design theory defeats itself

[ZekeTheElder]

... 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.

I think you may be my new hero, on this board at least. The ability to have one's mind changed is the hallmark of intellegence (to quote myself).

What forum was it please?

[sidewinder]

The two objections I see from IDers are (here we are being truthful and not pretending ID is independent of God):

1. We don't know God's motives

2. We live in a fallen world (see the link by M above)

There are no ultimate metaphysical criteria that I'm aware of which define good design. BUT, in that case, who's to say the particular arrangement of legos sitting in a big bucket in one of my closets is NOT evidence of alien or other intelligent handiwork? ID when thinking about biological systems relate them to what they know from human made mechanical systems. If blood clotting cascades appear horribly kloogy -- effective as they are -- the atheist says, "Why would the smartest guy in the universe do it that way?" to which the theist shrugs, "We don't know his motives."

While this may ultimately be true, it's an ad hoc argument. Because we had to begin with the assumption that human design would be our criteria for all design. We can't just argue that a biological system bears the signature of design because in one way it's like what an intelligent human would do on purpose, but in another way that it isn't -- just happens to be because God's ways aren't man's ways. This is the same argument believers use to make sense of the good and bad things that happen to them. I could just as easily justify the particular seemingly random arrangement of legos I have in a big bucket upstairs as the design of God -- I don't know what his goals were when carefully placing them as he did. But if I begin with the assumption that what we know about human architecture is our criteria for identifying design, then I can't so easily make that appeal.

The second objection (from the Dembski link),

"This is a fallen world. The good that God initially intended is no longer fully in evidence. Much has been perverted. Dysteleology, the perversion of design in nature, is a reality"

I see two choices. Choice one, if we accept a literal Garden of Eden, we'd then have to make the argument that the human body didn't have it's design flaws based on human standards of optimization in the Garden of Eden. So what, since the fall 90% of our useless genes did code for something? Or they just started building up after the fall? Blood clotting cascades weren't Rube Goldberg jerry rigging before the fall? C'mon.

The other choice would be man evolving after the fall which means dropping Genesis as a literal account. Maybe Dembski does just that.

[asbestosman]

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.

It's no worse than the problem of evil. In fact it may be a part of it. You know--why design an Earth full of hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, and bodies prone to painful diseases and imperfections not immediately caused by the agency of other humans?

[ZekeTheElder]

You said my argument was weak, and then provided even more examples of why it is sound. 

Markarios

[sidewinder]

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.

Knight, your mistake is to assert as if it were common knowledge that ID is an equally plausible view to that of neo-Darwinism. We don't have a gigantic super-computer that we can run both through and which spits out with certainty the plausibility of any theory. If we did, we could tell for sure if you are right. Unfortunately we have to rely on the work of experts in the field. ID is a joke to the majority of the academic world. It has only a handful of peer-reviewed publications. If I'm not mistaken, Behe just came out with his first a few months ago. You can't with any seriousness consider such a minority position as "equally plausible" to the well-established neo-Darwinian paradigm and deserving of equal time in introductory classrooms. You don't appear to understand that. Like every other theory, your ID must win its battle in the academic world as a serious theory, and then we can talk about revising textbooks.

[spinner]

I was trying to engage in an open minded discussion.

[Knight who says Ne]

ID is a joke to the majority of the academic world.

This should read...

ID is a joke to the majority of the [atheistic] academic world.

[Makarios]

ID researchers look for patterns that they don

[cdowis]

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

This is the old "I don't understand, so it must be false" fallacy. I really think this is the height of arrogance, and this type of thinking brought us centuries of the Dark Ages. Your description of the Designer may be a mirror of your own ignorance.

May I humbly suggest that you read the history of science to begin your education out of the morass of ignorance and arrogance. You might then do a study of quantum physics, to have a better understanding of "reality".

Perhaps there is a reason or purpose for which you are incqapable of comprehending.

The nature of animals will change during the Millenium, the lion eating grass, for example.

[spinner]

>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,

[sidewinder]

ID is a joke to the majority of the [atheistic] academic world.

