One of our regular commenters explains why they stick with ID:
ID is a perfectly reasonable alternative to “it just happened, that’s all.”
Yet that “reasonable alternative” is just “it happened like that because it was Intelligently Designed“. ID as yet has no specifics as to who, when, what, how, why etc.
So it seems to me that said commenter has just replaced “it just happened” with another phrase that means exactly the same thing but now they can be an intellectually fulfilled theist.
It just happened == It was just designed that way
It adds nothing to our understanding, but presumably it counts as an explanation to ID supporters whereas “it just happened” does not. And as it’s mostly about point-scoring in the non-reality based community this appears to be sufficient for them to satisfy their intellectual thirst for “truth”. Or am I wrong? Is their search for “truth” a sham, they already know the answers?
ID seems mostly concerned with what evolution cannot do. As such it has no explanatory power of it’s own to detail what actually happened. So this seems to undercut the claim that it’s a perfectly reasonable alternative to “it just happened”.
Given that there are as many versions of ID as there are ID supporters I’d ask each specifically what it was that “just happened” and how ID is a reasonable alternative to that? Do ID supporters actually consider ID an actual explanation for anything at all? If so, what? And how does that compare to the reality based community’s explanation for the same thing?
I’ve been deliberately coy about the thing it was that “just happened”. In fact, the commenter who made the claim made it without reference to a specific “it”. I want to encourage IDers to identify for themselves that “it”, and explain why adding “it was designed” adds to our knowledge, why what is described is a perfectly reasonable alternative to and detail who is saying in the first place that “it just happened”, whatever “it” happens to be.
I suppose the trouble is that science does not ask nor answer the sort of questions that ID “answers”.
Their overlapping magisteria does not overlap so much as form a single circle.
Let’s apply that to this OP colewd. How do you test “it was designed”?
Ignoring 170 years of testing, and multiple lines of testing.
Yes, this is a fundamental point. They want to reject something which they claim has not been tested in favour of something they can’t explain how to test.
petrushka,
“Testing” is not a direct test of a hypothesis.
Hypothesis: Extant life forms on the planet are the result of evolutionary common descent over deep time.
Test: Examine the fossil and genetic records. If common descent occurred we should see a branching nested hierarchical pattern unique to common descent.
Results: Discover both contain the very distinct branching nested hierarchical pattern unique to common descent. In addition, the pattern found in the two independent data sets match each other to an extremely high degree, well over 99.99%
Conclusion: Hypothesis supported.
What else do you want to talk about?
I’d expect a comment like that from some bible thumping high school dropout. But the ID supporters here should know better. They’ve been told over and over again about the evidence for evolution and have been directed to sources to learn more
Hypothesis: Extant life forms on the planet are the result of Intelligent Design.
Test: ??
Results: ??
Care to fill in the blanks colewd?
Is “it just happened” any different than evolutionary theory?
Isn’t that precisely what the theory of evolution is?
Can everyone check their shoes? I think someone has stepped in something.
Interesting that the first ID supporter to chime in just wants to talk about “evolutionary theory”. It seems that ID cannot be supported directly, rather it can only be supported by undercutting “evolutionary theory”.
The claim in the OP has therefore been supported: It’s just point scoring.
If it were not just point scoring there would be no need to mention “evolutionary theory” on a thread about ID.
Interesting that the first IDer to post did not feel the need to dispute that adding “it was designed that way” adds nothing to our understanding. It’s like all they want is to replace what they see as vacuous with something they admit is vacuous, but it’s their vacuous nonsense now so that’s OK.
They (from the sample size of 1 so far) don’t care about actual truth, just as long as it’s their truth..
ID is a reasonable alternative to “it just happened, that’s all,” because it’s just another version of it.
ID is not a reasonable alternative to the evolutionary processes that leave their marks in the patterns of life.
Glen Davidson
Has anyone directly tested the development of porphyry copper deposits?
Glen Davidson
Exactly so. And they (so far) seem quite happy with that! At least, no IDer has yet said otherwise.
