Freeper Research on Framing the Intelligent Design Argument

Various | June 13, 2005 | Alamo-Girl

[Alamo-Girl]

The debate between evolution and intelligent design seems endless – not only on this forum but on school boards, news forums, origin-of-life forums all over the web, and so on. Moreover it appears there is a trend in the mainstream media to equate intelligent design with “creationism” and also to declare it the “conservative” view, which implies a political motive.

Perhaps the frequent repetition tactic is to characterize conservative voters leading into the next general election? If so, IMHO, we conservatives ought to be prepared with a ready response regardless of where we stand on the issue of evolution.

To that end, I’m initiating this thread of resources to gather information to help frame the debate in such a way as to remove or diminish the political ammunition of liberal correspondents we might encounter.

This is just a starter set, albeit a long one (my apologies) - so please add your resources to the collection - or extend or critique any of these points with your insights.

Creationism v Intelligent Design

To frame the debate, I suggest the first step is to have a ready definition and understanding of the these two terms and how they compare. Here are a few resources:

Creationism literally is the belief that ”God created the universe”. It is usually associated with Abrahamic religions although there are other origin beliefs which stipulate an act of creation.

In the evolution debate proper, correspondents frequently try to equate, and thus besmirch, all origin beliefs with such phrases as “it’s turtles all the way down”. We may have some of that in the political debate, but I suspect the liberal correspondent wishes to narrow in on “Christian conservatives”. The other belief systems tend to be liberal and/or vote Democrat.

Christian creationism is based these Scriptures which say that Adam was the first man; whether the first mortal man or the first ensouled man depends on the different doctrines:

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. - Romans 5:12-14

So also [is] the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit. Howbeit that [was] not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man [is] of the earth, earthy: the second man [is] the Lord from heaven. As [is] the earthy, such [are] they also that are earthy: and as [is] the heavenly, such [are] they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. - I Corinthians 15:42-48

The differences in doctrine among Christians stems more from the interpretation of the above passages than from the reading of Genesis 1; nevertheless, by genealogy, Adam had to be created (either as the first mortal man or first ensouled man) approximately 6000 years ago.

Which is the true doctrine is altogether a theological argument, it has no place in science debates despite all the attempts of the liberal correspondents to make it so. Here are the major categories of Christian creationist doctrines known to me, with source links:

One side - which believes that Adam was the first mortal man - believes that the physical evidence must support a young earth (Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research, et al). Because of archeological evidence, dating methods and the expansion of the universe - to liberal correspondents, these are “easy prey” and thus they seek to characterize all creationists and therefore, Christian conservatives, as this type. That characterization is false as “young earth creationism” is not the majority view among Christians.

Another side – which also asserts that Adam was the first mortal man - believes that God created an “old looking” universe, 6000 years ago. There is no scientific argument against this group at all – because there can be no scientific argument that God did not create ‘all that there is’ last Thursday. This is also called the Gosse Omphalos Hypothesis.

Another side believes that Adam was specially created in some unspecified method and/or place, 6000 years ago, thus he might not be the first mortal man from the perspective of earth, but would be the first ensouled man. This assertion is like stacking marbles and there is no scientific argument against a moving target.

Another side – the official Catholic view - is that Adam was the first ensouled man. It does not dispute evolution theory or the age of the universe and thus, there is no scientific argument against this group. Some of this view self-identify as “theistic evolutionists”.

Still another group (my group) – says that God was the only observer of creation week and therefore those 6 days must be viewed from inception space/time coordinates (inflationary theory and relativity). Using that formula, 6 days at the inception coordinates equals approximately 15 billion years at our space/time coordinates, Genesis 1-3 apply to heaven and earth and Adams’ time begins when he is banished to mortality in Genesis 4 (6000 years ago).

Intelligent Design is defined by the Discovery Institute – Center for Science and Culture as holding that ”certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.”

Unlike creationism, intelligent design has no basis in theology at all, no articles of faith, no doctrine, no Holy writ. This is crucially important. Creationism is theological, Intelligent Design is not.

Like evolution theory, it is not an origin-of-life hypothesis nor does it seek to explain “all features” of the universe and of living things. If it did, then it would indeed be “creationism” since it would be making the assertion that the universe was created by an intelligent cause and all features of the universe and living things are attributed to the intelligent cause.

Of course, this is a common belief among Christians. As a Christian, I believe that is Truth. But it is not the Intelligent Design hypothesis - it is theology. Theological terms cannot be mixed with Intelligent Design terms in framing the argument.

The intelligent design hypothesis does not dispute the age of the universe, that mutations occur or that natural selection is a factor. Rather, it asserts that an undirected process cannot explain all features in the universe and in living things.

Most importantly, Intelligent Design does not specify, identify or personify the designer, the intelligent cause. The designer could be any volitional entity including God, collective consciousness, or aliens.

Significantly, the intelligent cause could be an emergent property from naturalistic causes which is the mainstream materialistic explanation for intelligence.

If the liberal correspondent understands this point, the notion that intelligent design = creationism = conservatism has been successfully debunked since mainstream science could hardly be labeled “conservative” politically speaking.

Conversely, if the Intelligent Design hypothesis specified the designer as God, it would indeed be theology and thus, not a subject to be raised in publicly funded education, etc.

Of a truth, the intelligent design hypothesis is theologically and ideologically neutral, despite the liberal correspondent’s attempts to characterize it otherwise.

That is all I have for those who are only interested in blocking the false assertions being made by liberal correspondents.

The following is a collection of resources for those who wish to acquit the intelligent design hypothesis itself, particularly without making a commitment to any particular hypothesis. These are just a few ideas gathered up from rigorous debates here on the forum but they’ve held up rather well. All of your insights on the subject are much appreciated!

My two cents…

The following is intended to frame the debate on broad issues in science. After all, the intelligent design argument is basically a collection of objections to the paradigm of scientific materialism to account for the origin of species, i.e. that the current paradigm is tunnel-visioned. By showing that the objections are actually mainstream, the hypothesis may be acquitted as politically motivated.

Information or What is life v non-life/death in nature?

"How, therefore, we must ask, is it possible for us to distinguish the living from the lifeless if we can describe both conceptually by the motion of inorganic corpuscles?"
Karl Pearson The Grammar of Science

The theory of evolution is frankly incomplete – Darwin never asked or answered the question “what is life?” It is a difficult and unresolved question to this day. It is at the root of objections to methodological naturalism. Following are several views which approach the question from what life “is” rather than the larger view of what is life v. non-life/death:

Comparing three views

High School textbooks: movement, respiration, sensitivity, growth, reproduction, excretion, nutrition

Ernst Bayr: Living things are complex and can adapt in an organized way; The chemistry of life is made up from a unique set of large molecules; Each living organism is individual, and there is much variability between groups; Living things evolve in a non-predetermined way, but a record of their evolution is maintained in their genetic code; Living things are classified by their genetic evolution; All living things have evolved by natural selection. The processes of life cannot be easily predicted; Living things are best recognized by qualitative rather than quantitative characteristics.

Website: structure, reproduction, metabolism, growth, evolution, irritability, resilience

Ervin Bauer (from a post by betty boop):

According to Ervin Bauer (Theoretical Biology, 1935/1967), living systems are characterized by the following:

(1) Living systems preeminently have the characteristic that they are never in thermodynamic equilibrium and, supported by a free energy reservoir, are able to continuously invest work against the realization of the equilibrium that would otherwise set in, given prevailing outer conditions on the basis of the physical and chemical laws. That is, they do not just radiate entropic entropy away into the environmental “sink”; they are able to store it for use to perform “work against the realization of the equilibrium.”