No, ID is a joke to the vast majority of the academic world. Including those who believe in God. You're Mormon right? Do you think Mormon BYU biology professors teach Behe and Dembski in their classroom? Remember, BYU is a private school, they could do so very easy if they wanted.

[Makarios]

ID is a joke to the majority of the [atheistic] academic world.

No, ID is a joke to the vast majority of the academic world. Including those who believe in God. You're Mormon right? Do you think Mormon BYU biology professors teach Behe and Dembski in their classroom? Remember, BYU is a private school, they could do so very easy if they wanted.

Calling something a 'joke' is a poor substitute for a rational argument.

[cdowis]

>A hammer is a tool whose use is narrow and whose application is limited.

A hammer can build many types of buildings, from a shed to the Taj Mahal. A hammer with a rubber head is used in production applications. Just last Saturday I used one when we were making cleaning kits. I could imagine that even on a space station, it might find a use. In the repair of machinery, autos, etc.

A hammer can also be used as a deadly weapon.

Your imagination is rather limited, dear fellow. Why don't you go back to your ivory tower and come back when you are prepared for the real world.

> A scientific theory, on the other hand, is an attempt to define a universally applicable principle to explain some aspect of our natural world.

I am speaking of the mechanism of evolution. It has a very narrow application, compared to the building of an entire organism. Like a hammer it is a tool. It has no more intelligence to build a complex, self-aware organism, than a hammer has the intelligence to build the Taj Mahal.

>Hammers are and never were intended to be universally applicable to house construction. Furthermore, it can and has been demonstrated that other tools are used in this process.

And that is precisely my point. Evolution alone is incapable of building complex, self aware organisms. There are other processes, other "tools" if you wish, at work here.

>Evolution, on the other hand, is intended as a universally applied principle to the development of all organic life on earth.

Let me repeat, it is universally applied even as a hammer is universally applied in the building trade, but neither have the capacity nor ability to complete a complex structure. Something else is required.

>It has been demonstrated to cause changes to organic life.

It has been demonstrated a million times that a hammer can cause changes to a building structure.

Your logic is flawed.

>Furthermore, no other theory has been proven to effect this process. Despite the fact that the fossil record is incomplete, the instances where organic evolution has been demonstrated have been sufficient to satisfy the scientific community that the principle is universally applicable.

You have made a statement of faith in evolution. It is speculative, unproven and I can understand faith. But it is not a proven fact that evolution has the capability to complete an organism. The fossil record gives no such proof.

You are like the thousands of scientists who looked at the eastward movement of the sun and came to the geocentric model of the universe. A few unanswered questions, no problem. Just a few epicycles here and there.

The geocentric model of the unviverse (with epicycles) gave a complete explanation and model of the universe. Until, at least, scientists were finally willing to look elsewhere.

[spinner]

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

This is the old "I don't understand, so it must be false" fallacy. I really think this is the height of arrogance, and this type of thinking brought us centuries of the Dark Ages. Your description of the Designer may be a mirror of your own ignorance.

May I humbly suggest that you read the history of science to begin your education out of the morass of ignorance and arrogance. You might then do a study of quantum physics, to have a better understanding of "reality".

Perhaps there is a reason or purpose for which you are incqapable of comprehending.

The nature of animals will change during the Millenium, the lion eating grass, for example.

"May I humbly suggest..." you said?

Sorry, I missed it; what part of that post was humble?

[Mighty Curelom]

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

This is the old "I don't understand, so it must be false" fallacy. I really think this is the height of arrogance, and this type of thinking brought us centuries of the Dark Ages. Your description of the Designer may be a mirror of your own ignorance.

May I humbly suggest that you read the history of science to begin your education out of the morass of ignorance and arrogance. You might then do a study of quantum physics, to have a better understanding of "reality".

Perhaps there is a reason or purpose for which you are incqapable of comprehending.

The nature of animals will change during the Millenium, the lion eating grass, for example.

This is ironic because the premise behind ID is basically "I don't understand how complexity could exist without a designer, therefore complexity requires a designer." It's an argument based on ignorance.