OMagain,
For colewd, the virtue of ID is that it has no meaningful entailments, while evolution’s problem is that it does have entailments, but not everything can be known.
ID just makes it so that nothing about origins can be known. It’s more consistent that way.
Glen Davidson
I often state that there are as many versions of ID as there are ID supporters, the lack of entailments allows that to be the case. When your big tent includes gods, aliens and time travelling humans (the most likely candidate for the Intelligent Designer as they do everything exactly like us) there’s literally nothing too absurd to consider.
That’s why I like this place, I just learnt a new word!
Even random stuff just happens!
No.
Then I guess its not what ID is either, so then isn’t this topic silly?
It’s remarkable, really, how many folks are more than willing to settle for ‘it just happened, that’s all” as an explanation. To me that just seems inherently a-rational.
Then, when you make that observation, you can’t find people who can even think rationally about it. The OP is just one huge tu quoque.
But when you’re an atheist/materialist,. what else do you have? There’s no plan or purpose in nature, so the alternative is …
Let’s just ignore the problem of the origin of life and hope that biology can give us a theory that doesn’t make it look like materialism is one huge crap shoot. Natural selection! Yay! Which operates on what?
What a grand theory. If something increases in number at the expense of something else that decreases in number, the thing that increases will increase and the thing that decreases will decrease. Brilliant. The pinnacle of science.
Where did the first thing come from? Where did the second thing come from? How did they become linked? Why is the first favored over the second? Pure dumb luck. Happenstance. It just happened, that’s all. How do you tell the difference between that and a miracle?
Here’s astronomer Fred Hoyle on the explanatory value of Intelligent Design (the following excerpt is taken from his Wikipedia biography – emphases mine [VJT]):
The second of Hoyle’s nucleosynthesis papers also introduced an interesting use of the anthropic principle, which was not then known by that name. In trying to work out the routes of stellar nucleosynthesis, Hoyle calculated that one particular nuclear reaction, the triple-alpha process, which generates carbon from helium, would require the carbon nucleus to have a very specific resonance energy and spin for it to work. The large amount of carbon in the universe, which makes it possible for carbon-based life-forms of any kind to exist, demonstrated to Hoyle that this nuclear reaction must work. Based on this notion, Hoyle therefore predicted the values of the energy, the nuclear spin and the parity of the compound state in the carbon nucleus formed by three alpha particles, which was later borne out by experiment.[16] (Cook, Fowler, Lauritsen and Lauritsen, Phys. Rev. 107, 508 (1957))
This energy level, while needed to produce carbon in large quantities, was statistically very unlikely to fall where it does in the scheme of carbon energy levels. Hoyle later wrote:
End of quote.
Hoyle had no religious axe to grind when he wrote these words – indeed, all his life he remained hostile to organized religion. Yet he believed that Intelligent Design was the only adequate explanation for the discoveries he made, based on his predictions. I think Hoyle’s explanation, however vague it may be as to who/when/how, is a helluva lot better than “It just happened, that’s all.”
A designer just did it that way does not seem that much different. The questions how ,when and what still remain.
vjtorley,
Why is beryllium so prone to fission? IOW, why is the triple-alpha process necessary for carbon at all? The fissioning of beryllium seriously hampers the process of carbon nucleosynthesis. Hoyle seems to be oohing and aahing over the fact that despite that we still get a lot of carbon, when the question to be asked is why the beryllium impediment occurs in the first place.
But then, why is carbon the only element that is able to form the molecular structures of life anyhow? Why not silicon? Or germanium?
Granting that we need carbon, how much do we really need? Carbon is not especially common in the earth’s crust, being less abundant than fluorine, apparently because carbon compounds were driven away by the sun’s energy early during the solar system’s history. Likely, the late heavy bombardment is responsible for most of our carbon. Possibly this is a good thing, since carbon compounds aren’t particularly good for building continents, while silicates work quite well. So, do we need so much carbon in the first place, or, might we need a lot so that the late heavy bombardment can supply enough carbon to rocky planets? But are rocky planets all that necessary?
