraction, Nuclear Magnetic Resonance, miscellaneous spectroscopic methods, etc., etc., etc.) I can't say I am aware of any. We can obtain molecular structures for just about anything we find interesting; even molecular motors responsible for everything from muscle contraction, to cell division to flagellar rotation...
2. Punctuated fossil record based on morphology. Given the rapid decomposition of most remains, we're lucky anything is left at all! The great outdoors is not the tranquil repository of remains paleontologists wish it were! Scavenging, weathering, subduction, submersion all take their toll.
3. Recycling useful genes & structure; divergent evolution results from similar selection pressures imposed on distantly related organisms. Basicially, same problem--> similar solution. Gene homology & sequence conservation can indicate descent from a common ancestor. These 2 items don't belong in the same category because single shared genes in different organisms are involved in different regulation pathways (just because a gene is there doesn't mean it's being expressed at the same level/time or even at all!).
4. Sequences are conserved because they are either benign (no effect on reproduction) or beneficial to survival. Even after a genome is sequenced it can take years to find & characterize all the genes in the sequence. Eukaryotes (including humans) have exons & introns scattered throughout our genomes. So here's a question... introns are spliced out-- does that make them junk? We have so many! How about gene duplications?

Endogenous Adaptive Mutagenesis: Sounds Lamarckian ("I need a longer neck to reach those leaves on the tree, so I think I'll just take care of that!" said the giraffe)

Just to play Devil's Advocate for a moment...

Neither Intelligent Design nor Evolution addresses 'root causes', folks. If you're going to claim that Intelligent Design isn't a valid theory because it 'cops out' and says 'it all started with a designer that we can't analyze', shouldn't you also say that Evolution is invalid becase (as one poster to this thread put it) we get back to matter and energy that have always existed? If you're going to pester the I.D. folks about where the Designer came from, don't you have at least some obligation to explain where that 'matter and energy' came from?

Whether we like it or not, every theory of universal creation requires, for lack of a better term, an act of faith, a preexisting condition. The Big Bang requires that the monoblock already exist, and requres some event to destabilize it so that it explodes. I.D. requires a Designer. Creationism requires a Creator. As much as it offends the engineer in me, I'm not sure we can ever know what was or wasn't there before "Let there be Light!" / KABOOOM / whatever started the whole thing. We can make guesses based on our mechanism of choice (physics, math, theology, or a mixture of same), but they are, at the core, guesses.

What we *can* do is try to figure out what has happened *since* T=0. THat should be more than enough to keep us occupied until the Second Coming (for the Creation-minded) or until the Heat Death of the Universe (for you physics pholks out there).

Originally posted by Ahabstar
since an obseveration of planned environmental changes to manipulate and mutate a bacteria to the desired result is not a proof of using ID to produce desired results...relies on that pseudoscience called thought experiment...seeming unrelated series of events set in motion other series of events that set about more events that become a meaningful result to the observer that many would call fate...all aspects of life followed a grand script...if you were to able to have a "prophetic vision" of future events & recall & record what you saw & found to be acurate. Then you have scientific proof of precognition. If provable, then predetermined events would have some merit of validity. So if some have access to it, would that be a proof of ID?

I do find any theory presented as absolute fact unpaletable...flatly deny possible exsistance of something greater because you have not seen it...rather ethnocentric... lacking understanding of evolution... should clearly indicate homo sapien not the endpoint but on a larger chain that has yet to occur...future changes would be godlike to us...given reaction of misinformed reception of his idea of man came from monkeys... Darwin would have been crucified had he explained that modern humans were not the endpoint.

Oh for Pete's sake! My point is not that I was INTENTIONALLY trying to engineer a new organism! This is what happens in nature when something in the environment changes! We never intentionally tried to engineer vancomycin-resistant bacteria but being exposed to this antibiotic killed off those that were not; eliminating sensitive bugs from the gene pool. That's it. No one was trying to make them tougher. In fact, we were trying to KILL them! We don't plan for global warming, ice ages, volcanic erruptions, floods, hurricanes or other natural disasters but they happen and those pressures shape populations by culling organisms that can't cope with the crisis. Other natural processes contribute to speciation but these are the most glaring mechanisms.

