design theory defeats itself

[trim]

I'll admit I have some obstacles to embracing evolution, but not from a scientific perspective. The theological/scritural hurdles are hard for me to get over in my present ignorance. That said, I am still open to the possibilities.

In light of 2 Nephi 2 it seems that laws or priciples that govern the direction of chemical, nuclear, physical interactions implicitly affirm the existence of God. Granted that does not automatically dictate his involvment in evolutionary process, but it opens the door. (This line of logic assumes some level of faith or acceptance in the BoM.)

[cdowis]

>If I flip a fair coin for an eternity, eventually I will get any finite sequence imaginable (including the binary representation of human DNA).

Quantum mechanics shows that if I were to attempt to walk through a steel wall *enough times* the random movement of atoms will eventually align themselves in such a way where I could walk completely through the wall.

I understand that the probability approaches the number of atoms in the universe, and I suspect that the probability of human evolution approaches a similar probability. But if one is determined to deny the existence of a Divine Creator, this probability is acceptable.

[spinner]

Why? Because of your bias against anything that smells of faith?

[katherine the great]

You people are so funny. What did I say that no one gets. The same scientific evidences that support evolution, i.e. fossels records, spontaneous (of controled) genetic mutation, natural selection, etc, ALSO supports the theory of intelligent design. The difference - I repeat - is that one relies on chance only, meaning something that happens without outside influence or control does so by chance only. It is far more plausable to say we (the world) evolved from lessor life forms by design than by pure chance. That makes both (or neither) science.

It sound like a lot of people think that evolutionary theory states that our existence is due to pure chance. That is NOT what evolutionary theory states. It states that the mutations that cause evolution are random. In other words, the genetic changes do NOT anticipate a species' needs, and those changes may be unrelated to selection. Genetic changes happen. If they give a slight advantage to the species, those changes will continue. If not, they will die out. We see examples of this in our own hominid species. We are the only hominid species left on the earth. My question to ID promoters is: Why would God give rise to all of these dead end species if He is guiding evolution every step of the way? Why waste all that time and energy on hominid species that never become fully human?

[cdowis]

>There is a logical and well established principle behind evolution: that random variation as a result of natural genetic mutation is the catalyst of organic change.

I do not think that anyone would disagree.

The problem is with the resulting logic -- "Therefore, Man evolved........"

Let us look at another "well established" concept: the hammer.

A hand tool that has a handle with a perpendicularly attached head of metal, and is used for striking or pounding a nail into wood and is the catalyst for building houses.

"Therefore, houses were built.........."

I realize that my point is rather subtle, but it is an issue of cause and effect. Is the tool responsible for building the end result? The logic behind that premise is flawed.

Evolution as a mechanism is science, but "Man evolved........" is not science.

[katherine the great]

>There is a logical and well established principle behind evolution: that random variation as a result of natural genetic mutation is the catalyst of organic change.

I do not think that anyone would disagree.

The problem is with the resulting logic -- "Therefore, Man evolved........"

Do you think that biology is the only science that supports evolutionary theory?

[spinner]

>There is a logical and well established principle behind evolution: that random variation as a result of natural genetic mutation is the catalyst of organic change.

I do not think that anyone would disagree.

The problem is with the resulting logic -- "Therefore, Man evolved........" 

Let us look at another "well established" concept:  the hammer.

A hand tool that has a handle with a perpendicularly attached head of metal, and is used for striking or pounding a nail into wood and is the catalyst for building houses.

"Therefore, houses were built.........."

I realize that my point is rather subtle, but it is an issue of cause and effect.  Is the tool responsible for building the end result?  The logic behind that premise is flawed.

Evolution as a mechanism is science, but "Man evolved........" is not science.

You acknowledge that random variations resulting from genetic mutation are the catalyst of change for ogranisms. Should this line of reasoning not extend to humans for some reason?

Evolution is a universally applied concept; a foundational explanation of life on earth and biodiversity. If you believed generally in the concept of evolution and its applicability to life on earth, there is no reason humans should not be included in this process. It is true that pieces of the fossil record are missing. This is not surprising, and certainly not disprobative of the idea that humans evolved. The percentage of organisms that are imbedded into the fossil record is miniscule. Nevertheless, enough species have left clear fossil records (i.e., the development of the modern horse is particularly well recorded) to create an assumption of universal applicability, despite the fact that gaps in our knowledge are still larger than the spaces that have been filled in.