I don’t know, I think the point is that we don’t know that a whole lot of carbon is necessary, whatever Hoyle assumed. Maybe it is, but we’re not going to know either way by using “intelligent design” to tell us.
By the way, why is carbon such a problematic element in our atmosphere? If it were just like oxygen or nitrogen, fairly transparent to any radiation emitted by earth and sun, there’d likely be a lot less drama in earth’s climate. The problem of CO2 driving temps upward, or dearth of CO2 letting temps fall into ice ages might actually tend to push evolution along, but I can’t see how it’s a mark of any sort of “intelligent design.”
Anyway, I can see nothing that Hoyle’s musings about “super-calculating intellect” answers, rather it just seems to push the questions to what this “intellect” was thinking–but with no way of actually learning anything about that “intellect,” unless we just use science to get to proximate cause-effect answers, which gains nothing by positing an “intellect” behind it all.
Glen Davidson
I agree, it’s remarkable. The number of people who think like that is zero.
Nobody thinks like that. Nobody thinks “it just happened, that’s all” is an explanation. I’m tired of hearing this “it just happened” bullshit, the ONLY people who ACTUALLY say that are religious nutcases.
How many times must we whack this same stupid fucking mole?
Mung,
And the actual question is how does adding “Intelligent Design” add a plan or purpose to nature or anything at all you would like to pick? Care to give it a go?
Saying that nature/DNA/something was intelligently designed does not automatically imbue it with purpose or a plan. You think nature has a plan and purpose? What is it? What makes you think that? Is it only that to think otherwise is unthinkable for you?
Why? Does it scare you to imagine that you are not here purposefully? And who is ignoring the problem of the origin of life? The people who seem most like to ignore it are the people who already think they know the answers. Whereas we’ve had plenty of discussions here about new research and discoveries in the field. To imply the origin of life is a problem that is being ignored is just buffing and you know it.
And all you have to do, as per the OP, is explain how adding “the origin of life is that it was Intelligently Designed” gives that “explanation” plan or purpose when you can’t actually say an additional thing about it other then literally just adding the words themselves.
And herein lies the problem. You can’t focus on one thing. You’ve gone from nature itself to the origin of life and miracles. You, despite accepting evolution in it’s entirety, appear to be an ID supporter. Yet you can’t actually explain what simply appending “it was designed” actually adds to anything.
So, name a thing. Explain how Intelligent Design brings a specific plan or purpose to that thing. You dismiss with mockery “what a grand theory” and think you’ve distracted from the fact you’re yet to explain what Intelligent Design does that does not deserve similar mockery? If evolution is grand because it explains much, then given you can’t be more specific and currently any question at all can be answered “it was designed that way” then you should look to your own before mocking others.
Dismissed.
Or, in other words Mung, what is it that ID is a reasonable alternative to and show your working.
Mung,
I’ve heard that ID is a reasonable alternative. I’m reasonably familiar with the current ideas regarding the origin of life from a materialist perspective, but I’m not familiar with the details of the reasonable ID alternative. Do you have those details to hand?
Why does this universe have the conditions necessary for life as we know it? No reason. It just happened. That’s all. What other explanation does atheism/materialism have to offer? Why do atheists/materialists object so strenuously to being described as a-rational? What’s wrong with a-rationality given a universe without plan, purpose, or design. Shit happens. Embrace it.
Typical Mung Creationist bullshit. Science doesn’t know everything therefore science doesn’t know anything.
Tell us Mung – what details does “The Intelligent designer did it” provide over merely saying “it was MAGIC!”?
It’s amazing how when asked about ID they can only go on about what materialism does not and cannot do. That’s kind of the sort of misdirection the OP is trying to bypass. Just stop talking about the opposing team’s position for a second and talk about your own Mung.
Ok, so this universe has the conditions necessary for life as we know it because those conditions were intelligently designed? And the reason is? What Mung?
Great, my life has purpose now. There is a plan.
I could be wrong, but I suspect when Mung uses the phrase “just happened”, he is not necessarily contradicting history, but is arguing that history is planned. Or something like that.