There is no scientific evidence validating the existence of prophetic visions. Einstein's thought experiments were at least based on scientific principles. If we assume I DID have some sort of prophetic vison, unless I can continue having them on a consistent basis and establish the validity of my claims beyond a significant margin of error, we would have to chalk it up to coincidence. It isn't useful if it isn't reproducible. Discussing scenarios in which prophetic visions not only occur but are scientifically proven as well does nothing to bolster a scientific argument. It's like saying, "So if you put a tooth under your pillow that was replaced by a dollar the next morning and you recorded the tooth fairy in action with a camcorder, does that mean the tooth fairy is real?" I'm not talking about a concept only a select few have access to. This is observable, testable and accessible to everyone-- no supernatural powers required.

I believe you may be the first to accuse me of failing to think outside the box and consider things larger and more wonderous than I could ever imagine! Goodness! Hey, if there was any evidence, that's one thing but when you have to use your imagination, rely on supernatural hypotheticals or simply believe... what choice does a scientist have? If you have proof that ID exists, then by all means share it with us! I have no intention of ignoring your evidence. This is the issue when you get right down to it: I can describe various ways anyone can observe, test and gather evidence in support of evolution and ID supporters cannot do this for me to support ID. It is interesting that in a post against ethnocentricity (I believe you meant "egocentricity" since this isn't about culture), there isn't an effort to reciprocate the provision of evidence and means through which to explore ID that are not solely reliant on faith.

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer
If you're going to pester the I.D. folks about where the Designer came from, don't you have at least some obligation to explain where that 'matter and energy' came from?

Nope. You've confused ontoloty (how things began) with evolution (how things change to fit an ecological niche.

I did indeed consider egocentric as opposed to ethnocentric, but reconsidered the choice of words based on dividing worthless from worthy would be a cultural bias, as many on both (three if you add in biblical creationism) sides do commonly. Now that may seem a silly choice between the two, but a cultural belief system is the basis of faith and leads to development of religion.

I would guess the debate is difference between fact and truth. To words very close in meaning but worlds apart actually. To ask a proponent of ID to point out designer would be no different than to ask the Evolutionist what the exact chemical formula, medium and environmental conditions required to create a life that would adapt and evolve via mutations. Neither of us were there to witness the begining of life on Earth and no fossil record can tell us the exact events. Life could be a lucky lightning strike on a bubbling chemical compound or an ET that sneezed or spit into a pool of slime that made the perfect incubator. And however unlikely, God (by whatever name) could have said let there be life and it was done.

The fact is that there is no proof for the absolute fact. We have to settle for the best truth. Like the arguement of the mountian god and the sky god. The sky god is above everything and the mountian god has the strength to hold him up. Which is the better truth? Which is fact?

Back to thought experiment, had prayer (ignoring which religion) still been in schools would ID be so far fetched to have some validity on the basic premise of a designer? Let us not forget that Darwin's Theory of Evolution (slightly different than what is currently taught) does not preclude the possibility of a creator or designer.

I feel that the main problem of ID is that it is too close to (or is a sterilised form of) Creationism for comfort for some people. The reactions to ID and strong reactions are very much like the reactions to Evolution being taught in schools. See commentary around the Scopes Trial about public opinion. Keep in mind that in America the Bible was thought to be the literal truth, even the parables of Jesus's teachings. Given the time that Evolution has been taught in absence of Divine Creation of Man, it would appear the arguments are reversed.

To ask for the specific identity of the designer in ID is really no different than ask for the patronage of a chimp that proves he is my cousin. DNA evidence and fossils still do not prove absolute fact, only truth. That is, a strong belief. Perhaps an easy reply is that cats and camels have the same gait when walking...no one claims they are in the same family of species despite being the only two species with that same gait.

I guess you could sum up my position that no amount of science can remove humanistic opinion completely. To say that life simply exsists without any purpose and happened just because it did is rather bland and pointless. Nilhilistic thoughts bring about other philosophies that are religious in nature. Yep that old nature hating a vacuum thing again.