(2) Living systems are strongly spontaneous systems. Bauer writes, “It is typical for every living system that they show spontaneous changes in their states which are not elicited by causes [that are] external to the living system.” Thus they exemplify the quality of emergence.

(3) Living systems are strongly and sensitively responsive systems. That means they are not only able to recognize inputs streaming in from their external environments, but also inputs triggered by internal systemic changes – and can adjust/adapt their internal (and external) activity in ways that preserve themselves as far away from thermodynamic equilibrium (i.e., “heat death”) as possible.

(4) Living systems are “self-organizing systems,” regulated or “ordered” from the global level. Any “macroscopic” living system is composed of a great number and variety of other living systems – cells tissues, organs, etc. Global governance is required for the control, adaptation, regulation, and communication of the subsystems with each other, and also individually and collectively with the global system – all of which conduces to the organic unity and perdurance of the global system itself.

E. J. Chaisson – A unifying concept for Astrobiology: life is ”an open, coherent spacetime structure kept far from thermodynamic equilibrium by a flow of energy through it – a carbon-based system operating in a water-based medium with higher forms metabolizing oxygen.”

Brig Klyce (panspermiast): life is one or more biological cells. ” Every cell is bounded by its own outer membrane and contains a full set of instructions necessary for its operation and reproduction.”

Lukas K. Buehler website dedicated to ‘what is life?’

George Javor: Evidence for Creation

Rickettsiae, chlamidiae and mycoplasmas, on the other hand, are among the smallest known living organisms, and are very much alive. The fact that chlamidiae and rickettsiae are obligate intracellular parasites only means that they have serious metabolic deficiencies. A clear distinction between living entities and nonliving substances is essential for a consideration of whether it is possible to go from one state to the other. For this reason we need to descend into the submicroscopic world of matter.

The elemental compositions of living and nonliving matter differ greatly.4 The actual chemical determination of living matter is done on "once-living matter". Before chemists can analyze living matter, they have to take it apart to isolate its individual components, thereby killing it. Thus the actual phenomenon of "life" is not amenable to detailed chemical scrutiny. In the very process of laying hold of isolated "purified" components of living matter, "life" slips out between the chemists' fingers, and what remains is an inert, "lifeless" substance. This is so because living cells are composed of lifeless, nonliving components. The implication is that the difference between life and death is a question of how biomatter is organized. Therefore, it should be possible to reverse the killing of cells by restoring them to their pre-disruption state. Why this has not yet been done in the laboratory will be discussed in the next chapter.

… In presenting a case for a tight logical link between analyzing the molecular aspects of life and the creationist paradigm, it is not enough to enumerate the components of living matter. Simply knowing the components of living matter is not enough to account for its biological activity.

As the last entry indicates, purely descriptive definitions for “what is life” tend to run aground when one considers death, non-life, artificial life, collectives such as ants and bees - and the exceptions such as bacterial spores, prions, viruses, mimiviruses, etc.

On the forum, betty boop and I have framed the question to emphasize the full import, namely ”what is life v. non-life/death in nature?”

To visualize the question, one might ask what is the difference between a dead skin cell and a live skin cell taken from the same person when both cells have the same DNA and chemicals?

Another way to view the question is to imagine taking a live albatross, a dead albatross and a 12 pound cannonball to the top of the Eiffel tower and throwing them over. What happens next is quite striking and leaves one pondering what and why.

In that regard, we have offered a mathematical definition of life v non-life/death in nature based on Claude Shannon's mathematical theory of communications. Shannon's theory is the origin of the field of mathematics known as information theory and is used in pharmaceutical and cancer research among other things. The discipline is generally known as "information theory and molecular biology".

Information is that which distinguishes life from non-life/death.

Information, paraphrased as “successful communication” is the reduction of uncertainty (Shannon entropy) in a receiver or molecular machine in going from a before state to an after state. It is the action, the communication itself, the arrows on the chart below. It is not the message. The value or meaning of the message being transmitted has no bearing on the model.

Successful communication includes all of the named elements. In biological systems these elements should be interpreted as follows:

• source = the inception, beginning or initiation of a communication:
  interrupt (e.g. presence of food, heat, radiation, other environmental change)

  cycle (e.g. rhythm, timing)

  will

  involuntary, the “will to live” or “want to live” or “struggle to survive” which characterizes all life, plant and animal, amoebas to whales, collectives of organisms, molecular machinery within organisms integrated cooperatively for the organism to survive, individual cells. Also known as life principle and fecundity principle.

  voluntary, “self-will” or "free will" such as intention, abstraction, anticipation, choice. Examples include the will to move a finger, analyze a problem, envision a plan, fly away, etc.

• message = genetic message in DNA (including tRNA)
• encoder/transmitter = transcription into mRNA
• channel (channel code is mRNA code)
• decoder/receiver = translation into protein
• noise = genetic noise (mutations, viruses), noise in genetic code (tRNA), prions

Applied to the enigmas, this definition would interpret all of the following as living with the following restrictions:

Bacteria - autonomous successful communication
Bacterial Spores – autonomous successful communication
Mycoplasmas – autonomous bacterial model parasite successful communication
Mimivirus – autonomous virus model parasite successful communication
Viroids – non-autonomous virus-like noise/mutation contributing to successful/failed communication (no protein coat)
Viruses – non-autonomous virus noise/mutation contributing to successful/failed communication (feeds genetic data to the host)
Prions – non-autonomous protein noise/mutation contributing to successful/failed communication (protein crystallization)

There is so far no known origin for information (the successful communication) in space/time. This should be visualized as activity represented by the arrows on the above chart. Possible origins include a universal vacuum field, harmonics, geometry.

Additional Information Theory and Molecular Biology links:

Schneider: Theory of Molecular Machines
Yockey: Information Theory and Molecular Biology
Adami: Information Theory in Molecular Biology
Biological Information Theory and Chowder Society

Autonomy or What is form?

This is a comparably difficult question. The issue of autonomy goes to the geometry of life and therefore reaches to space/time and beyond. It also goes to the “whole is greater than the sum of its parts” issue and thus is related to the questions of complexity and intelligence.

Some thought experiments:

That a man remains himself although every cell in his body is replaced every seven years.

That a car is a thing distinct from the sum of the parts of the car.

That a magnet can be cut into many pieces and still be a magnet.

That a flatworm cut in two parts is two flatworms.

That an army ant acts as an individual, but a colony of ants conducts raids, keeps a calendar, geometry and constant temperature.

The question also involves philosophy and mathematics – namely, does form exist “in” space/time or is it a manifestation of an existent “beyond” space/time, i.e. Platonic form, mathematical structure. In philosophy, this is the nominalism v realism debate. In mathematics, it is the Aristotle v Plato worldview.

Tegmark: Level IV Universe

According to the Aristotelian paradigm, physical reality is fundamental and mathematical language is merely a useful approximation. According to the Platonic paradigm, the mathematical structure is the true reality and observers perceive it imperfectly. In other words, the two paradigms disagree on which is more basic, the frog perspective of the observer or the bird perspective of the physical laws. The Aristotelian paradigm prefers the frog perspective, whereas the Platonic paradigm prefers the bird perspective....