I guess I just don't understand then how a scientific argument could be made that humans are the exception to evolution. (And sorry, I missed the hammer example--I don't quite see how it relates to evolution.)

[Knight who says Ne]

...ID theories are back door attempts by religionists to impart a gloss of scientific credibility onto their theology.

I can enter the same house through the front door or the back door.

Cold case evolution is a front door attempt by athiest to impart an anti-religion bias into school curriculum thus making schools an institution of indoctrination because it reject other possible and equally plausable theories.

[sidewinder]

..impart an anti-religion bias into school curriculum thus..

Even if there were something to Intelligent Design, which there isn't, the er, ID school of thinking shouldn't just automatically go into high school and college textbooks with equal time as evolution (as if there would be enough to say to give equal time anyway). No theory deserves that kind of special treatment. General textbooks should primarily reflect the accepted knowledge within the field, they shouldn't be a shopping cart of openmindedness toward every controversial idea published by someone within that field as if all ideas, if they are thought up by someone with a graduate degree, automatically have equal footing. There are surely scores or hundreds of controversial ideas within biology or any science. Those ideas will first have to win over their respective scientific communities before they deserve serious mention within introductory course work.

But ID apparently should get special treatment. You know, because Michael Behe, Philip Johnson, and William Dembski have written books that sell at Barnes and Noble and have become popular primarily with a lay religious audience, our institutions of learning should bow down and revise their standard texts to accomodate those ideas. Dembski and the rest know their work is doomed to failure in the realm of their scientific peers so they've sought out a battle in the court of public lay opinion. It might be the case that the scientific community is rigid and resistent to change. That's a good thing though in many ways. And believe it or not, that same deep-seated rigidity stiffled the acceptence of Darwinian evolution too for a very long time. But eventually Darwinian evolution was able to prove its salt. For all the rigidity that cranks damn the institution of science with, it's amazing how well science continues to progress and even from time to time revolutionize. Controversial theories that the institutions of science have a vested interest in being wrong do win once in a while, it just doesn't happen at the bequest of every crackpot, even if that crackpot has a phd.

So if Dembski and the rest want DI as part of general Bio curriculum, let them first convince a few more biologists and then lets talk about putting it in the textbooks. If that's too hard for them to do, tough, they aren't alone. Every other scientist is in the same boat with his or her bright ideas. In fact, the IDers are probably very grateful for the rigidity of the academy when it comes to other controversial ideas. There are in fact, multiple phd academics who believe and argue for the reality of a Lamanite and Nephite civilization. I wonder if Dembski and Behe think it would be ok if FARMS writers were to bypass convincing their scholarly peers about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and move straight to lobbying politically for the incorporation of the BOM into standard world history texts? Or maybe they'd like for their children in medical school to spend equal time reading articles on blood transfusions by Jehovah's Witness researches as they do reading contemporary hematology literature? They surely wouldn't want to reject, "other possibilities."

[Dando]

My question to ID promoters is: Why would God give rise to all of these dead end species if He is guiding evolution every step of the way? Why waste all that time and energy on hominid species that never become fully human?

You might as well ask "why did God choose to create the universe in the first place? Isn't that a lot of wasted time and energy to create a bunch of life forms that only live anywhere from 24 hours to 200 years?"

God is a creative individual and he has unlimited time and energy at his disposal to fulfill that creativity. If he needs more energy he'll simply create it. What is time to an infinite being?

The answer to all such "why" questions is always "to bring himself glory".

{note: I'm not necessarily agreeing that evolution was the process which God chose to use in creation}

[Knight who says Ne]

You presnt a nice arguement except for one thing...

Even if there were something to Intelligent Design, which there isn't

You have a pre-programmed bias against Intelligent Design. So why should I take anything else you say seriously?

I've heard librals say that they are open minded. Could have fooled me.

[Mortvola]

Could have fooled me.

Well, since you believe in ID that was obvious!