Also, as Sidewinder touched on, you're trying to have your cake an eat it too. On one hand, ID proponents tell us that we can recognize intelligently designed objects, and the way we do that is by comparing naturally designed objects with human designed objects. Demski likes to use the example of Mount Rushmore. We can recognize Mount Rushmore as an intelligently designed object because it bears certain hallmarks of intelligent design. But as soon as ID proponents are confronted with a design that is NOT intelligent--that is, a design that does not bear the hallmarks of human design (which, after all, is the ONLY basis for determining whether a design is intelligent or not), they immediately fall back on "well, we can't guess what the motivations of the designer are." Or, in another parlance, "God works in mysterious ways."

You can't do that. If you're claiming that intelligent design is recognizable because it shares the same traits as human design, then you can't claim that intelligent design differs substantially from human design.

This should read...

QUOTE

ID is a joke to the majority of the [atheistic] academic world.

Ah, the vast atheist conspiracy theory. I was wondering when that would come up...

[Makarios]

We can recognize Mount Rushmore as an intelligently designed object because it bears certain hallmarks of intelligent design.  But as soon as ID proponents are confronted with a design that is NOT intelligent--that is, a design that does not bear the hallmarks of human design (which, after all, is the ONLY basis for determining whether a design is intelligent or not), they immediately fall back on "well, we can't guess what the motivations of the designer are." Or, in another parlance, "God works in mysterious ways."

ID proponents don't claim there is such a thing as design which is not intelligent, so I'm not sure where you are coming from. I'll quote Dembski here:

Intelligent design needs to be distinguished from apparent design on the one hand and optimal design on the other. Apparent design looks designed but really isn't. Optimal design is perfect design and hence cannot exist except in an idealized realm (sometimes called a "Platonic heaven"). Apparent and optimal design empty design of all practical significance.

You seem to be suggesting that only 'optimal' design qualifies as design. Unless something is 'perfect' it could not have been designed. If the proportions on the faces at Mount Rushmore were distorted would you suggest the monument came about by natural forces?

[Makarios]

This is ironic because the premise behind ID is basically "I don't understand how complexity could exist without a designer, therefore complexity requires a designer." It's an argument based on ignorance.

I don't understand how the Egyptian Pyramids could have come about through natural forces, therefore they appear designed.

Please explain the why the the above statement is based upon ignorance, according to the logic of your last post.

[cdowis]

>This is ironic because the premise behind ID is basically "I don't understand how complexity could exist without a designer, therefore complexity requires a designer." It's an argument based on ignorance.

I did not make that argument. I am responding to the really stupid statement that ID has been "disproved" because he does not understand.

The rest of your post is about someone else.

[Mighty Curelom]

I don't understand how snowflakes can look so dang pretty without each one being individually designed by an angel. Therefore, snowflakes are designed by angels.

That is an argument based on ignorance. Just because I don't understand how snowflakes could occur without being individually designed doesn't mean they must be individually designed. And just because science doesn't YET know EXACTLY how (for example) complex microcellular processes arose naturalistically, to argue from our current ignorance that those processes MUST be the product of intelligent design is just as silly as claiming snowflakes are produced by angels.

You seem to be suggesting that only 'optimal' design qualifies as design. Unless something is 'perfect' it could not have been designed.

Optimal design would be expected from an omnipotent, all-knowing cosmic creator. But that's not even what I'm requiring. All I'm asking for is non-stupid design. Giving moles eyes is stupid. It's not just non-optimal. It's incredibly stupid. A five year old would have the foresight not to design animals with eyes, then cover them with fused eyelids. You're asking me to believe that this "unidentified" intelligent designer (wink wink) can put together something so incredibly complex and sophisticated as the mammalian immune system, or the even more complex goings-on that happen on the cellular level CAN'T FIGURE OUT THAT MOLES DON'T NEED EYES??

Please.

[cdowis]

>And just because science doesn't YET know EXACTLY how (for example) complex microcellular processes arose naturalistically, to argue from our current ignorance that those processes MUST be the product of intelligent design is just as silly as claiming snowflakes are produced by angels.

