Intelligent design legitimate science?

[BGoodForGoodSake]

So, my response was to show how intelligent design was not scientific. You then contradicted yourself by saying:
...intelligent design is a theory, not an experiment.

In order for something to be scientific, you have to be able to do an experiment and gather data. That was my whole point, to show that I.D. is not scientific, because you asked me to.

I haven't contradicted myself. And their have indeed been experiments. Doolittle, for example, cites an experiment with mice and removing certain blood clotting agents to refute Michael Behe. The ironic twist is that Doolittle didn't bother and read what happenned, and actually bolstered Behe's position-because it was shown that the blood clotting system is in fact irreducible. And, as irreducible complexity is the mark of intelligence...(just look at your computer...I dare you to disconnect your power supply, or pull out your processor, or remove your graphics card, or hard drive....)

The software running on your computer is dependant on all of those features so you cannot remove any of them. Obviously alot of applications will work fine withut a graphics card, such as computers which run processes in the microwave. However at one point the software was not dependant on a hard drive. This was because computers then did not include hard drives. Also even at one point there was no central processor. And the punch cards then contained simple logical steps.

So we go from a simple punch card device to one which has a cpu, then memory is added a hard drive and finally co-processors like a video card. The software evolved with it along the way. So for you to ask to remove a device is misleading, you disregard the history of software and its interdependancy with hardware components.

In otherwords addition of new useful parts lead to upgrades in software which led to dependancy on components which prior to upgrade did not exist.

And my point with the dragon and leprechaun was that just because some event at ALL is rare doesn't mean you can statistically extrapolate anything beyond what you have found. I didn't mean that leprechauns invented the earth.

Not rare, impossible. And it's not only negative evidence, there's positive evidence. But like most people I bother with...you ignored that part. specified complexity, irreducible complexity...marks of intelligence. A simple extrapolation of what we know.

Wrong this is a simple extrapolation of what you don't know. If you knew then the formula for determining the probabilities would not have so many variables. Right?

An example: Event A is exceedingly rare.... this must mean a leprechaun had something to do with it!

If leprechauns are known to do event A, then, yes, you could point to them. But, as leprechauns don't exist outside of Scotland and possibly Ireland, it's highly unlikely that Event A in the US could be attributed to a leprechaun.

Leprachauns have been emigrating to the United States for several decades now.

This is the same logic when equating something rare with an intelligent designer. You just can't do it, statistically.

As I've said, but you won't remember it either, so here it is again-it's not just that Event A is impossible-it's that it can be explained by intelligence-because we see intelligence doing the same kind of things today.

Don't put yourself so high in that pedastal you could get light headed. Most of human achievement was reached through the scientific method which is really blind trial and error (systematic research). Most of the theories come from creative individuals who have an epiphony of some sort but its all based on the observations gained from systematic research.

Also, it is possible to test the theory of evolution. Scientists have been in the Galapagos Islands for 40 years studying the evolution of the finches down there. And that is just one example.

That's a horrible example. That'll be microevolution.[/quote]
At what point do you separate microevolution and macroevolution?
I think its more likely that the idea is offensive to you rather than you looking at it objectively.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

The software running on your computer is dependant on all of those features so you cannot remove any of them. Obviously alot of applications will work fine withut a graphics card, such as computers which run processes in the microwave. However at one point the software was not dependant on a hard drive. This was because computers then did not include hard drives. Also even at one point there was no central processor. And the punch cards then contained simple logical steps.

So we go from a simple punch card device to one which has a cpu, then memory is added a hard drive and finally co-processors like a video card. The software evolved with it along the way. So for you to ask to remove a device is misleading, you disregard the history of software and its interdependancy with hardware components.

These are conceptual precursos, not physical...you can't slowly evolve a computer using punch cards to a modern computer...but the concept can be played with. (and I was using my computer as an example...and the monitor plugs into the graphics card).

Wrong this is a simple extrapolation of what you don't know

Of what I do know. I know what kind of marks intelligence leaves behind.

Leprachauns have been emigrating to the United States for several decades now.

You've seen too many movies.

At what point do you separate microevolution and macroevolution?
I think its more likely that the idea is offensive to you rather than you looking at it objectively.

And I could say the same to you regarding many things as well...in which case, we get nowhere.

Microevolution does not create anything novel...but macro must.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

And as a computer doesn't self-replicate, can't use this analogy for evolution, haha! (j/k)

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Leprachauns have been emigrating to the United States for several decades now.

You've seen too many movies.

No, its true.

[MichelleAnn]

AttentionKMartShoppers:

Do YOU self-replicate?