A mathematical structure is an abstract, immutable entity existing outside of space and time. If history were a movie, the structure would correspond not to a single frame of it but to the entire videotape. Consider, for example, a world made up of pointlike particles moving around in three-dimensional space. In four-dimensional spacetime--the bird perspective--these particle trajectories resemble a tangle of spaghetti. If the frog sees a particle moving with constant velocity, the bird sees a straight strand of uncooked spaghetti. If the frog sees a pair of orbiting particles, the bird sees two spaghetti strands intertwined like a double helix. To the frog, the world is described by Newton's laws of motion and gravitation. To the bird, it is described by the geometry of the pasta--a mathematical structure. The frog itself is merely a thick bundle of pasta, whose highly complex intertwining corresponds to a cluster of particles that store and process information. Our universe is far more complicated than this example, and scientists do not yet know to what, if any, mathematical structure it corresponds.

The Platonic paradigm raises the question of why the universe is the way it is. To an Aristotelian, this is a meaningless question: the universe just is. But a Platonist cannot help but wonder why it could not have been different. If the universe is inherently mathematical, then why was only one of the many mathematical structures singled out to describe a universe? A fundamental asymmetry appears to be built into the very heart of reality.

As a way out of this conundrum, I have suggested that complete mathematical symmetry holds: that all mathematical structures exist physically as well. Every mathematical structure corresponds to a parallel universe. The elements of this multiverse do not reside in the same space but exist outside of space and time.

What is Mathematics?

The view [Platonism] as pointed out earlier is this: Mathematics exists. It transcends the human creative process, and is out there to be discovered. Pi as the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter is just as true and real here on Earth as it is on the other side of the galaxy. Hence the book's title Pi in the Sky. This is why it is thought that mathematics is the universal language of intelligent creatures everywhere....

Barrow goes on to discuss Platonic views in detail. The most interesting idea is what Platonist mathematics has to say about Artificial Intelligence (it does not think it is really possible). The final conclusion of Platonism is one of near mysticism. Barrow writes:

We began with a scientific image of the world that was held by many in opposition to a religious view built upon unverifiable beliefs and intuitions about the ultimate nature of things. But we have found that at the roots of the scientific image of the world lies a mathematical foundation that is itself ultimately religious. All our surest statements about the nature of the world are mathematical statements, yet we do not know what mathematics "is" ... and so we find that we have adapted a religion strikingly similar to many traditional faiths. Change "mathematics" to "God" and little else might seem to change. The problem of human contact with some spiritual realm, of timelessness, of our inability to capture all with language and symbol -- all have their counterparts in the quest for the nature of Platonic mathematics. (pg. 296-297)

Ultimately, Platonism also is just as problematic as Formalism, Inventionism and Intuitionism, because of its reliance on the existence of an immaterial world. That math should have a mystical nature is a curiosity we are naturally attracted to, but ultimately does not really matter. Platonism can think of a mathematical world as an actual reality or as a product of our collective imaginations. If it is a reality then our ability to negotiate Platonic realms is limited to what we can know, if it is a product of our collective imaginations then mathematics is back to an invention of sorts. True or not our knowledge of mathematics is still limited by our brains.

Do there exist mathematical theorems that our brains could never comprehend? If so, then Platonic mathematical realms may exist, if not then math is a human invention. We may as well ask, "Is there a God?" The answer for or against does not change our relationship to mathematics. Mathematics is something that we as humans can understand as far as we need.

Some envision the form as a singular, the universe or biosphere – an evolution of one, autonomy of one, with many subparts (fractals) - bucking the physical laws to change physical reality. Others see autonomy emerging from quantum mechanics. Others see form as a morphogenic field. And still others attribute form to an intelligent cause. Examples of each:

Swenson: Autocatakinetics, evolution and the law of maximum entropy production
Stuart Kauffman on the autonomous agent
Rupert Sheldrake on Morphogenic Fields
Stephen Meyer (intelligent design)

Kauffman’s hypothesis of an autonomous agent may be the closest attempt by methodological naturalism, but others declare that Maxwell’s demon is dead because it violates the 2^nd law of thermodynamics.

Semiosis or How is biological language?

Semiosis is the process that obtains meaning from symbols or signs. It is the language in successful communications – basically the symbolizations wherein meaning is encoded and then decoded. In biological systems, the encoding is DNA/RNA.

The question goes to how the symbols and syntax can emerge by materialistic cause or how/where it may otherwise originate. It extends to how the useful language might grow and diversify over time according to the autonomous form or molecular machinery requiring it.

Pattee: The Physics of Symbols, Bridging the Epistemic Cut
Luis Rocha - Syntactic Autonomy: Or Why There is no Autonomy Without Symbols and how Self-Organizing Systems Might Evolve Them
Rocha: Embodied Evolving Semiosis
Physical Complexity of Symbolic Sequences
Rationality v Randomness
The Panspermia/Cosmic Ancestry hypotheses
The Intelligent Design hypothesis
Schneider: Theory of Molecular Machines
Yockey: Information Theory and Molecular Biology

Complexity or How is biological life complex?

The Santa Fe school takes complexity to apply to absolutely everything. They draw their representative examples from certain chemical reactions, the pattern of the sea coast, atmosphere turbulence, or the structure of a chain of mountains. The complexity of these structures is certainly considerable, but in comparison with the living world, they exhibit in every case an impoverished form of organization, one that is strictly non-functional. No algorithm allows us to understand the complexity of living creatures, this despite these examples, which owe their initial plausibility to the assumption that the physico-chemical world exhibits functional properties that in reality it does not possess. Interview with Marcel-Paul Schützenberger

It seems that whenever one engages a liberal correspondent on the substantive intelligent design objections to evolution theory, the subject turns to complexity – no doubt because the term “irreducible complexity” was coined from the Intelligent Design corner.

But as with the discussion of creationism v. intelligent design – the subject of complexity can be easily twisted to obfuscate the debate. It is a subject rich in math with many different models for complexity and there is a tendency to mix apples and oranges. Perhaps the best approach is to know the various theories, pick a complexity theory, and stick with it in such a debate. Here’s a starting collection:

NECSI: Complex Systems

Complexity is ...[the abstract notion of complexity has been captured in many different ways. Most, if not all of these, are related to each other and they fall into two classes of definitions]:

1) ...the (minimal) length of a description of the system.

2) ...the (minimal) amount of time it takes to create the system.

The length of a description is measured in units of information. The former definition is closely related to Shannon information theory and algorithmic complexity, and the latter is related to computational complexity.

NIST: Kolmogorov Complexity

Definition: The minimum number of bits into which a string can be compressed without losing information. This is defined with respect to a fixed, but universal decompression scheme, given by a universal Turing machine.

Cellular Automata

A cellular automaton (plural: cellular automata) is a discrete model studied in computability theory and mathematics. It consists of an infinite, regular grid of cells, each in one of a finite number of states. The grid can be in any finite number of dimensions. Time is also discrete, and the state of a cell at time t is a function of the state of a finite number of cells called the neighborhood at time t-1. These neighbors are a selection of cells relative to some specified, and does not change (Though the cell itself may be in its neighborhood, it is not usually considered a neighbor). Every cell has the same rule for updating, based on the values in this neighbourhood. Each time the rules are applied to the whole grid a new generation is produced.