[edit on 28-5-2007 by Ahabstar]

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer
If you're going to pester the I.D. folks about where the Designer came from, don't you have at least some obligation to explain where that 'matter and energy' came from?

Nope. You've confused ontoloty (how things began) with evolution (how things change to fit an ecological niche.

Wouldn't 'where something came from' be the same as 'how it began'? I don't believe Stormhammer has confused anything because he/she hasn't addressed evolution - solely ontology. Either the ontology of the designer and the ontology of matter and energy are both important - or neither of them are. I'm pretty sure that was Stormhammer's point (he/she can feel free to correct me if not).

Edit: And to address the OP's analogy - wouldn't the designer of the body & interior of the car and the inventor of the engine be the equivalent of the designer? The manufacturer of the car would, in my opinion, be the equivalent of the methods used by nature - evolution, the big bang, etc. These things are important if you want to get a spare part for your car, but knowing the guy who actually drew all the curves that make up the body and the interior - and the guy who designed the engine to work so efficiently - sure, that would be interesting to know - but you don't need to know it to get your spare part.

[edit on 28-5-2007 by TheStev]

Byrd

Actually, I haven't.

My point is that both evolution and I.D. require some 'initial point' that essentially lies outside the scope of the theory. In the case of I.D., that 'initial point' is a designer who is presumed to exist. In the case of evolution, you have to start with matter and / or energy that is then acted on in some way. Thus, it seems to me that if you're going to take one theory to task for not being able to explain its initial condition's existance, you should hold the other to the same standard.

My personal opinion on the matter is that comparing I.D. and evolution is a subset of the ancient art of comparing apples and oranges, since I.D. is an attempt to explain the beginning of more or less everything (whether it's a good or valid explanation is something that can be argued until all parties are blue in the face), while evolution is a process of change in an already-existing system. Comparing I.D. to evolution isn't a comparison of competing theories, it's comparing the carpenter to his tools.

Originally posted by X-tal_Phusion

If you can't test for something, then why waste the energy fighting for its inclusion in science?

Once more, they are not proposing they can make any objective, scientific statements about the designer. The question is, was it designed, yes or no? Can it be determined scientifically? That's what ID attempts to investigate.

You claim to be sitting on the fence but I'm not sure about that.

I can't say that it's science. I do, as a matter of my world-view, agree with it. Whether it is science ("Theory") or whether it ever could be, is what I'm on the fence about. You guys are fluffing the most basic premises e.g., using artificial selection, natural selection, antibiotic resistance as if they're an ID counter argument. You're thinking of special creation/common ancestry. You don't even seem to be aware of what it is you're criticizing. Your opinion of my opinion is noted. You think I'm a liar, thanks. Well, you're not sure... which was sweet of you to add.

From your post, I have learned that we don't know how to test for evidence of intelligent design

Again, design . . . designer. i honestly have no idea how to say it differently.

& ID can't be used to make useful predictions about biological processes.

Not what I said. These are pretty complex MolBio arguments and ideas. I was simply being honest about my first-hand knowledge re: differentiating between guided and unguided evolutionary mechanisms. I could have just faked it or parroted something I'd read. I'm honest enough to admit that it's a complicated issue, and didn't want to BS my way through it. Putting words in my mouth now, too. Nice.

No one has done any experiments to even try to characterize intelligent design (they haven't gotten around to "wet-work")

To the best of my knowledge the ID inference is based entirely on meta-analysis and not original ID specific experimentation. Gotta start somewhere. I have no idea, and no way of knowing, what these guys may or may not be working on.

& that theology, a faith-based concept offers valid criticisms to a concept championed by people who insist ID should be science, an objective, observable and testable collection of concepts.

Theists, obviously, would name God as the designer. Some believe, therefore, for theological reasons that, ID is doomed from the start ala Gould's NOMA concept. Theistic evolutionists disagree with ID for both scientific and theological reasons. There are many examples (arguments pro/con wrt teleology & science) of this and that's all I was saying. Thought it was self evident.

Am I on the right track here?

