In an earlier post I showed that ID is not anti-evolution. http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/intelligent-design-is-not-anti-evolution-2/
So is ID is not anti-evolution then what is being debated?
Evolution has several meanings. The meanings of evolution, from Darwinism, Design and Public Education:
- Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature
- Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population
- Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.
- The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations.
- Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.
- “Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms. see Coyne- https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/02/21/natural-selection-and-evolution-material-blind-mindless-and-purposeless/
The debate isn’t as black & white as saying it is evo #6 against IDists, Creationists and theistic evolutionists. However it is obvious that evo #6 is what is being debated.
(Theistic evolutionists are a different breed. They don’t seem to acknowledge that evo #6 is what is being taught in our public school system. And therefore don’t appear to understand the issue. The TE’s I have debated with tell me that humans were an intended outcome of the evolutionary process, which is OK for evo #5 but defies evo #6. IOW TE’s are closet IDists.)
Creationists go with 1-4 (above), with the change in 4 being built-in responses to environmental cues or organism direction as the primary mechanism, for allele frequency change, culled by various selection processes (as well as random effects/ events/ choice of not to mate/ unable to find a mate). The secondary mechanism would be random variations or mutations culled by similar processes. IOW life’s diversity evolved from the originally Created Kind, humans included. Science should therefore be the tool/ process with which we determine what those kinds were.
With Creation vs. “Evolution #6” the 4 main debating points are clear:
1) The starting point of the evolutionary process. (What was (were) the founding population(s)?)
2) The phenotypic & morphological plasticity allowed/ extent the evolutionary process can take a population (do limits exist?).
3) The apparent direction the evolutionary process took to form the history of life. (ie from “simpler” bacteria-like organisms to complex metazoans)
4) The mechanism for the evolutionary process.
With ID vs. Evo #6 it is mainly about the mechanism- IDists go with evolution 1-5, with the Creation change to 4 plus the following caveat in 5: Life’s diversity was brought about via the intent of a design. The initial conditions, parameters, resources and goal was pre-programmed as part of an evolutionary algorithm designed to bring forth complex metazoans, as well as leave behind the more “simple” viruses, prokaryotes and single-celled eukaryotes.
IDists understand that if life didn’t arise from non-living matter via some blind watchmaker-type process, there is no reason to infer its subsequent diversity arose solely due to those type of processes (point 1 up top).
What does the data say? Well there isn’t any data that demonstrates bacteria can “evolve” into anything but bacteria. Therefore anyone who accepts evolution 5 or 6 has some splaining to do. Preferably splainations with scientific merit.
Throwing time at an issue does not splain anything:
If one desires to extrapolate small changes into large changes by simply adding time, one requires independent evidence to justify this move. The problem is that we really don’t know how evolution occurs. And when talking about the evolution of the mammalian middle ear bones, we should not forget that we are still basically in the dark in trying to explain how both a mammalian and reptilian zygote actually develops the middle ear and jaw bones, respectively. Without this knowledge, attempts to explain such a transition as a function of a series of small, incremental changes stretched across time are rooted in ignorance. That is, we don’t truly understand neither the process of development nor the process of evolution and without such knowledge, there is no reason to think we are on safe ground when employing (1).
Attempts to justify this move by appealing to the use of (1) in astronomy and geology fail because biotic complexity differs in both structure and formation.
One may assume (1) to explain evolutionary change as a working hypothesis, but we should keep in mind that large changes in evolution are basically a “black box” and a series of small incremental changes may play only a trivial, fine-tuning role in any transition (there is no evidence to think otherwise). What’s more, bacteria, as the predominant life forms on this planet, which have experience the most evolution of all life forms, tell us clearly that (1) need not apply to biological evolution.
In the end, appeals to small change + deep time are embraced merely as a matter of convenience, as it happens to be the primary way we can think about evolution at a time when we are just starting to come to grips with it. As we begin to better understand the process of evolution, I predict (1) will one day be viewed as a quaint understanding that served mostly to highlight just how much we didn’t understand evolution.- Mike Gene
However Father Time, Mother Nature and some still unknown natural process does make for an interesting trinity…
Please make up your mind. Out of one side of your mouth you say it’s all blind watchmaker and out of the other side of your mouth you say none of it is blind watchmaker.
Lulz. Hard for drama queen attention whore.
If Joe puts us on ignore, who is he going to talk to?
A good debate tactic,ignore your opponents
Every criticism of evolution lacking a mechanism applies to ID, you undercut your own position. People in glass houses…
If true that would mean ID is unfalsifiable
Don’t have to because as I noted, there is no such thing as “blind and mindless processes” as far as any science of vision systems is concerned. It’s simply biological processes, which are material. That’s all the explanation has to encompass and all that will be tested.
There’s no evidence living organisms are created by humans and we have no evidence of any other designer. There’s nothing to infer some other designer from since there’s nothing to suggest any other designer in the universe would design things like humans design things. Without some knowledge of some other designer, there’s no way to make any claims about non-human design.
No it hasn’t. Got any actual science research where it’s used? No. Got any accredited universities that use it? No.