Adami: Physical Complexity

In this paper, we skirt the issue of structural and functional complexity by examining genomic complexity. It is tempting to believe that genomic complexity is mirrored in functional complexity and vice versa. Such an hypothesis, however, hinges upon both the aforementioned ambiguous definition of complexity and the obvious difficulty of matching genes with function.

NECSI: Functional Complexity

Given a system whose function we want to specify, for which the environmental (input) variables have a complexity of C(e), and the actions of the system have a complexity of C(a), then the complexity of specification of the function of the system is:

C(f)=C(a) 2 ^C(e)

Where complexity is defined as the logarithm (base 2) of the number of possibilities or, equivalently, the length of a description in bits. The proof follows from recognizing that a complete specification of the function is given by a table whose rows are the actions (C(a) bits) for each possible input, of which there are 2 ^C(e). Since no restriction has been assumed on the actions, all actions are possible and this is the minimal length description of the function. Note that this theorem applies to the complexity of description as defined by the observer, so that each of the quantities can be defined by the desires of the observer for descriptive accuracy. This theorem is known in the study of Boolean functions (binary functions of binary variables) but is not widely understood as a basic theorem in complex systems[15]. The implications of this theorem are widespread and significant to science and engineering.

Wikipedia: Irreducible Complexity

The term "irreducible complexity" is defined by Behe as: "a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning" (Michael Behe, Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference)

Specified Complexity

Life is both complex and specified. The basic intuition here is straightforward. A single letter of the alphabet is specified without being complex (i.e., it conforms to an independently given pattern but is simple). A long sequence of random letters is complex without being specified (i.e., it requires a complicated instruction-set to characterize but conforms to no independently given pattern). A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified...

Metasystem Transition (a kind of punctuated equilibrium)

Consider a system S of any kind. Suppose that there is a way to make some number of copies from it, possibly with variations. Suppose that these systems are united into a new system S' which has the systems of the S type as its subsystems, and includes also an additional mechanism which controls the behavior and production of the S-subsystems. Then we call S' a metasystem with respect to S, and the creation of S' a metasystem transition. As a result of consecutive metasystem transitions a multilevel structure of control arises, which allows complicated forms of behavior.

Concerning complexity of life v. non-life/death in nature – I strongly suggest being familiar with self-organizing complexity as that is the focus of much research these days. It is also compatible with the view that the “intelligent cause” might also be an emergent property:

Self Organizing Systems

The essence of self-organization is that system structure often appears without explicit pressure or involvement from outside the system. In other words, the constraints on form (i.e. organization) of interest to us are internal to the system, resulting from the interactions among the components and usually independent of the physical nature of those components. The organization can evolve in either time or space, maintain a stable form or show transient phenomena. General resource flows within self-organized systems are expected (dissipation), although not critical to the concept itself.

The field of self-organization seeks general rules about the growth and evolution of systemic structure, the forms it might take, and finally methods that predict the future organization that will result from changes made to the underlying components. The results are expected to be applicable to all other systems exhibiting similar network characteristics.

1.3 Definition of Complexity Theory

The main current scientific theory related to self-organization is Complexity Theory, which states:

Critically interacting components self-organize to form potentially evolving structures exhibiting a hierarchy of emergent system properties.

The elements of this definition relate to the following:

Critically Interacting - System is information rich, neither static nor chaotic
Components - Modularity and autonomy of part behaviour implied
Self-Organize - Attractor structure is generated by local contextual interactions
Potentially Evolving - Environmental variation selects and mutates attractors
Hierarchy - Multiple levels of structure and responses appear (hyperstructure)
Emergent System Properties - New features are evident which require a new vocabulary

The above Rocha links describe the rigorous application of self-organizing complexity to biological systems. However, the term itself is used in a variety of disciplines and therefore will mean different things to different correspondents. The term is used to describe complexity in economics, behavior studies and science itself. There is so far no universally agreed definition for the term, but it does have a specific, rigorous meaning with regard to biological systems.

Intelligence or What and how is consciousness, mind, willfulness, soul or spirit?

Intelligence may be seen as awareness with the ability to solve problems. By definition it reaches to consciousness, the mind, willfulness, soul and spirit. Although it is science, it also involves philosophy, ideology and theology. It is also related to autonomy and semiosis.

Concerning philosophy, the debate may turn to dualism v monism. Vitalism and scientific reductionism may also be raised.

In the minds of many a liberal correspondent, the wall between methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism doesn’t exist, much like – in their mind – there is no wall between creationism and Intelligent Design. This is telling in itself, by the way, and perhaps useful as a counter-argument.

Metaphysical naturalism leads to the concept of intelligence as a mere epiphenomenon of the physical brain. To these, the soul cannot exist at all and is demeaned as the “ghost in the machine”. Conversely, we observe intelligence at the cellular level where there is no brain, in swarms which brains are disconnected, in qualia, various experiments with memory and other personal experiences in life.

Following is an example of how philosophical prejudice directly effects the conclusion drawn from experimentation:

Memory-Neurobiology

We begin this review in the early 1960s when the debate as to the role of cellular chemistry in memory actually became quite heated. The controversy we have in mind was prompted by some animal studies carried out by James McConnell and co-workers at the University of Michigan, which seemed to indicate that planaria (flatworms) which had learned a conditioned response could - simply by being eaten - transfer that learning to the planaria which had eaten them! The initial study was by McConnell, Jacobson, and Kimble (1959, cited in McConnell, 1962). They took planaria which had been classically conditioned to turn away from a light stimulus, and cut them into head and tail halves. Over the next four weeks, each half was allowed to regenerate: each tail grew a new head, and each head grew a new tail. The animals were then reconditioned, and the method of savings used to measure the amount of the original learning which had been retained. What the research team wanted to determine, of course, was which half of the test animal held the memory. The original hypothesis, therefore, was that "head" animals would require little retraining (because the head would have contained the original memory), whilst the "tail" animals would require full retraining (because the tail would not have contained any original memory). Much to the research team's surprise, however, both groups displayed equal and substantial retention over the intervening month. Indeed, tails #2 and #5 actually did better than their heads! There were only two possible interpretations for these surprising results: either the study had been technically flawed with an expectancy effect of some sort, or "memory, in the flatworm, was being stored throughout the animal's body" (McConnell, 1962, p567). Wishing not to be dismissed by the rest of the scientific community as "crackpots", McConnell and his team immediately had the results confirmed in a variety of well controlled (blind-scoring) studies, and time after time the original results were confirmed.

Suspicion then fell on the role played by RNA in memory. Corning and John (1961) repeated the McConnell studies, but arranged for the regeneration phase to take place in a weak solution of ribonuclease - an enzyme which actively destroys RNA. This time, the heads retained the original training whilst the tails did not. If memory was being stored throughout the animal's body at the instant it was transected, then what subsequently happened at the head end was different to what happened at the tail end. Specifically, the head end might have formed a protein-based engram in its rudimentary nervous system, whilst the tail might have formed only an RNA-based engram. Only the latter would then be affected by the ribonuclease treatment.

And then came the cannibalism studies (Humphries and Jacobson, 1961; McConnell, Jacobson, and Humphries, 1961; both cited in McConnell, 1962). In these studies, fully conditioned animals were chopped up and fed to untrained ones, who were then trained up to criterion. Averaged over five separate studies, the "educated" cannibals were initially half as good again as control cannibals who had been fed untrained colleagues (an average of 11.7 conditioned responses in the first 25 trials, against 7.1). [Students tempted to try the Hannibal Lector learning method for themselves should therefore note the need to be selective in their choice of knowledge donor!]