Snowflakes are not complex interactive systems -- they are simple forms with no relationship to the design of any other snowflake. The design of one snowflake does not affect the design of another. In a human system, each part of the design interacts another part.

Your snowflake example is superficial, and is a false analogy.

[spinner]

>A hammer is a tool whose use is narrow and whose application is limited.

A hammer can build many types of buildings, from a shed to the Taj Mahal.

[Makarios]

I don't understand how snowflakes can look so dang pretty without each one being individually designed by an angel.  Therefore, snowflakes are designed by angels.

That is an argument based on ignorance.  Just because I don't understand how snowflakes could occur without being individually designed doesn't mean they must be individually designed.  And just because science doesn't YET know EXACTLY how (for example) complex microcellular processes arose naturalistically, to argue from our current ignorance that those processes MUST be the product of intelligent design is just as silly as claiming snowflakes are produced by angels. 

You seem to be suggesting that only 'optimal' design qualifies as design. Unless something is 'perfect' it could not have been designed.

Optimal design would be expected from an omnipotent, all-knowing cosmic creator. But that's not even what I'm requiring. All I'm asking for is non-stupid design. Giving moles eyes is stupid. It's not just non-optimal. It's incredibly stupid. A five year old would have the foresight not to design animals with eyes, then cover them with fused eyelids. You're asking me to believe that this "unidentified" intelligent designer (wink wink) can put together something so incredibly complex and sophisticated as the mammalian immune system, or the even more complex goings-on that happen on the cellular level CAN'T FIGURE OUT THAT MOLES DON'T NEED EYES??

Please.

You completely missed the point. There are legitimate criteria of design and everyone knows this. They only deny it when the implications become uncomfortable for their worldview. Will science eventually be able to explain the pyramids through natural forces? Of course not--it is not a matter of giving them enough time.

I don't know enough about moles to answer to address your point about this specifically, and I doubt you do either. But your point is irrelevant. Stupid design is still design. And your assessment of 'stupidity' is incredibly subjective:

No real designer attempts optimality in the sense of attaining perfect design. Indeed, there is no such thing as perfect design. Real designers strive for constrained optimization, which is something completely different. As Henry Petroski, an engineer and historian at Duke, aptly remarks in Invention by Design: "All design involves conflicting objectives and hence compromise, and the best designs will always be those that come up with the best compromise."[1] Constrained optimization is the art of compromise between conflicting objectives. This is what design is all about. To find fault with biological design because it misses an idealized optimum, as Stephen Jay Gould regularly does, is therefore gratuitous. Not knowing the objectives of the designer, Gould is in no position to say whether the designer has come up with a faulty compromise among those objectives. And neither are you.

In any case, you are not dealing with science when you call some design 'stupid.' You are in the realm of theology and aesthetics. I thought you were trying to argue from science.

[cdowis]

>You're asking me to believe that this "unidentified" intelligent designer (wink wink) can put together something so incredibly complex and sophisticated as the mammalian immune system, or the even more complex goings-on that happen on the cellular level CAN'T FIGURE OUT THAT MOLES DON'T NEED EYES??

Well, the problem with your reasoning is that you are assuming that the designer had dedicated himself to only one design -- the mole.

In reality, there are thousands upon thousand of creatures which are in the design.

And we use the concept of "reusable design" or parts. The efficiency of this concept is that the same basic designs are used in multiple creatures -- the same mouth, the same digestive system, the same circulatory system, etc with the necessary modification.

In such a model, it is actually more efficient to design the mole with eyes, even if they are unnecessary (as far as we know). The mole is made up of a common design family, re-usable parts, so to speak.

This is how families of creatures are related -- they have similar designs such as the rodent family, cats, fish, birds, etc.

If you have already designed the sparrow, for example, you don't have to start all over again when designing the falcon or owl.

[katherine the great]

Will science eventually be able to explain the pyramids through natural forces? Of course not--it is not a matter of giving them enough time.

[thesometimesaint]

katherine the Great:

Thought you might get a chuckle from this....

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512