If you're really interested I'd recommend reading Behe's book Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. As good a place to start as any and, I see a copy there for .85. You may be suprised to find how much "anti-evolution" is not in there. Of course you only seem to be reading the snips from the links I'm posting and not the entire page (I've been keeping short, but to no avail) so I'm not sure a (much) longer book(s) would be of any interest to ya.

With an avalanche of techniques at our disposal for the elucidation of molecular structure (protein crystallography, X-ray diffraction, Nuclear Magnetic Resonance, miscellaneous spectroscopic methods, etc., etc., etc.) I can't say I am aware of any. We can obtain molecular structures for just about anything we find interesting; even molecular motors responsible for everything from muscle contraction, to cell division to flagellar rotation...

What in any of your examples falsifies IC? IC does not say X could not have evolved, this is chapter one, iirc. It's an argument against gradual - step-wise, blind - darwinian evolution of X. The following examples are often cited, and I'd be interested in how your "We can obtain molecular structures for just about anything we find interesting" observation is relevant to whether or not they' re IC:

- Krebs cycle, electron transport chain, immune system, ATP synthase molecule, bacterial flagellum, cilium.


(click on madnessinmysoul's profile, he has a thread where he asks for examples of IC. I believe everything I listed here is brought up there. Either way, there's plenty of links and animations there, no reason to cross post. I posted a link to the Havard MolBio animations on page two and some animations from YouTube on both pages, iirc.)

2. Punctuated fossil record based on morphology. Given the rapid decomposition of most remains, we're lucky anything is left at all! The great outdoors is not the tranquil repository of remains paleontologists wish it were! Scavenging, weathering, subduction, submersion all take their toll.

I'm aware of the issues. Many people have noticed/argued that the fossil record doesn't support gradualism, Gould comes to mind. This Q&A with biochemist James Shapiro (not an ID advocate) is a good read. Shapiro has some interesting ideas on how evolution can take such big jumps, as evidenced in the fossil record. Also (imho) convergent evolution makes more sense in such a context. From his paper:

A 21st Century View of evolution

A more speculative feature of a new evolutionary vision is the idea that much of the creative assembly of complex new systems may proceed prior to expression through rearranging components available in the functionally redundant or "facultative" part of the genome (54). This kind of "experimental" natural genetic engineering process may be considered an activity of the R & D sector of the biological information economy (55).

An Irreducibly Complex structure could evolve in such a way, without being "anti-ID." Wouldn't prove or establish jackchit wrt "the designer" though. Which is my point.

3. Recycling useful genes & structure; divergent evolution results from similar selection pressures imposed on distantly related organisms. Basicially, same problem--> similar solution. Gene homology & sequence conservation can indicate descent from a common ancestor. These 2 items don't belong in the same category because single shared genes in different organisms are involved in different regulation pathways (just because a gene is there doesn't mean it's being expressed at the same level/time or even at all!).

ID isn't opposed to common ancestry. Chapter one stuff, again. i know some of you already have your creationism is false talking points memorized, but most of them are not relevant to the discussion. FYI.

So here's a question... introns are spliced out-- does that make them junk? We have so many! How about gene duplications?

I don't follow; how does this relate to ID?

Endogenous Adaptive Mutagenesis: Sounds Lamarckian ("I need a longer neck to reach those leaves on the tree, so I think I'll just take care of that!" said the giraffe)

I like that. Lamarck too. Shapiro calls his idea “natural genetic engineering." I'm sure he wouldn't appreciate your giraffe example though.

Shapiro:

www.iscid.org...

"Genomes constitute the long-term information storage organelles of every cell and are hierarchically organized as systems assembled from DNA modules. Each genome has a computational system architecture formatted by sequence elements that do not code for proteins.

Ran out of room, visit link for full quote.

Regards,
-Lyin' Lamarckian Rren

Just remember people, Atoms are a theory. So volunteer to have a Nuclear Warhead dropped on you to prove Atoms are just theories. Oh and jump off a tall building while you're at it, Gravity is just a theory.

But at least the Atomic Theory, Evolution Theory, and Gravity Theory can be tested and done in labs, and has been. Unlike ID which is "The Bible says so!" Uh, I thought you said this wasn't religion. "It isn't!" But your only source is the Bible. "Firebomb!!!!"