For a short time, it seemed as though engrams themselves - perhaps in the form of single RNA molecules - could survive digestion, make their way to the appropriate point in their new host's nervous system, and act as engrams there. And as to what this meant for memory theory, McConnell could only confess to being unsure: "Frankly," he said, "we are not sure where all this work leaves us" (McConnell, 1962, p572). It was soon suggested, however, that what was happening was merely a transfer of some necessary nutrients from ingestee to ingester, so that the ingester's task of responding biochemically to the need to create new engrams of its own was proportionately eased. Memory per se had not been transferred in the digestive process, merely a few essentials of protein synthesis. By 1964, many reviewers (eg. Dingman and Sporn, 1964) had weighed the evidence one way and the other, and were coming down heavily against the possibility of a purely molecular engram. Thus .....

"None of the experiments just described directly test the proposition that an RNA molecule, or set of molecules, represents the molecular engram. [Instead] they merely stress the fact that RNA metabolism is an important parameter of neuronal function. [..... We] may be able to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon of memory if we regard [it] as a property of a neuron or set of neurons rather than solely as a property of individual molecules." (Dingman and Sporn, 1964, pp26-28.)

And so the compromise view (which has held to the present day) is that the engram is best seen as being a diffuse structural neuronal net, or "cell assembly" [glossary], with the processes of setting it up in the first place and accessing it afterwards initiating a variety of molecular level biochemical events. The difference is merely one of level of analysis: you may choose to take a holistic view and look at the neuronal nets, or else take a reductionist view and put each individual macromolecule under the microscope.

A collection of sources from various corners:

Qualia
Cellular Intelligence
Army Ants as a Collective Intelligence
NASA: swarm intelligence project
Physiology of Learning

Pinker: Blank Slate
Dennett: Darwin’s Dangerous Idea
Juergen Schmidhuber: Artificial Intelligence
PSYCHE: Interdisciplinary Journal on the Study of Consciousness
Kenny: The Science of Collective Consciousness
Grandpierre: The Physics of Collective Consciousness
The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR)

A final note about the unreasonable effectiveness of math…

IMHO, the broad theme, the chief objection to the theory of evolution, is that “randomness” cannot be the prime factor in the formulation: random mutations – natural selection > species.

As the above links illustrate, the mainstream of science and math is also moving away from randomness as it investigates self-organizing complexity, swarm intelligence, etc. Randomness as a concept is also in dispute. Wolfram, for instance, challenged Chaitin’s Omega et al as being only pseudo-random since it was the effect of a cause. Even Brownian motion is the effect of a cause.

In naturalism (whether methodological or metaphysical) everything must be the effect of a prior physical cause (physical causality) and thus never more than pseudo-random. In theology, the corresponding doctrine is hard predestination.

The polar opposite to strong determinism is free will. The difference in view can be seen as geometry: one side comprehends our 4D universe as three dimensional space evolving over time whereas the other side sees time as the fourth dimension. The theory of relativity affirms that time is a dimension.

And a bit of good news for the “free will” corner is that in contrast to strict (4D) physical causality, geometric physics and cosmology suggest even more fundamental, particularly temporal, geometry.

Time before Time
Wesson: Five dimensional relativity and two times
Vafa: Geometric Physics
Vafa: Evidence for F-Theory
The curse of dimensionality
Quantum Entanglement and Information (superposition)
Bell’s theorem (non-locality)

and related essays by betty boop posted on the forum:

Can the Monist view account for ‘what is life?’
On Plato, the Early Church, and Modern Science An Eclectic Meditation
Autocatakinesis, Evolution, and the Law of Maximum Entropy Production
The “Cartesian Split” Is a Hallucination; Ergo, We Should Get Rid of It <<< Her latest essay, just posted! Please visit and comment.

So for all the objections to Intelligent Design – the mathematicians and physicists are already engaged and working on the very things which are necessary to give a complete picture of origin of species: information (successful communications), autonomy, semiosis, complexity and intelligence.

IMHO, it doesn't matter whether the work is done because of Intelligent Design objections or despite them - in the end, the randomness pillar will be pitched and we will be looking for non-corporeal causation for the "will to live", "fecundity principle", "evolution of one" - or whatever one wishes to call it.

But in any case, the objections are cropping up from all kinds of ideological corners – liberal and conservative, mainstream and fringe, metaphysically naturalist and theological.

[tame]

general_re: I don't think any of those words mean what you appear to think they mean. In any case, three posters have clearly and explicitly stated that God is the designer, and not some vague, ill-defined god either - you've all brought in the same specific god. If you can't see how that implicates theology into ID, I don't think I can help you.

Alamo-Girl: It cuts both ways. I would have no difficulty whatsoever finding three atheists on the forum who endorse evolution. But that doesn't mean that the theory of evolution is atheistic. Intelligent Design has no articles of faith, no doctrine, no Holy writ. It doesn't stipulate the designer and it does not address "all features" of the universe and living things. Thus, it is not theology.

general_re, i don't think you understand the fallacy from concomitant relations that I've pointed out.

I would also point out that just because two things are always present together does not mean those two things are logical reducible to the same thing (although it might turn out that they are identical, this is not a logical NECESSITY). So you are prone to category confusion.

Also, Alamo-Girl is quite correct that your argument cuts both ways. atheism proper is not absolutely identical to evolution proper.

However, that being said, I DO think that evolution is implicitly atheistic since it assumes that all things evolved by means of strictly natural processes, and implicit in that is the view that te universe is UNdesigned.

I at least understand that Intelligent Design, while not theology proper, implies a designer. But not all agree as to the nature of the designer (even though a consistent, logical coherent philosophy leads to an infinite, personal, all-powerful designer).

You are guilty of the very thing you accuse the theists of.

The knife truly does cut both ways.

[general_re]

And at post 74 I responded that I would not impose my theology on the intelligent design hypothesis.

You already have, is my point, by identifying the designer as you have, and by the fact that said identification is necessarily theological in nature. Look, if ID theory is on the table, then the nature and identity of the designer must be an open question, amenable to scientific investigation. You have, whether you mean to or not, placed the question off-limits by invoking theology when the identity of the designer is explored. How can you know that the designer is the God of the Bible? Scientifically, rationally, you cannot - you can only have arrived at that conclusion through faith. Commendable, but that's not how science works.

[arizonaconservative]

you said, "i agree; more anti-science nonsense."

it is anti-science dressed in the sheepskin of quasi-scientific, quasi-intellectual ramblings. I mean all this crap about dna and the structure of message.... all desperate lunatic fringe rationalizing of the irrational.

Look, if you hate science just admit it to yourselves... it will be easier for you in the long wrong. you can not disprove the scientific evidence by trying to scientifically prove the creation stories of the bible.

faith is when you take a text and believe without scientific, identifiable proof. science starts out with the assumption of DISBELIEF and everything must be tested and retested and then assumptions are made BASED on the ever-changing evidence.

In my opinion, these people that are so afraid of evolution because somehow they feel it invalidates their Bibles must have a pretty simplistic, shallow and shaky Faith... it is like they are constantly on the look out for "signs" and "omens" and "manna" from heaven in order to strengthen their faith. People, God and your Faith live in your hearts! Quit looking under rocks and working so hard to disprove science!

[ValenB4]

Don't quote from books. Tell me what you think. In your own words.