“Just happened” doesn’t fairly characterize the element of how it happened.
Science attempts to address that issue. We fail a lot, but we try.
Theology doesn’t even try.
That sums it up rather nicely.
But I believe some here would like to add: If someone thinks something might increase at the expense of something else decreasing, that also might happen. And if it does, that something will increase.
I just don’t understand why atheists/materialists get all incensed when someone suggests that their “explanations” are indistinguishable from magic.
Poof! RNA. Poof! DNA. Poof! Transcription. Poof! Translation. Poof! It’s ALIVE! “Poof!,” an eye! “Poof!,” lots of eyes! Poof! MAGIC!
The Power of Poof! Indistinguishable from Goddidit. Admit it.
Moved a comment to guano.
vjtorley,
Shouldn’t that be “eminent Nobel Prize winning astronomer Fred Hoyle”?
I don’t think ID people are trying to put their – ahem – theory onto an equivalent footing, so much as trying to argue that evolution is just as bad.
Mung,
Yep, one of its foundational principles is an obvious and trivial truism. But still, somehow, it’s wrong.
Nobody says this. They say we don’t know.
There’s a pretty important difference there.
We don’t claim to have one. Some people posit that the values of the fundamental constants are themselves explained by deeper physical laws. Which raises the question, whence those deeper physical laws? Which either implies an infinite regression, or a brute fact, or some sort of circular relationship.
Suppose we posit God. Suppose we posit God wanted it so. Why did god want it so? No explanation.
So God doesn’t solve this conondrum. The sad fact is we just don’t fucking know. And the people who think god solves this, just pushes the problem back a step. Why does God have the properties that it does? Well gee, I don’t fucking know.
So we’re back to square one. None of us knows, and NONE of us says “it just happened, that’s all”.
So stop with this fantastically stupid straw man, thank you.
Why do religious nutcases object to being described as pedophiles?
God just is, and just has these amazing attributes he does so-that-he-can-account-for-things-we-don’t-know-why-are-the-way-they-are. He just happened to. Embrace it.
Talking like this is stupid for the same reason on theism and atheism or naturalism. None of us really think “it just happened, that’s all”. We simply don’t know and we don’t claim to know. In the same way you would be forced to admit that you have no goddamn clue why the God you believe exists has the particular set of attributes it does, rather than some other set of attributes.
Mung,
Nice attempt at misdirection. But it’s simply not working.
Your attempts at ridicule would be better directed at those who make such claims. Such as yourself, for example.
Apparently the point of the OP is too subtle for you. This thread is not about “poof” or “goddit”.
You made the claim that ID is a perfectly reasonable alternative to “it just happened, that’s all.”. I’m simply asking you to justify that claim.
So let’s take the first item on your list:
If we look at Wikipedia we see a “support” section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world#Support_and_difficulties
That links to several scientific papers that detail the various ideas that people have regarding the origin of RNA world.
Now, if what you say is true and Intelligent Design is a reasonable alternative to all of that scientific work that, according to you, amounts to “it just happened”, then I’d be interested to hear that reasonable alternative.
Of course, you could just go off on another rant about how upset atheists/materialists get when someone suggests that their “explanations” are indistinguishable from magic. Presumably you’ve never thought about the fact that when you say that you are accepting that “magic” is a legitimate “explanation”, as you’ve never actually produced an alternative to that.
So, Mung, if you like you can continue to misdirect with “atheists/materialists get all incensed when someone suggests that their “explanations” are indistinguishable from magic” but the onus is now on you to demonstrate that ID is really a reasonable alternative to the science behind our understanding of RNA world.
If you can’t do that then it’s obvious to all that you reject science in favor of magic. And your claims about atheists are just projection.
Mung,
What is the reasonable ID alternative to “no reason”?
And out of interest, Mung, are the conditions observed in this universe the only conditions that are capable of supporting life? Not life as we know it, just life.