Sorry, just couldn't resist.

[Makarios]

There are in fact, multiple phd academics who believe and argue for the reality of a Lamanite and Nephite civilization.

This would be a more persuasive point if ID were as fringe as the example you provide.

[ZekeTheElder]

As I have already pointed out, several scientific fields use design criteria as part of their discipline (archeology, criminology, and SETI). Why should the study of human origens be any different?.

Makarios

[ScriptureLover]

Sidewinder in his sparkling way said:

I wonder if Dembski and Behe think it would be ok if FARMS writers were to bypass convincing their scholarly peers about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and move straight to lobbying politically for the incorporation of the BOM into standard world history texts?

Kerry:

BRILLIANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Good hell why DIDN'T we Mormons think of that?!?

[cdowis]

>You acknowledge that random variations resulting from genetic mutation are the catalyst of change for ogranisms. Should this line of reasoning not extend to humans for some reason?

OK, let me re-state:

"Horse evolved.........."

"Bees evolved..........."

"Whales evolved.............."

"The mouse evolved............"

Those are not scientific statements.

Evolution is a mechanism, but to state that it brings us the complete organism that we see today, the final product, is not science. It does not bring us the end product, even as a hammar is a mechanism but does not bring us to the end product -- a house or building.

This is where the flaw in the logic occurs -- the "fact" of evolution as a change agent, as a mechanism of change has been well established. But to carry that reasoning into the finished product has never been established.

Happy to clarify for you.

[Makarios]

As I have already pointed out, several scientific fields use design criteria as part of their discipline (archeology, criminology, and SETI).  Why should the study of human origens be any different?.

Makarios

[Mighty Curelom]

It seems to me that you can look at ID in two ways. The first way is that it's unfalsifiable, and therefore nothing more than wishful thinking and certainly not science. The second way is that is IS falsifiable. In fact, it has already been falsified.

If current life forms were designed, then they should show signs of that intelligent design. They should NOT show signs of randomness, or poor design. Anyone at all familiar with biology know that life is absolutely lousy with poor design, and just as packed with signs of random mutation. For example--some species of moles are born with eyes, but their eyelids remain fused for their entire life, making the eyes behind their fused eyelids completely extranious. Poor design. The product of "blind evolution" (no pun intended). There are countless examples just like this one, and each one of them disproves intelligent design. Life is full of evolutionary dead ends, vestigial apendages and organs, random genetic drift, and plenty of other phenomona that all go against ID theory, yet fit perfectly within the paradigm of naturalistic evolution. Perhaps ID proponents would like to amend the name of their movement to "Unintelligent design", or maybe "Incompetent design." I would suggest the latter; they could still use the same initials.

[Makarios]

It seems to me that you can look at ID in two ways.  The first way is that it's unfalsifiable, and therefore nothing more than wishful thinking and certainly not science.  The second way is that is IS falsifiable.  In fact, it has already been falsified. 

If current life forms were designed, then they should show signs of that intelligent design.  They should NOT show signs of randomness, or poor design.  Anyone at all familiar with biology know that life is absolutely lousy with poor design, and just as packed with signs of random mutation.  For example--some species of moles are born with eyes, but their eyelids remain fused for their entire life, making the eyes behind their fused eyelids completely extranious.  Poor design.  The product of "blind evolution" (no pun intended).  There are countless examples just like this one, and each one of them disproves intelligent design. Life is full of evolutionary dead ends, vestigial apendages and organs, random genetic drift, and plenty of other phenomona that all go against ID theory, yet fit perfectly within the paradigm of naturalistic evolution.  Perhaps ID proponents would like to amend the name of their movement to "Unintelligent design", or maybe "Incompetent design."  I would suggest the latter; they could still use the same initials.

To argue that something has been poorly designed does not help the anti-ID cause. The Yugo may have been a really bad car, but no one thinks it occured naturally through evolution. At best your examples show evidence of sub-optimal design, but it is still design.

Dembski answers this point fully here.

[cdowis]

>should NOT show signs of randomness, or poor design.

May I suggest that a scientist who completely denies the existence of God perhaps knows little or nothing on what God will or will not do. He has shed his mantle of science and put on the bishop's mitre.