[Kurieuo]

Hi Kurieuo,

I would appreciate it if you would read my posting as well. I never said intelligent design was a religion. I said it is not science.

Would it be appropriate to teach evolution in a religion class?

What was the need for this question then? Just coincidence you use religion rather than say mathematics, or physics? Or how about:

Would you teach astrology in an astronomy class? Should numerology be taught in math classes? Neither of these are religions, I realize, but I am equating it with the point that they do not belong in either of those situations.

Your implications were obvious. Needless to say you've done nothing to say "how" ID isn't science, but you've assumed it as a matter of fact. On the other hand, allow me to quote reasons as to why ID is scientific:

Intelligent design studies patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence. It identifies those features of objects that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause. To see what is at stake, consider Mount Rushmore. The evidence for Mount Rushmore's design is direct—eyewitnesses saw the sculptor Gutzon Borglum spend the better part of his life designing and building this structure. But what if there were no direct evidence for Mount Rushmore's design? Suppose humans went extinct and aliens, visiting the earth, discovered Mount Rushmore in substantially the same condition as now.

In that case, what about this rock formation would provide convincing circumstantial evidence that it was due to a designing intelligence and not merely to wind and erosion? Designed objects like Mount Rushmore exhibit characteristic features or patterns that point to an intelligence. Such features or patterns constitute signs of intelligence. Proponents of intelligent design, known as design theorists, purport to study such signs formally, rigorously, and scientifically. In particular, they claim that a type of information, known as specified complexity, is a key sign of intelligence. An exact formulation of specified complexity first appeared in The Design Inference and was then further developed in No Free Lunch.15

What is specified complexity? Recall the novel Contact by Carl Sagan.16 In that novel, radio astronomers discover a long sequence of prime numbers from outer space. Because the sequence is long, it is complex. Moreover, because the sequence is mathematically significant, it can be characterized independently of the physical processes that bring it about. As a consequence, it is also specified. Thus, when the radio astronomers in Contact observe specified complexity in this sequence of numbers, they have convincing evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence. Granted, real-life SETI researchers have thus far failed to detect designed signals from outer space. The point to note, however, is that Sagan based the SETI researchers' methods of design detection on actual scientific practice.

Many special sciences already employ specified complexity as a sign of intelligence—notably forensic science, cryptography, random number generation, archeology, and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI).17 Design theorists take these methods and apply them to naturally occurring systems.18 When they do, these same methods for identifying intelligence indicate that the delicate balance of cosmological constants (known as cosmological fine-tuning) and the machine-like qualities of certain tightly integrated biochemical systems (known as irreducibly complex molecular machines) are the result of intelligence and highly unlikely to have come about by purely material forces (like the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection and random variation).19 Accordingly, design in cosmology and biology is scientifically detectable, and intelligent design constitutes a legitimate scientific theory.

For more see:
Expert Witness Report: The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design
http://www.designinference.com/document ... embski.pdf (recommend reading)

Kurieuo

[MichelleAnn]

The problem I have with intelligent design is that WE define these complexities as having to do with intelligent design. I feel ID proponents look at this as, "well, it is extremely complex... it MUST have been done by something other than a natural process..." without being able to test for this process itself.

Again, may I state that I am not downplaying intelligent design as a theory in the least. I understand, for instance, that the eye of an octopus is exceedingly complex and I honestly can't fathom how or how long it would take for natural processes to "come up" with this. I also can't even begin to fathom how long 1 billion years is (for instance), so I do not discard evolution as a theory either.

However, the scientific community regards evolution as the most current and reasonable explanation for the way processes have occurred on earth, based on studies regarding microevolution and studying the fossil record. I know you will jump on this and say there are many gaps in the fossil record, which no one can deny. But that is where evolution and ID differ; the fossil record is hard evidence and intelligent design remains a theory without any evidence (other than strict probabilities) to back it up.

So, based upon what is known about tangible evidence as of now, I still maintain that evolution be taught in schools and ID remain outside of the classroom. I am sure that if there were some way ID could be thoroughly proven and replicated (meaning there were hard evidence of an intelligent designer), it could eventually be accepted. Until then, ID should remain out of the classrooms and in the hands of intelligent, logical people looking to prove a well-thought out theory.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Intelligent design studies patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence. It identifies those features of objects that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause. To see what is at stake, consider Mount Rushmore. The evidence for Mount Rushmore's design is direct—eyewitnesses saw the sculptor Gutzon Borglum spend the better part of his life designing and building this structure. But what if there were no direct evidence for Mount Rushmore's design? Suppose humans went extinct and aliens, visiting the earth, discovered Mount Rushmore in substantially the same condition as now.

