This offers the simplest “neutral” colloquial mixture of “design” and “evolution” that I’ve seen in a long time. The site is no longer maintained, but the language persists.
“As a designer it is important to understand where design came from, how it developed, and who shaped its evolution. The more exposure you have to past, current and future design trends, styles and designers, the larger your problem-solving toolkit. The larger your toolkit, the more effective of a designer you can be.” http://www.designishistory.com/this-site/
Here, the term “evolution” as used just meant “history”. The author was not indicating “design theory evolution”, but rather instead the “history of designs” themselves, which have been already instantiated.
The topic “design is history” nevertheless enables an obvious point of contact between “evolution” and “design”. They both have histories that can be studied. Present in the above meaning of “design” are the origin, processes and agent(s) involved in the “designing”. This differs significantly from the Discovery Institute’s version of “design theory”, when it comes to history, aim, structure and agency, since the DI’s version flat out avoids discussion of design processes and agent(s). The primary purpose of the DI’s “design theory”, meanwhile, is USAmerican religious apologetics and “theistic science”.
The quotation above likely didn’t come from an IDist, and it isn’t referencing “Intelligent Design” theory as a supposed “scientific theory”. The “designer” in the quotation above is a (more or less intelligent) human designer, not a Divine Designer. This fact distinguishes it “in principle” from the Discovery Institute’s ID theory, which is supposed to be (depends on who you’re speaking with in the IDM) about first biology, then informatics, and statistics. The DI’s ID theory is not actually focused on “designing by real designers”, but rather on apologetics using “design” and informational probabilism.
The Discovery Institute’s failure to distinguish or even highlight the differences and similarities between human design and Divine Design, and instead their engagement in active distortion, equivocation, double-talking, and obfuscation between them, are marks of its eventual downward trend to collapse.
Sadly and pathetically false. Do try to do better.
You blame the IDM for what is in the hearts of men who oppose them. I believe those men need to examine their hearts.
If I become angry with you, or envious, that is something in my heart that only I can address. I shouldn’t blame you for it and hold on to it in my self-righteousness.
Entropy,
Ah. Decent with solar modification.
Why not say Creationism, if that is what you really mean?
Do you think that if God doesn’t directly poof the eye into existence that it cannot be designed? You do know that eyes develop over time from something that is not an eye. There’s a mechanism that brings this about. Does it follow that the eye is not designed?
What on earth do you mean by direct design if not creationism?
You should have used scare quotes when you wrote of Divine Design, since you are now walking that back.
Mung,
Do you understand the Gregory’s real issue? I am have trouble seeing past these ad hominem attacks.
Which theistic model are you talking about?
Mung,
The model from Genesis. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Interesting, what mechanism does design use if it is the primary cause?
Also known as Creationism model.
newton,
What do you use when you design something? What parts of you could you eliminate and still create a design?
But that wasn’t the question, and you know it. You weren’t asked for the inspiration for the design, you were asked about the implementation. To create a design, some of the things I could NOT eliminate are my tools and materials.
Ok, I’ll do better by clarifying. Mung has never addressed the arguments of the many religious theists, including theologians, scientists and philosophers, as well as ordained clergy who reject ID theory, for a variety of reasons. Those reasons have never “stuck” on him, such that he could publicly repeat them, since Mung’s evangelical apologetics instinct has always instinctively disallowed it.
Yet if he actually were to sit down and compose decently thought-out answers to the Christians, not the atheists and agnostics, who have challenged his thinking, then we might actually get some valuable content from Mung, instead of largely empty and provocative, snide remarks, witty truisms, and antagonism that makes it sometimes indeed appropriate for him to be labelled as a “sea lion” to believers who reject his incessant posturing.
That’s the sea lion version of Mung, when he switches from “apologetics” mode with atheists & agnostics, to “actual thinking” mode with religious theists in conversation and Q&A. In such a situation, Mung got absolutely thoroughly crushed at Peaceful Science, showing he simply is not up to the label “ID theorist”, but rather “IDist parrot.” Bill is likewise largely in “ID parrot” mode, is not a theorist, and doesn’t acknowledge the DI’s duplicity openly in public. Hmm, are these trustworthy defenders of ID theory? No, not in my eyes.