Science deals only with the material and temporal universe. Philosophy (as in metaphysical philosophy) deals with things beyond the material and temporal, beyond science. Science is not the measure of all things, it is inherently limited because we humans are inherently limited. Faith provides answers to the unanswerable and allows us to know God. Science only allows us to know God's creation.

[tame]

There is no substitute for neutrality.

Please define neutrality as you understand it.

When science has prejudice going into an investigation - whether "Nature did it!" or "God did it!" or whatever - the investigation will be truncated, the conclusion rigged, the results incomplete.

The important thing to understand is that "prejudice" is not synonymous with "presupposition". I think this is where the confusion rests.

There is no neutrality in that we all have presuppositions even in advance of the investigation.

For instance, in mathematics and logic we presuppose the law of non-contradiction. This is a first principle which cannot be denied without affirming it.

This is the law of undeniability.

Conversely, there is the law of unaffirmability.

Presuppositions should not be viewed as irrational by nature (although some presuppositions are). In fact, quite the contrary. Ironically, the presuppositions of absolute relativists often expose their own irrationality.

A relativist friend told me "You cannot know anything for sure, there is no right or wrong, and there are no absolutes."

Of course, he presupposed absolute standards of knowledge as well as the law of non-contradiction, and the existence of right and wrong (according to him, he was right and I was wrong) in order to prove otherwise.

A typical pantheistic often engages in such worldview confusion.

This is what I mean in stating that there is no neutral ground. Presuppositions don't just exist, they are crucial and should be examined carefully. These presuppositions don't just extend to the law of non-contradiction and the like. They extend all the way to our basic worldview.

They cannot be divorced from the investigation. Rather, they play a necessary PART in the investigation.

The existence of the universe is not just a brute fact. Rather, the very EXISTENCE of something rather than nothing implies a certain worldview if we are to investigate rationally.

There is no "neutral" ground. By logical extension worldviews collide.

[general_re]

general_re, i don't think you understand the fallacy from concomitant relations that I've pointed out.

I don't think that anyone has yet committed such a novel thing, but let's run with it for a moment.

I would also point out that just because two things are always present together does not mean those two things are logical reducible to the same thing (although it might turn out that they are identical, this is not a logical NECESSITY).

Great. And when you catch me arguing such a thing, I've no doubt you'll be right there to point it out. In the mean time, which two things do you imagine I have said are one and the same, as a matter of logical necessity?

But not all agree as to the nature of the designer...

LOL. All evidence to the contrary. Shall we conduct a survey, and gauge the mood of the room? No, as amusing as it is to watch you contort yourself to deny the obvious, it's rather clear that the nature of the designer is basically a settled question within the ID community.

You are guilty of the very thing you accuse the theists of.

I've accused no one of anything. Thus far, I have merely pointed out that the correlation between ID theory and identification of the designer as the Christian god is very nearly a one-to-one relationship, that the set of ID theorists and the set of ID theorists who identify the designer as the god of the Bible are quite close to being the same set. I'm not at all sure how you make that into an accusation - it seems to me to be a statement of fact, and a fairly obvious fact at that.

[arizonaconservative]

You know in your heart of hearts that the only reason why we are talking about the hypothesis of "Intelligent Design" is that it was some Creationist-funded thinktank's brainchild to challenge evolution while skirting the seperation of church and state issue in the courts.

To say that the natural laws of the universe were "designed" assumes that there is a force beyond the natural, thereby super-natural force that "designed" the universe and its dimensions and forces by a process that can not be fully grasped by the scientific process (otherwise, there would be no need for a hypothesis that is an alternative to the letting the scientific process carry on) this by definition is a "supernatural force" so yes... ID is inherently theistic. while evolution is NOT inherently atheistic unles you want to tell me that Newtonian physics is inherently atheistic (or maybe you believe that since according to Genesis the earth was ripe with vegetation a day before God created the sun and the moon).

[tame]

Don't quote from books.

Please don't tell me what I cannot quote. Yes, I most certainly will quote from books especially in light of the fact that Alamo-Girl specifically asked us to "please add your resources to the collection". (see article)

Tell me what you think. In your own words.

Please don't tell me how to respond. Also, there seems to be an implied false-disjunct fallacy in your above statement. You assume it's EITHER my position OR Moreland/Craigs when it's both/and.

The fact that I quote them hardly undermines the point any more than freeper PatrickHenry's quote of Benjamin Franklin undermines the point Ben made.

I make no more apologies for quoting men who've made the point well, than you'd make for quoting any number of people YOU might have quoted.

But since you want my thoughts, here they are:

Science deals only with the material and temporal universe.

Petitio principii.

Also, you cannot do science without doing philosophy and logic. In fact, your very argument about science--is it philosophical? Science? Both?

Incidentally, the rules of logic are not material or merely temporal, yet they are absolutely essential to scientific investigation.

Philosophy (as in metaphysical philosophy) deals with things beyond the material and temporal, beyond science.

This is not "beyond" science, but in addition to science.

Science is not the measure of all things

I know this. So do the authors I quoted. That's why they evaluated that premise and found it wanting.

Faith provides answers to the unanswerable and allows us to know God.

False disjunct. You assume that all faith is not based on reason (or at least in accordance with it).

btw, scientists practice faith as well. They have faith that the principle of uniformity will remain the same, and many scientists--truth be told--have an implicit faith that something (the universe) can come about without a cause from nothing despite evidence to the contrary. so please add your resources to the collection

[arizonaconservative]

"Intelligent Design is defined by the Discovery Institute – Center for Science and Culture as holding that ”certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.” '

"certain features of the universe.... are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
.
This definition is INHERENTLY theistic. Something "intelligent" caused "certain features" of the universe. something that has "directed" the process. In order to "direct" the laws of the natural world and to have the power to "cause" them certainly implies that this causation, this direction is supernatural if it has the power to define the process. Also, this "intelligent cause" implies that "intelligence" is pre-existant to the start of these features of the natural universe. So how do we define the intelligence of this cause if not by inferring our own definitions of "intelligent" upon this "cause" which predates the ascent of man.... is this not anthropomorphism of the cause? and thusly inherently theistic?


You said:
"Does anyone really want to value a hypothesis by the ideology/theology of its supporters?

IMHO, the great scientists and mathematicians throughout history - certainly since Galileo - would be offended by any such lithmus test."

Ironic that you bring up Galileo, he was the Darwin of his time....Rome excommunicated Galileo for proposing something that they believed contradicted the first Chapter of Genesis: How could the earth revolve around the sun when the sun was not created until AFTER the earth.

[arizonaconservative]

you guys said,
"Don't quote from books.

Please don't tell me what I cannot quote. Yes, I most certainly will quote from books especially in light of the fact that Alamo-Girl specifically asked us to "please add your resources to the collection". (see article)

Tell me what you think. In your own words.

Please don't tell me how to respond...."

I sing: "Don't tell me what to do and don't tell me what to wear and PLEASE when I go out with you... don't put me on display... because I'm young and I love to be young and I'm free and I love to be free. You don't own me, I am not one of your special toys."

[bondserv]

1Cr 2:2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

Rom 6:9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.

Phl 3:10 That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;

Luk 11:29-33
29 And when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet.
30 For as Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of man be to this generation.
31 The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with the men of this generation, and condemn them: for she came from the utmost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon [is] here.
32 The men of Nineve shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas [is] here.
33 No man, when he hath lighted a candle, putteth [it] in a secret place, neither under a bushel, but on a candlestick, that they which come in may see the light.