I would conclude that it was produced by a lifeform, just as shells, termite colonies, and worm tracks.

In that case, what about this rock formation would provide convincing circumstantial evidence that it was due to a designing intelligence and not merely to wind and erosion? Designed objects like Mount Rushmore exhibit characteristic features or patterns that point to an intelligence. Such features or patterns constitute signs of intelligence. Proponents of intelligent design, known as design theorists, purport to study such signs formally, rigorously, and scientifically. In particular, they claim that a type of information, known as specified complexity, is a key sign of intelligence. An exact formulation of specified complexity first appeared in The Design Inference and was then further developed in No Free Lunch.15

I suppose the convection towers built to cool termite colonies is a sign of intelligence. However specified complexity can come about naturally. Would you not say that the properties of chemical elements is specified complexity? The number of protons determines chemical properties which effect how chemicals interact. But what does it matter if someone specified this, science just wants to describe it. Because the specifier is not evident.

What is specified complexity? Recall the novel Contact by Carl Sagan.16 In that novel, radio astronomers discover a long sequence of prime numbers from outer space. Because the sequence is long, it is complex. Moreover, because the sequence is mathematically significant, it can be characterized independently of the physical processes that bring it about. As a consequence, it is also specified. Thus, when the radio astronomers in Contact observe specified complexity in this sequence of numbers, they have convincing evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence.

Yes and as far as we know organic lifeforms are capable of this, never has a creater been observed. Any communication between organisms requires a protocol. Be they aliens trying to reach out, or bees doing the honey dance.

Granted, real-life SETI researchers have thus far failed to detect designed signals from outer space. The point to note, however, is that Sagan based the SETI researchers' methods of design detection on actual scientific practice.

But again there is no evidence that a supernatural designer operates in the same manor.

Many special sciences already employ specified complexity as a sign of intelligence—notably forensic science, cryptography, random number generation, archeology, and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI).17 Design theorists take these methods and apply them to naturally occurring systems.

Without precedence and without evidence of a designer.

18 When they do, these same methods for identifying intelligence indicate that the delicate balance of cosmological constants (known as cosmological fine-tuning) and the machine-like qualities of certain tightly integrated biochemical systems (known as irreducibly complex molecular machines) are the result of intelligence and highly unlikely to have come about by purely material forces (like the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection and random variation).

Lets imagine a unicellular organism which adapts the ability to process oxygen. And once it has this adaptation it has more available energy to support a myriad of other processes. After a few modifications the organism is dependant on the energy provided by the oxygen respiration. I cannot remove any parts or the organism fails. Is this irreducible complexity?

19 Accordingly, design in cosmology and biology is scientifically detectable, and intelligent design constitutes a legitimate scientific theory.

There is no basis to extrapolate organic origins of intelligence(human beings) to supernatural forces. As far as it can be seen mutations occur without the physical interaction of a creator.[/quote]

[Kurieuo]

Granted, real-life SETI researchers have thus far failed to detect designed signals from outer space. The point to note, however, is that Sagan based the SETI researchers' methods of design detection on actual scientific practice.

But again there is no evidence that a supernatural designer operates in the same manor.

Seriously, is this just ingrained in you guys or what? Where was a "supernatural designer" mentioned within that text I quote on ID? Again, ID does not state who the designer is, but only states we should be able to detect, and can detect, signs of intelligence when we come across them. What "features" do we observe in things like Mt. Rushmore and so forth to conclude intelligence was behind them? Can we develop methodologies and carry them over into science? I see no reason why not.

9 Accordingly, design in cosmology and biology is scientifically detectable, and intelligent design constitutes a legitimate scientific theory.

There is no basis to extrapolate organic origins of intelligence(human beings) to supernatural forces. As far as it can be seen mutations occur without the physical interaction of a creator.

Again, a strawman. Where was it stated that the origins of human beings were attributable to supernatural forces? This is something you are projecting onto ID. Just like I don't know who designs Mt. Rushmore, I can still evidentally conclude it is designed. Thus, you may not like ID proponents not saying who or what the designer is, but this in no way takes away from the fact hallmarks of design could be observable in biology. And it is precisely this methodological approach and observation within ID that makes it scientific, regardless of whether or not you think methods involving "specified complexity" or "irreducible complexity" can reveal signs of intelligence.

Kurieuo

[Jbuza]

The problem I have with intelligent design is that WE define these complexities as having to do with intelligent design. I feel ID proponents look at this as, "well, it is extremely complex... it MUST have been done by something other than a natural process..." without being able to test for this process itself.