I challenge (you call it “blame”) the IDM for their own actions and ideas that they have expressed in writing, not for anyone else’s actions or what anyone else has said or written. I address them on their own terms, and on no one else’s. Shouldn’t this be your policy too?
Flip it around then, Mung. You blame evangelicalism for not providing you more than a superficial and individualistic religious faith, one that is constantly being eaten away at by USA society and culture today, so you require a gildered weapon in your apologetics arsenal to “feel safe”. This is what you and Bill call “Intelligent Design” theory = ID theory; it’s your apologetic weapon that you use as often as possible against atheists and agnostics. That’s why it doesn’t work against people like me. Say it ain’t so, Mung! No you won’t because you know that’s true what “you use ID theory” for.
The “men who oppose them”, i.e. who oppose the Discovery Institute and IDM, do not concern me in this conversation like I am worried about the people in the DI and the IDM, and those they are currently reaching out to with their propaganda and theistic science apologetics. That you folks are misrepresenting, staining, distorting, and proclaiming things that are actually not proven, actually just probabilistics, actually not “strictly scientific”, actually not that profound, actually minimalistic, actually highly divisive, and actually being aggressively “pushed”, etc. reveals why very few people take IDists seriously and why most of us want to stay away as far as possible from the IDM and the DI. We’ve got the IDist pattern pretty much mapped out by now, and it is not admirable. Bill & Mung are simply no different from that rather unimpressive pattern, despite all of the good intention they have in apologizing for their faith to “anyone who will listen”.
That’s one of the great differences between us, Mung, you have so far shown an inability to “get outside” of thinking that is found “in that Movement.” I had thought we talked through that and you understood, but it seems like no, you didn’t after all. For me, it comes with the training to be able to separate myself from this “movement” to be able to study it “at a distance”. That is why I side with those more perceptive and balanced evangelical Christians, and all others who reject the DI and ID theory as an attempt to get theistic science apologetics in schools, and in public discussions. It’s not worth the air time, guys.
We – all people who reject ID theory as “scientific” or “credible”, including theists, atheists & agnostics, across a range of worldviews held by people around the world – are reacting to the DI & IDM’s presence. “They” started this by gathering, by existing, by voicing their “theory” as if it were “strictly scientific”, when it is rather obviously theistic science apologetics. Please do not try to suggest that religious theists ought to react first to the people reacting to “ID theory”, rather than skipping them to go directly to the source: ID “theorists” themselves.
Both Bill & Mung “use ID theory” as a tool for their theistic science apologetics. This is the tool they apply for their evangelical Protestant theological agenda, which unbeknownst to them is serving to drive a wedge between themselves as ideologues in the evangelical (largely non-mainline) “communities” and devout believers who are not intellectually duped by ideological IDism. I believe it is men and women who act as IDists do who “need to examine their hearts”.
Mung & Bill have Klinghoffer & O’Leary to represent their “news” filter. This alone – for goodness sake, guys! – should be enough to repulse them from the IDM, as if activistic “journalism” were a virtue in the age of the Internet.
Do better, guys! Mature, out-grow IDism. You’ll be thankful for the day that comes! _/\_
Flint,
At 16 minutes and 30 seconds in you will see an example of a human reduced to eye movements who can still generate a book.
This is agreeable. Thanks for clarifying. Though I don’t see its connection with the previous words you wrote.
My physical body and acquired knowledge. Then again I am not creating the actual universe.
That would depend on the design.
Gregory,
Why do you say things that you don’t have a clue about? There has been no credibility build here at all. You have painted a false narrative, For me the DI contains a tool box. Some of the tools are good and some are not so good. Behe is affiliated with that group and produces good tools. We have used those tools successfully in presenting Job in the Bible. The evidence we not have of design in nature compelling and all I hear you doing is trying to destroy one of the tool maker providing evidence. One last try. If I gave you 1 million dollars to give to discovery based on them changing their strategy. What strategy change would you recommend?
The mathematical problem is a biggie? It’s simple arithmetic. The hard part is measuring how much energy enters, how much is radiated back to space.
Whether you like it or not, even your doubt is ultimately running on solar energy.
Is English that hard to understand for you? there’s no paradox.
Mung’s comment wasn’t about this, however.
Nope. Descent with solar power.
And may I ask where it led when you assumed it four years ago?