Jhn 8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

Jhn 11:9 Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world.

Mat 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Jhn 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Pro 9:10 The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy [is] understanding.

Luk 11:11-13
11 If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if [he ask] a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?
12 Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?
13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall [your] heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

1Jo 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

Isa 11:2 And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD;

[tame]

which two things do you imagine I have said are one and the same, as a matter of logical necessity?

Intelligent Design proper, and Theology proper.

LOL. All evidence to the contrary. Shall we conduct a survey, and gauge the mood of the room?

Not so fast with the LOL. Truth is not determined by majority vote. It makes no difference whether 90% of ID'sts agree with me or NO ID'sts agree with me in order for ID to be a separate category.

The category distinction exists regardless of how many agree or do NOT agree with me as to the nature of the designer.

BUT...since you asked, not all intelligent Design folks agree with my concept of an infinite, all-powerful, all knowing, personal God. Some believe tha designer is not all powerful (Harold Kushner), others believe the designer is not all knowing (open theists), some believe the designer is not eternal--and confuse exactly what is eternal and what is designed--(Mormons), some believe that the designer (or "unmoved mover") is not someone to be worshipped (Aristotle).

No, as amusing as it is to watch you contort yourself to deny the obvious, it's rather clear that the nature of the designer is basically a settled question within the ID community.

Again, that's a red herring. The argument is whether the concept of intelligent design is necessarily logically reducible to Theolology, and whether any relationship between the two disqualifies one from being a legitimate field of scientific investigation.

Many people worship what they believe to be the Intelligent Designer.

But this makes ID no less scientific.

Many people worship rocks, but that hardly disqualifies geology as a science.

I have merely pointed out that the correlation between ID theory and identification of the designer as the Christian god is very nearly a one-to-one relationship

How does that square with...

...which two things do you imagine I have said are one and the same, as a matter of logical necessity?

Either you are implying the two categories are, strictly speaking, logically reducible to the same thing or you are not. which is it?

that the set of ID theorists and the set of ID theorists who identify the designer as the god of the Bible are quite close to being the same set. I'm not at all sure how you make that into an accusation - it seems to me to be a statement of fact, and a fairly obvious fact at that.

Not an obvious fact at all. Muslims believe in ID, but don't believe in the God of the Bible.

But even if it were true that all people who believed in ID also believed in the God of the Bible, what's the significance?

If all people who believed in geology also happened to be the same people who worship rocks (and there really ARE people who worship rocks) would that by definition discount geology as a legit science?

Hmmm. This seems to be a case of the Genetic fallacy.

It also would seem to reduce geology to religion (there's that collapsing category again).

Watch out for that fallacy from concomitant relations (look it up).

BTW, you never did answer the knife cutting both ways.

Most (if not all) of the materialistic-atheists-who-believe-the-universe-came-into-being-from-nothing that I know are evolutionists.

Does this convert to "all evolutionists are materialistic-atheists-who-believe-the-universe-came-into-being-from-nothing "?

No. But even if it were true, how does the unobservable, untestable, unverifiable "universe coming into existence from nothing" belief (a belief requiring faith, no less) qualify as science anymore than theology?

The atheists who believe in evolution have a worldview that requires more faith than my faith in God, yet this does not undermine evolution as science in your opinion.

OTOH, you believe that ID is undermined by the fact that most of them may have faith in their designer. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

[tame]

arizonaconservative to Alamo-Girl: You know in your heart of hearts that the only reason why we are talking about the hypothesis of "Intelligent Design" is that it was some Creationist-funded thinktank's brainchild to challenge evolution while skirting the seperation of church and state issue in the courts.

Genetic fallacy.

To say that the natural laws of the universe were "designed" assumes that there is a force beyond the natural

In assuming the "natural laws of the universe are not designed by a supernatural power because there is no force beyond the natural" you're committing the fallacy of petitio principii.

...thereby super-natural force that "designed" the universe and its dimensions and forces by a process that can not be fully grasped by the scientific process...

There are many "processes" within an evolutionistic worldview that cannot be fully grasped by "the scientific process" (e.g., the big bang singularity, quantum physics, etc.)

this by definition is a "supernatural force" so yes... ID is inherently theistic.

By theistic you see to assume 1) that it is not scientific, which is clearly question begging and 2) that an ID proponent's belief in a supernatural force is grounds to dismiss ID as purely religious and unscientific by nature, which is clearly the genetic fallacy.

If it is true that the person who "discovered" the Benzine molecule based his theory on a metaphysical dream he had of a snake biting it's tale, that would still not grounds for dismissing the scientific truth of his discovery.

BTW, even if we conclude that ID has a religious source in the book of Genesis, this would not make the theory wrong. The idea that murder is wrong also comes from a religious source, but that does not make it wrong.

...while evolution is NOT inherently atheistic unles you want to tell me that Newtonian physics is inherently atheistic

Evolution is not identical to Newtonian physics. Evolution, btw, is implicitly atheistic (regardless of the fact that some theists believe in theistic evolution) because the basic assumption is that there is a naturalistic explanation for all that exists (as opposed to a supernatural explanation).

In other words, evolutionists on this thread shreak at the suggestion that a supernatural power had anything to do with designing the universe--the world--but what is the basic alernative? That NO supernatural power designed anything. But if that is true, then it is at the very least "practical atheism".

[tame]

Clarification on some of my earlier posts:

1) I do not think that evolutionism and atheism are synonyms, but that the basic implicit assumption of evolution as naturalistic is antithetical to theism. One can believe in God and believe in "theistic evolution", but such a belief is severely mistaken, imho.

The very definition of evolution pushed to it's logical conclusion seems to lead practically to atheism (the practical absence of God or his "design" in any of the universe).

Also, I believe that ID has obvious implications regarding a designer when pushed to the logical conclusion.

Respectfully, I would not go so far as Alamo-Girl in divorcing ID from any theological implications (nor do I believe we have to or should!), but this does not make ID unscientific for reasons already established, so we must avoid the fallacy from concomitant relations, the genetic fallacy and the like.

[tame]

further clarification on my earlier posts re "practical atheism" (cut me some slack, it's 4:19 am here in California!):

I understand that some theists accept methodological naturalism. But I get the distinct impression that when push comes to shove many of the methodological naturalists on this thread are not merely methodological naturalists, but philosophical naturalists as well.

[general_re]

which two things do you imagine I have said are one and the same, as a matter of logical necessity?

Intelligent Design proper, and Theology proper.

Where on earth did I claim that they are the same as a matter of logical necessity?

Don't waste too much time hunting - I haven't done any such thing.

Truth is not determined by majority vote.

Who said it was?

It makes no difference whether 90% of ID'sts agree with me or NO ID'sts agree with me in order for ID to be a separate category.

So what? Once again, I merely point out that the correlation between belief in ID and belief in the Christian god as the designer is very nearly a perfect correlation. If I tell you that all blondes are humans, that is hardly the same as saying that blondes and humans are the same thing, even though it is perfectly true and undeniable that all blonde people are human, and thus blondeness and personhood are perfectly correlated.

The argument is whether the concept of intelligent design is necessarily logically reducible to Theolology...

That appears to be an argument you are having with yourself, since I have yet to claim any such thing.

...and whether any relationship between the two disqualifies one from being a legitimate field of scientific investigation.