Than you fail to understand how science works. You have no way of testing to see if natural selection and environement mutation can creata species. Besides you don't test the theoretical prespective, that is what drives the hypothesis, and it is the hypothesis that you test. If you make evolution face up to the standard that you place on ID you get exactly the same thing. But evolution insulates itself from other ideas that could lead to discovery and is disgusting. WHY is evolution scared of the arena of ideas and why is it not educating people to the processes and tools and providing an overview of other theories. IT is a bastardized sad child of its fromer self,and is laughable. I find it embarrasing.

So, based upon what is known about tangible evidence as of now, I still maintain that evolution be taught in schools and ID remain outside of the classroom.

Your position seems fascist, indoctrinating, and harmful to the children to me. Let me clarify that position by saying that in large part I say this because Science has become top heavy in that a certian quanitity of what you will find taught in these schools is in dispute and has valid alternative explanations that open science up to the arena of ideas and promotes investigation and discovery. There has been a great deal of information discovered about the world and applied by man to great gain, but for Science to bastardize itself and become a pitiful child ignoring very strong evidence, i.e the world around us, the order of God's creation as he describes it in Genises being validated by science, the utterly unique abilities of Man that should appear in more species per evolution, these things make other explanations very important alternatives that should not be ignored. Evolution is not science when it insulates itself from critique, this makes it laughable and freightening.

[Matthew_O]

Wow, usually when people copy and paste material, the initial material is pretty good. I'm glad Jbuza feels free to ignore this standard.

[Jbuza]

Wow, usually when people copy and paste material, the initial material is pretty good. I'm glad Jbuza feels free to ignore this standard.

Well I guess you are case in point then aren't you. You good student you. I will have you know that everything I worte came from my own mind, I don't need you are anyone telling me what to think. Did you attack the post because you have no rebuttal? You attack because you fear with I wrote about your pitiful position

[Jbuza]

But thanks for the kind compliment that what I wrote must have been written by someone far more intellignet than I

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Granted, real-life SETI researchers have thus far failed to detect designed signals from outer space. The point to note, however, is that Sagan based the SETI researchers' methods of design detection on actual scientific practice.

But again there is no evidence that a supernatural designer operates in the same manor.

Seriously, is this just ingrained in you guys or what? Where was a "supernatural designer" mentioned within that text I quote on ID? Again, ID does not state who the designer is, but only states we should be able to detect, and can detect, signs of intelligence when we come across them. What "features" do we observe in things like Mt. Rushmore and so forth to conclude intelligence was behind them? Can we develop methodologies and carry them over into science? I see no reason why not.

The reason it is implied as supernatural is because as far as we know there are no forces guiding mutation. There is no physical presence of an intelligence present when microevolution occurs. So lacking concrete evidence the intelligence behind the design must operate using an unknown method. There is no evidence of a designer in the fossil record, no artifacts of creation or workshops.

9 Accordingly, design in cosmology and biology is scientifically detectable, and intelligent design constitutes a legitimate scientific theory.

There is no basis to extrapolate organic origins of intelligence(human beings) to supernatural forces. As far as it can be seen mutations occur without the physical interaction of a creator.

Again, a strawman. Where was it stated that the origins of human beings were attributable to supernatural forces? This is something you are projecting onto ID. Just like I don't know who designs Mt. Rushmore, I can still evidentally conclude it is designed. Thus, you may not like ID proponents not saying who or what the designer is, but this in no way takes away from the fact hallmarks of design could be observable in biology. And it is precisely this methodological approach and observation within ID that makes it scientific, regardless of whether or not you think methods involving "specified complexity" or "irreducible complexity" can reveal signs of intelligence.

With no precedent showing that organic life is designed how can this conceptual jump be made. Lets take for example a sponge. The cells in the sponge are able to work together to construct a very complicated latice for support. If some alien species discovers it they will conclude biological origins, just as in the case with Mount Rushmore. This doesn't bring us any closer to the origins of life. We already know that all artifacts of a certain complexity on earth have biological origins, from seashells to super computers.

[Jbuza]

The reason it is implied as supernatural is because as far as we know there are no forces guiding mutation. There is no physical presence of an intelligence present when microevolution occurs. So lacking concrete evidence the intelligence behind the design must operate using an unknown method. There is no evidence of a designer in the fossil record, no artifacts of creation or workshops.

So are you saying that science is some kind of manhood contest? Neither theoretical processes of origins can be tested or verified. They are two explanations that serve to create varied hypothesis and areas of investigation. Did newton see a physical appearence come and make the apple fall? The known evidence is as it is, but both theories explain it.

I simply cannot understand this attitude, why not welcome all theoretical perspectives to try and gain a fuller understanding of the things that we seek to discover.

It's so sad, it inhibits science. IT insulates theories from criticism.