In fact it’s just part of your routine, just as phodoo will rant about fitness periodically. You’ve learnt nothing in at least the four years since you’ve been saying the same as you are today. Or, perhaps you have. And then my objections will melt away in the light of you finding out where it led. So, where did it lead four years ago?
colewd,
I just spoke with Behe a few months ago. I went to the event knowing that I may possibly have an opportunity to speak with him. It turned out I was able to speak with him twice. Once one-on-one for a couple of minutes, and once in tandem with Brian Miller and Robert Larmer.
Sad to say it, Bill, but Behe’s a charlatan taking paycheques from the DI to speak at apologetics events that are not advertised on the DI’s website or on ENV. He’s not an accomplished natural scientist. And he’s repeatedly spoken over his own head, said things he can’t back up, while using non-standard, sometimes recycled terms that haven’t added the value to the biological field of study anything like IDsts claim. To say otherwise, would be to expose oneself as a supporter of charlatanism, which isn’t a virtue in this conversation.
Michael Behe over-reached his grasp. He’s been humiliated because he seems to have an ego as big as Mt. Rushmore, denying that anyone has yet raised a challenge to his “ID theory.” This is nonsense, hocus-pocus for the foolish and under-educated.
NB: this says nothing so far about Michael Behe’s Roman Catholic Christianity, except that he’s just fine taking paycheques from the pockets of non-mainline evangelical Protestants, just like Egnor. They both know full well how widely opposed leading Catholic thinkers, across science, philosophy, theology are to “ID theory.” Yet they just leave that out in defending IDism, which is yet another example of what makes these men, these fine upstanding Catholics and nice guys, nevertheless, at the same time a clear and obvious example to any sane person, of scientistic ideologues.
Let’s get simple:
Is there a difference between Creator and creature, in your evangelical theology Bill Cole? A step further, is there a different way to speak about Creator and creature, in your theology? If you don’t want to speak about this here, that’s fine too, send a DM.
Yet another common case described as convergent evolution. (Described but not explained).
This paper should stimulate some discussion.
I read this in the abstract:
Animals have the senses that are suitable to their needs. The other senses mentioned above are indeed ideally suited to the particular niches. But none of them are capable of allowing the animals to sense the further universe as far as the visible stars and the Magellanic Clouds. This range of sensing is far greater than anything required for individual survival. And of course humans are able to see much further by enhancing this sense.
It’s fortunate for us that the molecules needed to develop sight were ready and waiting to be used so early in evolution.
I like “theistic scientism” here.
I think there’s a nice point to be made about how scientistic culture drives the promotion of pseudo-science — in a scientistic culture, all sorts of various philosophical and religious positions are dressed up in scientific guise in order to be regarded as rationally credible.
Gregory,
Gregory
I think you are wrong about Behe and are missing an opportunity but thats up to you.
So far I am with you.
We accept natural selection not because we are able to demonstrate the process in detail, not even because we can with more or less ease imagine it, but simply because we must – because it is the only possible explanation that we can conceive. We must assume natural selection to be the principle of the explanation of the metamorphosis, because all other apparent principles of explanation fail us, and it is inconceivable that that there could be another capable of explaining the adaptation of organisms without assuming the help of a principle of design.
– August Weismann (1893)
colewd,
Not a clear sentence, so can’t respond to it. Human tool makers are well-known & active around the world. DI doesn’t study them & apply a theory to them/us – that’s outside of “ID theory’s” scope, at least by intellectual production so far. Tool makers are not part of “ID theory” & don’t fit under some kind of “design universalism” ideology as it appears you’re trying to frame it, and which is precisely how many leading IDists are trying to frame it.
Uh, sorry, no, social and applied scientists would laugh it out of the building from the start; it’s not how we study the “objects/subjects” of our research. I have actually witnessed the laughing at “ID theory” en masse happen at a large “Design Thinking” event in Denmark, since Steve Fuller, the “postmodern” social philosopher who endorses DI books with Forewords, was there. Funny enough, Fuller laughed at the idea of “ID theory” not being relevant to “real design thinking” too! Do any of these things register with you, as reasons to doubt the superficial, philosophistic narrative you’ve unfortunately swallowed from the DI?