LOL! Aww…have trouble with the words Joe. So sorry. But science requires some understanding and homework Joe. That you can’t grasp it says something about your position.
Oh…gee…caught me in a mistype! Oh no! Whatever will real science do now?
Oh well…guess if you don’t have anything valid to support your pet theory, hoping for mistakes made by your opponents is all you got. You win one Internet Mung. Go you…
Once again Joe, we aren’t going to test “that blind and mindless process(sic) produced life and its diversity” because such isn’t a claim; it’s the foundation of all science. It’s like asking a physicist to test “that [a] blind and mindless process produced the orbits the planets follow.” Scientists and science professors are simply going to continue to ignore such special pleading and question begging.
You are, of course, welcome to provide some hypotheses and testing of ID at some point, but I’m sure science isn’t going to hold it’s collective breath on that one either…
HAHAHAHA! You’re a riot Mung! Wouldn’t it be fun if you right about something once in awhile?
Ehh…maybe not…
Is my rhetorical approach becoming too difficult for you Mung?
Sadly illogical. If evolution doesn’t have a mechanism, just say so.
But the fact is that no one is saying that evolution doesn’t have mechanisms. It does. So your entire argument is misguided. It’s not about who has a mechanism and who doesn’t. Go back and read the OP, specifically item 6:
Somehow, and by God I don’t know how, you’ve managed to turn that into a claim that evolution lacks a mechanism, but that’s ok, because neither does ID.
Please turn in your “skeptic” badge.
Your claim is you can determine thru the design detection process( a mechanism) that the object was produced by intelligent design, that is a how( a mechanism).
Unless you demand that alternative explanation provide the method of production and the designing agent or else your explanation is correct by default
So without knowledge of the designer’s goal and abilities one cannot judge the likelihood of a particular process being used.
No, it was a copy-paste error, not a typo.
Let us know what your blog posts here are published in a peer-reviewed science journal and are accepted by all scientists. Until then they aren’t science.
Just question-begging special pleading.
And no one can judge the likelihood of ‘”it just happened, that’s all” either.
I think you’re starting to catch on. Apply the same skepticism to evolution that you do to ID and we’ll give you back your “skeptic” badge.
LOL! I don’t have a blog Mung! I didn’t copy anything. Nice try at handwaving the lack of work on your side though!
Heh!
It is the claim
No it isn’t. Just repeating your asinine claim doesn’t make it true.
No, it’s like physicists saying blind and mindless processes produced the laws of physics. They never make such a claim
Already have
Darwin, Coyne and Dawkins disagree
And you don’t have that
Robin’s bullshit about blind and mindless processes being the foundation of science is pathetic but still hilarious. Why is it that Robin cannot find any support for the claim?
It isn’t our fault that your position makes untestable claims
That doesn’t follow- yours made the claim, not ID.
LoL! You asked for the evidence for something humans didn’t design. Try to follow what you say
Just our place in the universe, the universe, the laws that govern the universe, the genetic code, etc
Frankie,
Less ‘our’, Joe. If ID ever claimed you, they’ve certainly disowned you. You’re an ID nobody.
Ok, livescience doesn’t support Robin’s claim about blind and mindless processes being the foundation of science:
http://www.livescience.com/20896-science-scientific-method.html
The Science Council doesn’t support it either:
http://sciencecouncil.org/about-us/our-definition-of-science/
Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.
Physicist Sean Carroll has this to say- What is science?::
Yes it is true that blind and mindless processes is the default setting but it doesn’t get a free ride.
That’s probably because it’s only really you who uses that phrase:
Google search
LOL!
Can you say, “begging the question”? I knew you could…
Seriously Joe, you, like so many creationists, don’t seem to understand what the concept of entailments is really all about.
“Our place in the universe” is rather meaningless given the amount of the universe we have actually studied in detail. What do we we actually know about “our place in the universe”? Virtually nothing. For all we know there are billions of far more intelligent, for less prone to disease organisms out there. You don’t know. So saying anything about “our place in the universe” is just begging the question.
What about the “the universe” itself? What’s it indicate about some intelligence beyond it? Nothing. It’s big…REALLY Big…it’s been around far longer than anything else we know about. There’s a good deal of evidence that it had a beginning, but even that’s up for debate. So what’s this “the universe” tell us about design? Nothing…nada…zip. There are no entailments of the universe that point to design. Not a one. That you think it’s an “amazing” place and we’re “fortunate” to be here is…I hate to say it…not an entailment. It’s simply awe. And yeah, the universe is pretty astounding when you compare it to the phenomenon that occur on Earth, but when you actually compare it theoretical universes, it’s pretty hum drum. It’s not evidence for anything other than itself.
What of the “laws” of said universe. Unbelievably “precise”, right? “Perfect” for our existence? Gosh…it’s like the set of laws were “intended” for our existence!
…except…no. This is the classic pothole fallacy, which states that potholes must be designed because the amount of water that makes a puddle is perfect. Put another way, this is an example of a corruption of Modus tollens.
