Five critiques of Intelligent Design

Edge.org ^ | September 3, 2005 | Marcelo Gleiser, Jerry Coyne, Richard Dawkins, Scott Atran, Daniel C. Dennett

[snarks_when_bored]

Five critiques of Intelligent Design

John Brockman's Edge.org site has published the following five critiques of Intelligent Design (the bracketed comments following each link are mine):

Marcelo Gleiser, "Who Designed the Designer?"  [a brief op-ed piece]

Jerry Coyne, "The Case Against Intelligent Design: The Faith That Dare Not Speak Its Name"  [a detailed critique of ID and its history, together with a summary defense of Darwinism]

Richard Dawkins & Jerry Coyne, "One Side Can Be Wrong"  [why 'teaching both sides' is not reasonable when there's really only one side]

Scott Atran, "Unintelligent Design"  [intentional causes were banished from science with good reason]

Daniel C. Dennett, "Show Me the Science"  [ID is a hoax]

As Marcelo Gleiser suggests in his op-ed piece, the minds of ID extremists will be changed neither by evidence nor by argument, but IDists (as he calls them) aren't the target audience for critiques such as his. Rather, the target audience is the millions of ordinary citizens who may not know enough about empirical science (and evolution science in particular) to understand that IDists are peddling, not science, but rather something tarted up to look like it.

Let us not be deceived.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Note that quantum mechanics was accepted within about a year after the Schroedinger and Heisenberg papers.

[js1138]

If the concept of random mutation is not proven in the historical evidence, why should I have to believe it, because a bunch of scientists in the field do?

Because random mutation is not merely a concept. It is a fact established by 150 years of observation. Anyone finding a source of mutation that "looks ahead" and anticipates need will certainly be in the running for a Nobel Prize.

[ml1954]

I can say parts of evolutionary theory are wrong and not argue it from a scientific point of view, but rather a practical point of view.

Are you aware of how stupid your statement is?

[VadeRetro]

Note that quantum mechanics was accepted within about a year after the Schroedinger and Heisenberg papers.

Science can and does move right along. Religion can only fight over who is already the one true right group.

[microgood]

Variability within a population is observed constantly in virtually every measurable trait of virtually every population. In sexual species, multiple alleles for common genes and the constant recombination thereof are a given. You are fixing a thing that isn't broke--supposedly "Nobody questions microevolution" etc. etc.--and have nothing definite to fix it with anyway.

OOPS. I spoke too soon. I guess you do argue substance as well.

[VadeRetro]

It happens. I do that just often enough to cross people up.

[Coyoteman]

To argue for or against it requires you argue using the methods of science.

==============

Yes you can. Read the Philosophy of Science. If the scientific method used to develop the theory itself is flawed, all the conclusions are flawed. History is riddled with flawed scientific methodologies. If the concept of random mutation is not proven in the historical evidence, why should I have to believe it, because a bunch of scientists in the field do?

I can say science is good at things it can directly verify, and no good at things that happened a billion years ago. Scientists can say a meteorite caused dinosaur extinction and I can say BS: you were not there with quite a degree of confidence that I am correct. Science can be and is often misapplied.

The Nature and Philosophy of Science

Did you write that? It is unattributed.

In a scientific discussion, it is not very nice to refer people to an unattributed source as evidence. I usually like to know, for a start, who wrote something, what their biases might be, and then, if its worthwhile, spend some time with it.

So, did you write that? Or do you know who did?

[microgood]

Are you aware of how stupid your statement is?

What is stupid is saying to question a scientific theory you must do it from a scientific perspective (you must play the game by our rules, that way we always win). That is both stupid and dishonest. You can challenge the very basis of the assumptions themselves and question their correlation with reality. The science of the past is riddled with logical fallacies, as an example.

[microgood]

So, did you write that? Or do you know who did?

It is some college student in Minnesota (link at the bottom) but is similar to many of the things we discussed when I was in college (I have a BA in Philosophy) when taking the philosopy of science classes. Most of the more famous philosophers of science are mentioned there as well as the key concepts. But you are right, I should expand my sources, although sites like talkorigins.org are frequently cited here as well (which is a clearly pro evolution biased site).

[Coyoteman]

What is stupid is saying to question a scientific theory you must do it from a scientific perspective (you must play the game by our rules, that way we always win). That is both stupid and dishonest. You can challenge the very basis of the assumptions themselves and question their correlation with reality. The science of the past is riddled with logical fallacies, as an example.

First, playing by the rules. What rules would you have science play by? Biblical scholarship? Science is built on specific rules and methods, and its not going to change them unless it can be shown that they do not produce results. You may not agree with the results, but you can't just say they are wrong.