Are we now to have scientists making arguments in the realm of theology and accept it as scientific proof -- that "God would do no such thing"?

[sidewinder]

You have a pre-programmed bias against Intelligent Design. So why should I take anything else you say seriously?

Knight, just because someone has a pre-programmed bias against something doesn't mean their arguments should be discarded just for that reason alone. I don't even reject apologists just because they have no choice but to begin their work with the conclusion that the church is true.

But interestingly, the only pre-programmed bias I've ever head on the subject of evolution was against evolution. In fact, even two or three years after I had rejected the church and realized I was probably an atheist I still didn't believe in evolution and I was annoyed anytime anyone brought up the subject. There are a number of reasons I can think of why. It was taught very badly in high school and the one college bio course I took. The only people I knew who believed in evolution up to the time I was 23 were self-styled hippies and I illogically held that against the idea itself -- I don't hug trees, I believe in cuttin 'em down to build furniture. But probably most importantly, I was willfully ignorant on the subject. While I had a passion for teaching myself science and math as a teenager, I had no interest whatsoever in biology. The only evolution material I had ever read on my own as a teen were a few articles in OMNI magazine, and the only one which I can recall to this day is the one which summerized the position of intelligent design using the complexity of the eye argument! That article fed my bias against evolution -- which I didn't understand at all -- for years. And let's see, nearly eight years later, the very next thing I read in my life about evolution was Behe's Darwin's Black Box. I read from that book each day before work at a Barnes and Noble, and I was completely sold. Over the next couple years, I did grudgingly concede that there may be something to the idea of evolution given the arguments of a roomate I had who had quite a bit of coursework behind him in the life sciences. But I still internally didn't like it. I still was very much under the impression that the theory was hanging by a thread and fewer and fewer repudible scientists were accepting it. But about 5 years ago I stumbled accross an internet forum where evolution was being debated and I tried to school that lot of posters who seemed to be putting undue faith in such a controversial theory that I knew none of the really smart people believed. Fortunately, I had the opportunity to get my *** handed to me by a biology professor. Following up on his arguments, it was one shock of horror after another about what I bone head I had been.

[yuuhaa]

Personally, I have little patience for the "intelligent design" theory, which strikes me as being one of the silliest things to come along in decades. It purports to prove that "evolution" (whatever that is) is wrong and that Genesis is correct. Unfortunately, intelligent design is no more compatible with Genesis and the rest of the scriptures than evolution is.

I want my grandchildren to have best education possible, with the best understanding that science has to offer. If that understanding is currently evolution, then I want them to learn it, without any dishonest ploys about it being only a "theory" or anything like that. I will teach my grandchildren about religion, thank you.

When people tell me they don't believe in evolution, I ask them what part of them they don't believe. They usually answer that they don't believe that man descended from monkeys. That is what passes for understanding of evolution these days. Of course, no credible scientist claims that man descended from monkeys, either.

Evolution consists of three parts: inheritance, mutation, and natural selection. Even the most ardent haters of evolution usually have no problem with any of these three parts, confessing that they have been well demonstrated by science.

Honestly, most of the attacks on evolution seem to come from the same group using the same methods that they use to attack the church. It really bothers me that some members of the church fail to make that connection and even buy into the same atrocious arguments against evolution that they would not tolerate for a second if they were used against the church. Maybe there needs to be a FAIRevolution board.

The only real question worth debating is whether evolution is completely random or whether there is some plan guiding its course. I maintain the latter, which gets to the heart of your supposed contradiction.

Your contradiction presupposes that this is the only universe and that the physical laws of this universe must exist in any other universe. Neither, of course, can be demonstrated. I think Carl Sagan put it very well in his book "The Demon-Haunted World." As an atheist, Sagan was very concerned about the influence of religion, which he regarded (with considerable reason, I might add) as a set of superstitions having no bearing on scientific truth. The odd thing is that as a believing member of the church I tend to agree with him.