“Design in Nature” by Bejan, just like for Flint, has nothing to do with a Creator. They aren’t speaking apologistically. But they have every bit as much “evidence” for their “explanation” of “design in nature” as does the DI’s “explanation” of “Design in nature”. Bejan is more credible than anyone in the IDM (& he’s pretty crazy!) There’s no difference in the data being analysed on this front, so what is the DI & IDM really adding here? Clear and most accurate answer: ideology.
Well, it wouldn’t need but a fraction of that amount on just one try to do more than DI has done up to this point on this topic in 24 years under Stephen C. Meyer at the CSC (leave aside the DI’s other programs), within 3 years. Do these numbers speak to your previous career experience? Please do not doubt that I am serious about that any more than I take seriously your ability to actually procure investment of such a sum for actual (read: non-IDist) research development and application in this area.
1 million dollars “to give to Discovery”?! No thanks. They’re obsolete already and not a place to be associated with, though they admittedly have earned the right to “belong” in the conversation. I do not think they have entirely wasted their time, just a lot of it.
Otherwise, DM me if you’re serious. For my part, I’ll let this list know if you do, but won’t disclose anything further than that between us.
Good thing it doesn’t involve probabilities!
Ok then, it’s pretty much the same with Designer and designed.
You’re trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. I’m just telling you why it’s not working.
I’m fine about possibly missing an opportunity with Behe. No problem with taking that risk at all, especially now that I’ve met him & seeing how he responded to my simple question and explanation of why it’s relevant. He failed miserably. Funny for you perhaps, that the student organizer who was in the group with us understood what I was saying right away, and continued to press Behe & Miller, when it became obvious they weren’t going to directly address our questions.
Gregory,
I am interested in your ideas for using natural theology along with scripture to help strengthen faith. My email is colewd@aol.com.
Gregory,
What is the difference in your opinion?
Of course it is.
colewd,
It’s not my favorite topic as I find it stained with theistic science apologetics. The term “design” is multi-disciplinary nowadays, so it depends on a person from which discipline you ask. “Designer” is a more limited term than “design”. It’s an awkward alternative to “Creator/Creation”.
In theology, Creator is “distinct” from creature in being Creator of the creature. Instead, ID theory collapses them together in “design universalism”. This is a terrible theological position to be in, displaying clumsy imperialistic philosophy in collapsing them. However, perhaps since it’s mostly fringe evangelicals, not mainstream Protestants, Catholics or Orthodox, who accept ID theory as being what the DI proclaims it is, recognition of what new heresies they are producing isn’t part of the IDM’s discussion.
OMagain,
Help me out, non-USA citizen here. What does that poke mean?
Did you say that to his face when you spoke with him?
CharlieM,
Which part? The charlatan part? No, of course not. It was a polite conversation and he was clearly perplexed to be told what I said about Divine Names. He’s Roman Catholic, after all.
Did I say he was speaking over his own head? Even better; he admitted it openly, stating “I’m a simple biochemist.” That’s his escape hatch from more meaningful questions. He did it on both days. The student organizer understood, as did I, that was not a satisfactory way to face the conversation with integrity and dignity. But Miller gave his evangelical testimony at the end of the event while Behe got paid by the DI, so he’s happy, right?
Discovery Institute Fellows have gone on the record repeatedly suggesting that “design thinking” is persecuted & that there is a lobby against it at universities. Really?
Really? Amazing. But wait! It looks to me like there was another person involved. And paper, and a pencil, doubtless followed by a printer, possibly a publisher, and surely other necessary supporting materials and people.
Do you seriously think your imaginary creator made the universe by blinking its eyes? Does it even have eyes? And what intermediary steps and tools were necessary to translate the eye movement (or spoken words) into mass and energy? Do you even care? Or are you fully satisfied with the “explanation” that it was a miracle, or a mystery?
One of the key aspects of any scientific paper is that the operational definitions be carefully presented and justified, that the entire methodology and tools are specified in detail, and that the results can be replicated (or a genuine replication can be attempted) by following exactly the recipe in the paper. There’s a reason science requires this — otherwise, anyone could make up bullshit and call it “science”. But who would do that?
AOL make a surprisingly large amount of money from being the ‘original ‘ easy ISP. People are still paying original signups from decades ago on a service they probably no longer want or need.
https://money.cnn.com/2015/05/08/technology/aol-dial-up/index.html
I’m not an expert in the history of evolutionary theory, but my sense is that Weismann takes this line because at the time, the only proposed models for evolution that anyone had were natural selection acting on hereditable variation (Darwinism) and the inheritance of acquired characteristics (Lamarckianism). But Weismann’s discovery of a distinction between germ cells and somatic cells made Lamarckianism impossible, which left Darwinism as the only possibility.