However I’m sure you’d already include that information in your “why ID is a reasonable alternative to a undesigned universe” response. So I’ll just await your answer. Hopefully it’ll be more then:
But of course you’ll probably just go off at a tangent and talk about atheists/materialists when in fact the topic is your claim about your worldview. If you think that nobody has noticed what you desperately seem not to want talk about you are mistaken.
So far it’s your “explanations” that are indistinguishable from magic Mung. And you then attempt to criticise others for having what you perceive to be the same problem! Lack of self-awareness much?
Mung,
I’m convinced. I’ve now realized everything I thought was an explanation is in fact just another way of saying “poof it just happened”.
Now that I am cast adrift, I need your help. What is the reasonable distinguishable from magic explanation that Intelligent Design provides? It does not matter which topic, just pick one and give me what I so desperately crave!
I think we have identified the problem.
What explanations? Quote these mysterious atheists/materialists directly so that we can see them say these things.
[Citation Needed]
[Citation Needed]
[Citation Needed]
[Citation Needed]
[Citation Needed]
[Citation Needed]
[Citation Needed]
[Citation Needed]
Wait, I’ve found someone who believes it happened like that:
“A few years ago, I lectured at Hillsdale College as part of a week-long lecture series on the intelligent design debate. After Michael Behe’s lecture, some of us pressed him to explain exactly how the intelligent designer created the various “irreducibly complex” mechanisms that cannot—according to Behe—be explained as products of evolution by natural selection. He repeatedly refused to answer. But after a long night of drinking, he finally answered: “A puff of smoke!” A physicist in the group asked, Do you mean a suspension of the laws of physics? Yes, Behe answered.” – Larry Arnhart
Admit it, you people are the only ones who ACTUALLY believe crap like this.
Mung,
And yet nobody on this thread has attempted such an explanation. In fact it’s the opposite of the purpose of this thread.
I know it’s difficult for you to stay on topic when you have so many erudite and cutting criticisms of maternalism to make. Perhaps you could start a thread on why everything we currently know amounts to “poof” and stay on topic on this thread? Nobody here has attempted to explain anything and nobody here (apart from you) has suggested that such explanations are indistinguishable from magic (apart from you).
I’d forgotten all about that! 😛
It’s not going too well for Mung on the evo-info-review-do-not-buy-the-book-until thread, which probably explains his “poof”-fest here.
Rumraket,
No, your premise about infinite regressions is completely bogus. There may be a trillion universes each with its own characteristics. But man’s search is not for the characteristics of those universes, because most people are sane enough to understand the folly of trying to grasp things completely outside our existence.
But it is certainly a much more rational question, to ask about the existence of the world we do experience. Why does it exist, what is the most likely explanation, what information can be gleaned from what we see around us? That is a sensible goal.
Asking what the world is like in the 399th billion world outside ours is a nonsensical question.
So if your answer to the question of what can we guess about the existence of our universe, based on what we can see and experience, is you haven’t a clue, well, then that only puts you out of the conversation, it doesn’t nullify the question.
Rumraket,
A puff of smoke, that has intelligent intentions and design is quite different than a puff of smoke that came from nothing and is meaningless.
That the difference is indistinguishable to you is rather telling about the nature of you, not of the difference.
phoodoo,
How do you tell the difference?
Ah, so simply knowing there is “a plan” is enough for you, even though it leaves you in exactly the same position as those you ridicule, with no specific knowledge of what that plan is.
So it seems the OP has proven it’s point. Simply adding “it was designed” is sufficient to satisfy the intellectual curiosity of the two IDists so far to opine.
So, like Mung, phoodoo accepts the entirety of everything we know about the universe and evolution but as long as we categorize the “poof” as “poof Intelligent Design” he’s satisfied. And this is despite there being no need for a “poof” at all, as the evolution of irreducibly complex structures was predicted well in advance of Behe’s work. So people like phoodoo and Mung throw out what we do know in favor of “poof” as long as it’s a “telic poof”.
What an utterly impoverished worldview. They make the association of “stolen concepts” all the time, and yet here we can see they have stolen the entirety of what science tells us about reality, they add “telic poof” to it and claim it as a “better” explanation.