Sagan mentions the consolation of Descartes, a fairly well known philosophy. Descartes felt that there were so many planets in such a vast universe that virtually every possible form of life must exist somewhere on them. In what amounts to an infinite number of planets (infinite because there are new planets being formed all the time and old ones are being destroyed) there must be an infinite variety of life. So if there are no unicorns, dragons, gods, or sasquatches on earth, the odds are that they must exist somewhere else.

Sagan took this further. Since the universe is always creating itself and destroying itself, it must over an infinite time take on all possible forms. Even an atheist must believe that you will eventually live again in some future universe, associating with all the people that you do here, but you will have no memory of previous universes. Then Sagan had a thought: with an infinite number of universes, there must be some universes in which we do have a memory of previous universes. What Sagan failed to see was the implications of this theory, as it practically proves that in at least some universes there must be a God -- one who is able to reverse entropy and who is able to know what is going on in all other universes. And if such a being were to arise (as he must, according to Sagan's corollary to the consolation of Descartes), he would quite naturally begin to control the course of development of other universes in order to reproduce himself, have companionship, and prevent the collapse of his own universe.

Now, consider what the prophets have said about God, especially in the latter days:

1) He created the universe as we know it by speaking a word: "Let there be light."

2) The gods watched the universe "until they were obeyed" according Abraham.

3) Having found or created a universe that will obey, the gods began to control the development of that universe.

4) The gods created spirit children to inhabit that universe, and continue to select for those that will obey.

5) The gods created mortal bodies for those spirit children in order to give them practice in making the elements obey and in order to learn further which of the spirit children will obey.

6) The gods showed absolutely no compunction in using the materials found in the universe, being willing, essentially, to cause the extinction of whatever life may have existed on some planets in order to make room for the physical bodies that the spirits would inhabit. In other words, they destroy that which will not obey in order to make room for that which will.

7) The universe itself is currently subject to decay and entropy, but the gods have the power to reverse that and they will.

God is the source of all light in the universe, gives power to the sun and the stars, creates new worlds, and does everything else a being not subject to entropy would be expected to do.

9) God is perfect and just, and everything that happens in the universe must be balanced between justice and mercy, or the universe would be destroyed.

I think Hugh Nibley was beginning to think about this, from writings in "Temple and Cosmos" for example.

Now, there are several problems with this idea, not least the assertion in the scriptures that there was no death (and by extension, no entropy) before the fall of Adam. However, I do not see that as insurmountable, but rather something that shows a working theory like this requires some refinement yet.

Man, that

[Mighty Curelom]

To argue that something has been poorly designed does not help the anti-ID cause. The Yugo may have been a really bad car, but no one thinks it occured naturally through evolution. At best your examples show evidence of sub-optimal design, but it is still design.

If you want to claim that God is stupid or incompetent enough to design animals with eyes that can't open, be my guest.

[Knight who says Ne]

Knight, just because someone has a pre-programmed bias against something doesn't mean their arguments should be discarded just for that reason alone. I don't even reject apologists just because they have no choice but to begin their work with the conclusion that the church is true.

I was trying to engage in an open minded discussion. It would be difficult to engage a KKK member in a open minded discussion of civil rights. It would be fruitless to have an open minded discussion of capitalism with a Marxist.

Unlike my opponents in this discussion, I don't reject their belief of evolution. But I do believe that the evolutionary process was guided by outside influence rather than random chance, and given that, such outside influence (Intelligent Design) is far more plausiable than random changes that runs contrary to over whelming odds. I don't have a problem with teaching evolution in school. I have a problem with teaching evolution ONLY and off the top rejection of any other plausable theories. Kinda like teaching abstinance ONLY without the benefits of also teaching safe sex, or teaching capitalism without other opposing economics mechanisms like socialism or communism.

If we teach only one view at the expense of other equally plausible views, then we become no better then Hitler's Germany, many Middle East contries, or even the former Soviet Union.

[Makarios]

To argue that something has been poorly designed does not help the anti-ID cause. The Yugo may have been a really bad car, but no one thinks it occured naturally through evolution. At best your examples show evidence of sub-optimal design, but it is still design.

If you want to claim that God is stupid or incompetent enough to design animals with eyes that can't open, be my guest.

So now you would like to shift the debate from science to theology? Once you have admitted their is a designer, then we can discuss what kind of designer we are dealing with.