In any event, it’s hardly fair to say that evolutionary theory in 2020 is in the same sorry state that it was in 1893.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Maybe, but if He knew He was God those aren’t my shoes. And He chose to suffer, many ,not in His shoes, don’t get to choose.
So more a tourist than a native. Nice guy ,good ideas.
Any thoughts on his use of the word design, and with a lower case d at that!?
Including biology. Sort of like the term information. Neither of which presuppose a human source.
Stop spreading lies about evolutionary theory and stop pushing pseudoscience garbage to religious Fundy morons like Bill Cole who wouldn’t recognize actual scientific evidence if it crawled up his leg and bit him in the ass.
Damn Bill did an Irony Meter once beat you up and steal your lunch money? Is that why you continue your campaign to overload and melt into slag every Irony Meter in the known universe?
Mung,
No, not in biology. It’s an insignificant off-the-cuff term in mainstream biology, and won’t ever grow to be significant because that would compromise the field with theistic science, now that “ID theory” is here. Since Mung is OK with theistic science, acting like a god to his codes, that explains the problem here.
“Design” has multiple meanings, many of which are quite distinct from the term “information”. But Mung is a proven sloppy, conflating thinker. Right now, he’s not actually thinking. He’s just back in his old habits as an IDist ideologue again. We’ll see how long it lasts this time.
Why is it only compelling to the scientifically illiterate and/or religious Fundamentalists desperate to “scientifically” validate their faith?
Gregory,
All this constant babbling on about design and you can’t even give a coherent definition of what you mean by design.
Worse than ridiculous Gregory. Your “animals can’t cross the species divide” comment is uproarious.
I’m not a theology maven, but my reading is that Paul’s Jesus never actually came down to earth, but instead did his thing in the lowest level of heaven which Paul placed between earth and moon.
Furthermore, Paul’s Jesus was a high-level spirit who came down to that lowest level and took on the guise of a human in order to trick Satan into killing him, which turned him into the promised messiah. Kind of interesting that Paul’s Jesus knew all along it was a con, that he couldn’t actually die, and once he’d done this stunt he simply returned to seventh heaven as planned.
Paul’s Jesus bears little resemblance to Mark’s.
Gotta agree. What IS a species divide, anyway? Why would any species want to “cross” it, whatever that means? Sure, I can do lots of things my cat cannot; conversely, my cat is really good at things no human can do.
Flint,
phoodoo may not be aware of it because he isn’t in tune with many things the leaders of the IDM say, but I’m just stating the same position as the Discovery Institute holds regarding “non-human animals”. It’s simply not what they’re talking about re: “ID theory.”
The work on “human exceptionalism” by Wesley J. Smith at the Discovery Institute, which is accepted by pretty much every leading IDist known to me, is one clear basis on which to identify a “species divide”, which was probably a bit clumsily phrased. There are of course multiple distinctions to make of value and importance between human beings and non-human animals, that nobody sane is really arguing against.
The purpose of the OP was to reveal an unusual combination of terms in one person’s vocabulary. I would not speak this way personally, as I think the term “evolution” isn’t necessary and is wrongly used. Above it just means “history” and would be better replaced by “development”, since that’s the appropriate SCALE of the conversation. It’s not a millions of years or an organic reproduction issue involved with human designs, and it’s not a “theistic evolution” topic either.
If otoh it’s an issue of Divine Design, then one must move into theology and out of natural science proper.
The above sentence can thus be restated more clearly and simply: “As a designer it is important to understand where design came from and who shaped its development.” It’s not really about “evolution”, certainly not about “evolutionary biology”. But without this “where did it come from & who did it” effort in the work, “design theory” really has no teeth; it’s just all speculation and bluster.
All they have to do is go ahead and actually ‘detect design’ with one of the many flavours of their design detection filter they claim works. Show each step in turn, how everything was calculated.
But no, apparently that is simply impossible. But neither does it dent their enthusiasm for these filters that they can’t make work or demonstrate. They can’t show them in use but they can’t admit they don’t work. Being an IDier is an odd thing.
Whereas you of course have.