I have not argued that ID is not a legitimate scientific field because of any such presumed relationship. Yet.

Either you are implying the two categories are, strictly speaking, logically reducible to the same thing or you are not. which is it?

You're wasting my time. If I tell you that the earth has a moon, it does not mean that I am claiming that the earth must have a moon as a matter of logical necessity. If I tell you that virtually all ID theorists believe that the Christian god is the designer, it does not mean that I am claiming that ID theorists must believe that the Christian god is the designer as a matter of logical necessity. If I tell you that all Scotsmen wear kilts, it does not mean that I am claiming that all Scotsmen must wear kilts as a matter of logical necessity. Nor does it mean that I am claiming that all kilt-wearers are Scottish as a matter of logical necessity.

Really, now - you seem fixated on refuting things I'm not saying or claiming. This will go far more smoothly if you take the time to read what I actually post, instead of reading into it things that aren't there. While it appears that to do so might be inconvenient for you and your attempts to impute fallacies to me, it's not very honest of you to put words in my mouth, and then attack me for something I never said.

If all people who believed in geology also happened to be the same people who worship rocks (and there really ARE people who worship rocks) would that by definition discount geology as a legit science?

Oh, dear. See, I don't think this is going to work, because I don't think you're reading my posts at all. I have merely stated thus far that some of the claims of ID have theological import. Who can deny it? As to whether it's a legitimate science or not, I have never claimed anywhere at all that because virtually all ID theorists worship their version of the designer, it is not a science because of that fact alone. I don't know where you derive that argument, but it certainly wasn't from me, because I haven't made it.

BTW, you never did answer the knife cutting both ways.

I see no need to "answer" conversations that you're having with yourself. I never claimed that the two must be, as a matter of logical necessity, one and the same. I guess when you're done wrestling with that, you'll report back on your findings, but thus far that investigation doesn't appear to involve me.

OTOH, you believe that ID is undermined by the fact that most of them may have faith in their designer.

I have yet to claim any such thing. Do you plan to read anything I post at all?

[tame]

So what? Once again, I merely point out that the correlation between belief in ID and belief in the Christian god as the designer is very nearly a perfect correlation. If I tell you that all blondes are humans, that is hardly the same as saying that blondes and humans are the same thing...

But what's the point of such a relation? (Unless you're implying that humans can't possibly be scientific since so many of them are blond.)

tame: The argument is whether the concept of intelligent design is necessarily logically reducible to Theolology...

general_re: That appears to be an argument you are having with yourself, since I have yet to claim any such thing.

Then why do you bring it up? Either you are implying the two categories are, strictly speaking, logically reducible to the same thing or you are not. which is it?

You're wasting my time. If I tell you that the earth has a moon, it does not mean that I am claiming that the earth must have a moon as a matter of logical necessity. If I tell you that virtually all ID theorists believe that the Christian god is the designer, it does not mean that I am claiming that ID theorists must believe that the Christian god is the designer as a matter of logical necessity. If I tell you that all Scotsmen wear kilts, it does not mean that I am claiming that all Scotsmen must wear kilts as a matter of logical necessity. Nor does it mean that I am claiming that all kilt-wearers are Scottish as a matter of logical necessity.

Again, why do you bring it up?

Really, now - you seem fixated on refuting things I'm not saying or claiming. This will go far more smoothly if you take the time to read what I actually post, instead of reading into it things that aren't there.

You might want to go back and read some of your posts.

While it appears that to do so might be inconvenient for you and your attempts to impute fallacies to me, it's not very honest of you to put words in my mouth, and then attack me for something I never said.

Stick to the facts. no words were put in your mouth. I believe you're upset that I've noticed your fallacies.

I have merely stated thus far that some of the claims of ID have theological import. Who can deny it?

So? What's the point then?

As to whether it's a legitimate science or not, I have never claimed anywhere at all that because virtually all ID theorists worship their version of the designer, it is not a science because of that fact alone. I don't know where you derive that argument, but it certainly wasn't from me, because I haven't made it.

What other reason do you have for bringing it up? Yes, it seems you were arguing that ID is not scientific based on the fact that we worship our designer.

I see no need to "answer" conversations that you're having with yourself. I never claimed that the two must be, as a matter of logical necessity, one and the same. I guess when you're done wrestling with that, you'll report back on your findings, but thus far that investigation doesn't appear to involve me.

A fair reading of your posts indicates that you started down that road in order to undermine ID as a science, but you seem to be backtracking a little. If not, then I ask you again: What is your reason for bringing it up?

[betty boop]

Certainly an interesting speculation (and one that I would personally tend to agree with, but I don't see that there's any way to test it. I don't really see how it's possible to apply the scientific method to this question....

Hi stremba! The way I think about this problem: the natural laws are things man "discovers" and are implicitly "prior to" any scientific test: The scientific method would be impossible without them. And because they have a logical form, it is highly doubtful to me that they could be products of chance. The interesting question (to me anyway) is: Do we know that we have yet discovered all the natural laws that are extant in the Universe?

What do you think?

Thanks for writing, stremba!

[general_re]

But what's the point of such a relation?

It certainly seems to have brought about a response, so in the sense that it seems to be serving as a sort of Rorschach test for you, it's been interesting. That wasn't the original point, of course, but it's interesting nonetheless.

Then why do you bring it up? Either you are implying the two categories are, strictly speaking, logically reducible to the same thing or you are not.

I simply made an observation. In any case, I can hardly be responsible for what you imagine I'm saying - any "implication" is wholly your own invention at this point, as I've made no statement to whether they are "logically reducible" or not. In fact, I really don't care whether they are or not, so I don't plan to make any such implication in the future either.

Stick to the facts. no words were put in your mouth.

Of course you have. You've said that I'm making claims or implications about some presumed "logical reducibility" - I've said no such thing. You've said that I'm claiming that ID and theology are one and the same as a matter of logical necessity - I've said no such thing. You've said that I believe that ID is "undermined" by the fact that most ID'ists have faith in some supernatural creator - I've said no such thing. And so forth and so on. Really, now - it's rather brazen to deny that you've done what you did, when anyone can simply scroll up the thread and see that what you claim I said and what I actually said are two different things.

I believe you're upset that I've noticed your fallacies.

You have yet to "notice" any - thus far, you appear content to simply invent them.

Yes, it seems you were arguing that ID is not scientific based on the fact that we worship our designer.

Well, along with not being responsible for what you imagine I am saying, I suppose I should stop and disclaim any responsibility for how things seem to you. It is your responsibility to insure that your perceptions correspond, however roughly, to reality, not mine.

A fair reading of your posts indicates that you started down that road in order to undermine ID as a science...

I'd hate to see an "unfair" reading of my posts, in that case.

If not, then I ask you again: What is your reason for bringing it up?

Why not? It's true, after all.

[betty boop]

My point is that from the point of view of scientists, strictly in their scientific work, it makes no difference whether such configurations are the result of design or the result of strictly natural processes.

Hello stremba!!! Thanks for the fine presentation on protein folding. I have seen this hypothesis before, and it seems reasonable to me. But I've also encountered researchers who find it inadequate, generally speaking on adequacy of information grounds. (Such folks evidently think that biological processes are intensively "informed" processes.) So I gather this vital issue is still "a work in progress."

WRT your comment above: I just don't see there is anything necessarily "unnatural" about the presence of design in nature -- especially if the natural laws themselves are the source of the design.

Thank you so much for writing!