And what of the “genetic code”? How’s it indicate that it’s been “designed”. Does it have a manufacturer’s stamp? Not so much. Does it work like human computer code? No. Does it run on a logic system? Not so much. So the analogy that the “genetic code” is similar to human code is just that…an analogy. There’s nothing about it that actually (and here’s that word again) entails a designer. Our genetic code is pretty cool and no doubt there are questions about how it came about. But that we don’t know how it came about does not readily point to it being designed. It simply means, “we don’t know how it came about.” Any entertainment that it was designed is simply speculation based on question begging.
D’oh!
You’re right. What exactly does “it just happened, that’s all,” entail?
LoL. Is that the sure sign of design? A manufacturer’s stamp? You guys crack me up.
ID is not testable, since no testable predictions can be gleaned from that premise — “Intelligent Design” can account for literally anything.
PRATT.
It’s not a pratt if it’s true. There are no logically necessary consequences to discern from the premise of “ID”, especially since IDers don’t like to identify and explain specific mechanisms or the Designer itself.
The simplest one I can think of is that “Intelligently Designed” logically rules out “Not Intelligently Designed.”
LMFAO, you’re on a roll XDDDD
Erm, Poe’s law strikes again
Well, elementary logic really is quite simple. Let’s not make of it any more than we need to.
But there is a clear indicator of your intent. So Poe’s law does not apply.
What is not clear is your intent in stating,
The simplest one I can think of is that “Intelligently Designed” logically rules out “Not Intelligently Designed.”
because that gem could be construed as either snark or stupidity, since, “it was intelligently designed”, is not a prediction of, “it was intelligently designed”.
No one ever said otherwise.
I’m waiting for an intelligent response to the OP.
Here’s an ID poser.
List the ways claiming “Design!” of biological life is different from saying ‘Magic!”
Both have the same explanatory power – ZERO
Both have the same predictive power – ZERO
Both offer the same amout of details about the mechanisms of manufacture – ZERO
Both have the same amount of falsifiablity – ZERO
Maybe one difference is Magic doesn’t have an organization of professional liars trying to force it into public science classes. Any others?
Robin is trying to pull a PRATT #1- defining ID out of science. That hasn’t been used in so long I almost forgot about it.
Methodological naturalism is a dogma and science cannot be governed by a dogma. As Linus Pauling said:
Science governed by dogma is a closed-minded science. Might as well be North Korean science
There isn’t anything inherent in the definition of science that includes the exclusion of purpose and intentional volition as possible causes of observed effects. This trying to exclude ID from science is relatively new- 20th century new. But it won’t work because it is not only arbitrary it is DOGMA.
Strange that I have posted how to test and potentially falsify ID- as have many others. Newton’s four rules of scientific investigation come into play
Design detection comes first. Everything else comes after studying the design and all relevant evidence. How many centuries have we been studying Stonehenge to gain what knowledge we have? And stone structures are something we can replicate. How are we supposed to discern how a design we cannot duplicate came to be without decades of intense research?
Look if ID is right then most likely- 99+%- we are here for a purpose. And it also means that living organisms are not reducible to physics and chemistry meaning we have to get started finding what else there is to us. So figuring out and carrying out that purpose along with finding out what else there is to us are more important questions to answer.
100% of our observations and experiences say codes come from intelligent agencies only. Codes are arbitrary, meaning they are not determined by any physical laws. Nature doesn’t do arbitrary.
So, Robin, via our knowledge of cause and effect relationships, we can safely infer the genetic code was intelligently designed. And guess what? If someone can demonstrate that nature can produce codes they could win up to 10.1 million dollars. That means you could get rich and refute ID all in one blow.
I see FrankenJoe is still running from the fact IDiots claimed to have detected “design” a decade ago but still haven’t done one single experiment to identify any details or mechanisms of implementation. NOT A SINGLE ONE. They can’t even think of a hypothesis to test.
ID is as impotent as the limp fools who push it.
Robin,
You said that “The Privileged Planet” was nonsense, yet the only way we will ever have a chance at finding intelligent life is by following their guidelines. They laid out exactly what to look for in very good detail. Their equation is far superior than the Drake equation for finding ETs. If we do find intelligent beings- theirs will be a system very similar to ours- same type of sun, similar place in their galaxy- relative to the center and outer edge-. One sun- outer gas giants- a large stabilizing moon, similar atmosphere, and similar rotation- and water.
So that is something and it is much better than they are using and failing with now
Once again FrankenJoe runs from the question. How typical.
Timmy can you read me?
Can you see me mock you?
Timmy can you lick me?
It may help to cheer you
Timmy
Timmy
Timmy
Timmy
(thanks to Peter Townshend/ the who Tommy 1969)
It claimed intelligent design ( a mechanism per you) best explains the physical features of organisms, if it only has half a mechanism that is a failure of ID.
Sad sad FrankenJoe. He knows about natural codes, processes which naturally encode information – tree rings, starlight spectral lines, etc. He knows DNA doesn’t use arbitrary symbols as abstractions like all human designed codes do. Still he’s stuck with eternally repeating the same IDiot lies. Like Sisyphus, only weighing 350 lbs and rolling a giant glazed doughnut up the hill.