The Other Intelligent Design Theories

The Skeptic ^ | March, 2006 | David Brin

[muawiyah]

Because, the primary claim of evolution is that new species evolve from old species.

So, let's see some new species.

Factoids.

It's really not enough to observe change in critters over time (digging up skeletons, examining DNA, all that sort of stuff). We gotta' see 'em shooting blanks.

[King Prout]

bump for later reading

[js1138]

Ultimately, sexual selection can only work in a wealthy economy. You have to have surplus income to support fancy tail feathers.

"Natural" selection trumps the excesses of sexual selection.

[muawiyah]

You gotta' admit you don't hit on that one every day.

[sully777]

Can one argue some THING unseen does not exist as that THING?

[Gordongekko909]

You could certainly argue for the non-existence of a thing, but you probably wouldn't get too far with it. I could argue, for example, that time travel is impossible. 'course, I'd be disproven the second it actually happened and was observed. This is why people generally don't argue for the non-existence of stuff. Aside from the usual problems associated with proving a negative, new things keep showing up all the time.

Generally, though, the burden of proving the existence of a thing is on the party positing the existence of that thing. It makes a lot more sense to prove the existence of something by showing people one, than to attempt to prove the non-existence of something by searching each and every four-dimensional zone of space-time in all of the universe that ever was and ever will be, and then submitting an affidavit claiming that the thing was not found.

[dread78645]

You gotta' admit you don't hit on that one every day.

That and Hasidim riot.

[muawiyah]

"Hasidim Riot" is one of the best ~ I'm imagining the whole lot of 'em out there in their high hats, locks, and suits ~ diamonds spilling out of their pockets ~ tossing stuff, burning cars ~ DOES NOT COMPUTE.

[sully777]

Therefore, you cannot prove the non-existence of God or evolution. You can only point out failed results through experimentation that may lead to a conclusion that one idea is a failure while the other is a success.

And they call me a hell-bound heathen for thinking such things.

[Gordongekko909]

Pretty much, yeah. God can't be proven because God is not directly observable. God cannot be disproven because the nature of God is inherently unknowable (theodicy takes a crack at this), and there is therefore no way to know if any natural phenomena deviate from it.

Evolution is a different scenario; it is provable because the way that it works can be tested and observed. It is disprovable because things can be shown to work differently than evolution would have them work (and this new theory may not necessarily invoke any sort of intelligent designer).

The failure of ID is that it tries to make itself a "default" theory; basically, it says that in the absence of any proven theory, it is to be taken as the "correct" one. From that point, all an ID proponent needs to do is attempt to cast as much doubt as possible on all other theories without actually providing any support for his own theory.

But there is no such thing as a "default" theory. Nothing is to be considered "known" until it is actually known. That's how science works. An attempt to sidestep this rule is a commission of the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance (we don't know, so it must be x). If evolution is, in fact, false, a perfectly acceptable alternative explanation would simply be "we don't know."

[Stultis]

Because, the primary claim of evolution is that new species evolve from old species.

Yeah, of the common descent aspect of evolutionary theory. But that still doesn't explain your apparent belief that speciation has to be, and must be demonstrated to be, the result of natural selection. Natural selection is the (principle) mechanism explaining morphological change and adaptive shifts. It's not meant to explain branching evolution and common descent.

So, let's see some new species.

O.K.

Observed Instances of Speciation
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

It's really not enough to observe change in critters over time (digging up skeletons, examining DNA, all that sort of stuff).

Why not? I mean that kind of thing is far, far from the only evidence we have for evolution. It's indeed "not enough" in the sense that there is, in fact, far more. But why is it "not enough" in principle? After all the most general definition of evolution is "change over time" in biological organisms.

All you have to do is combine this, "change over time," with the assumption of continuity -- i.e. the "biogenetic law" claiming that living things only come from other living things by means of biological reproduction -- and you've got the big picture of biological evolution independently of specific mechanisms.

[whattajoke]

Physicist, It's obvious someone didn't read your whole Malevolent Design link (not that he should waste his time!)

Contained within:
"So one candidate for malevolent intelligent design would be the ichneumon wasp. This insect, of the order Hymenoptera (which includes wasps, bees, and ants) is actually a family of some 40,000 species. It typically lays its eggs on the larva or pupa (chrysalis) of a moth, butterfly, other insect or spider. After the ichneumon egg hatches, its larva will nourish itself by devouring the fats and body fluids of its host, but in such a clever way so that the host does not die until the ichneumon larva is ready to make its own cocoon. Whether this is certainly to be identified as malevolent may be disputed. After all, many of the insects that are killed by the Ichneumonidae are pests to human farmers. But it is certainly malevolent from the perspective of the host caterpillar!"

[muawiyah]

The "biogenetic law" was repealed by Archers, Daniel, Midland several years back. The discovery of viral and bacterial gene sequences in the human genome aided in nailing down the idea that there is no "biogenetic law" possible in this particular biosphere.

Obviously we need a new word for what you are trying to express ~ clearly no one has come up with it yet.

On the other hand, I think we really do need to pursue how viral bodies inserted into the genome of any particular critter cause change, if any, and is there any engineering meaning to the existence of tens of millions of different kinds of viruses just seeming to float around in the ocean.

[sully777]

Thus agnosticism

[Creationist]

I do not hold to the idea of intelligent design because as you stated many leave God out of his creation, which he should get all the Glory. I am not saying God is not intelligent because he is, I just do not use ID as the term for creation as the Holy Bible says.

I am a young earth creationist. I believe and hold firm to the age of around 6000 years since God created the Universe and everything in it, including the animals that went extinct, no evolution in the mix only adaptation and variation.

Those of you who find it hard to believe in a creation only 6000 years ago by an all powerful God, yet you can believe in a scenario of nothing exploding, then coalescing into a mass, rain falling in a oxygen deprived world for millions of years washing a mix of chemicals into a puddle then being struck by lighting, creating simple amino acids which in turn into single celled then multicellular critters and eventually you have it 4.6 billion years pass. Here we are with a mutation rate of about 30 mutations per year which have seemed to stop.

[js1138]

Bully for you. Have a nice day.

[js1138]

I think the original catepillar was caught eating an apple. Ichneumon is a just and wise consequense, and humane too, since it is instructive.