Second, how do you know there are (or were) any "logical fallacies" in science? Because science found the errors and corrected them, perhaps?

It sounds like you disagree with what science (evolution in particular) has come up with. So, you are out to destroy the scientific method, or at least people's trust in that method, for your own ends. If you destroy science, then where will you be?

I asked this question earlier, but got no good answer: Kept up on your fencing lessons? The folks with scimitars are coming, and it is only our science and technology that keeps them at bay. What will do you do if you destroy that?

[js1138]

http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1386.htm

[snarks_when_bored]

No, they're too busy trying to convince politicians that thousands of the smartest people on the planet don't know what the hell they're talking about.

Imagination is more important than intelligence - Albert Einstein.

I would add to that common sense.

And anyone that believes we evolved from single celled life to what you see today via random mutation and natural selection (especially the random mutation part, considering our increased complexity and the larger changes) has neither.

Apothegms are rarely completely true or completely false. Einstein combined imagination with high intelligence. Had he had the latter rather than the former, he probably never would've discovered (say) his general theory of relativity; but had he had the former rather than the latter, he most certainly never would've discovered it.

I'm guessing that you're not a scientist. I'll ask you a question that I asked an earlier poster (who never responded): What is your field of study?

[Coyoteman]

http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1386.htm

Thank you for the link. That helps very much in my study and evaluation of this article.

[microgood]

I'm guessing that you're not a scientist. I'll ask you a question that I asked an earlier poster (who never responded): What is your field of study?

I have a BA in Philosophy and a BS in EE and Design Software.

But I understand science, and its methods, and am not an ID or Creationist, I just do not buy random mutation as a mechanism for biological change, mainly due to the increasing complexity and large changes required to get us from a single cell to here. It seems preposterous on its face from a common sense point of view.

And since science(or scientists) do not equal reality or truth, I think although it may be great science, it does not represent reality in this case.

[snarks_when_bored]

Worked in Kansas.

Those kids'll have fine careers in the food and janitorial services.

That's okay. Kansas can always import its physicians and biologists and paleontologists and the rest. Somebody's got to employ those workers you mention.

[Coyoteman]

I just do not buy random mutation as a mechanism for biological change, mainly due to the increasing complexity and large changes required to get us from a single cell to here. It seems preposterous on its face from a common sense point of view.

Its your right not to agree. Its also quite possible you're wrong. You claim scientists are very often wrong, and many of them have probably looked at this particular question in some detail. If you don't agree with them, do you have an alternative?

[snarks_when_bored]

I'm guessing that you're not a scientist. I'll ask you a question that I asked an earlier poster (who never responded): What is your field of study?

I have a BA in Philosophy and a BS in EE and Design Software.

Fair enough. Neither of us is a biologist or a palentologist, so we understand that we're both speaking as outside observers.

I just do not buy random mutation as a mechanism for biological change, mainly due to the increasing complexity and large changes required to get us from a single cell to here. It seems preposterous on its face from a common sense point of view.

Of course it seems preposterous. Why else would it not have been thought of for 2,400 years after Aristotle got serious about studying biology? Aristotle might've said the same thing you're saying, don't you think?

And since science (or scientists) do not equal reality or truth, I think although it may be great science, it does not represent reality in this case.

I agree that "science (or scientists) do not equal reality or truth", but I don't know what it means to say that "although it may be great science, it does not represent reality in this case." The fact is, it's not great science if it doesn't represent reality. Period.

[js1138]

You like that one? here's another original author.

http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/bridgman02.htm

[microgood]

Science is built on specific rules and methods, and its not going to change them unless it can be shown that they do not produce results. You may not agree with the results, but you can't just say they are wrong.

I can say they are the best that science can offer and the science is done using the scientific method, but that science works best when dealing with things that currently exist, and not as good when explaining things that happened 1 billion years ago, due to the lack of available evidence. Science can only work off the evidence it has.

Second, how do you know there are (or were) any "logical fallacies" in science? Because science found the errors and corrected them, perhaps?

That is part of why, science has learned many things from past errors and earlier science. But, for example, the uniformity of nature assumption is not logically provable, but is assumed so science can proceed. Or that because species have similar characteristics, they have common descent. Or because formulas can be created in nuclear reactors on highly unstable elements with half-lives of nanoseconds, that those formulas can be used on all elements, etc.

It sounds like you disagree with what science (evolution in particular) has come up with. So, you are out to destroy the scientific method, or at least people's trust in that method, for your own ends. If you destroy science, then where will you be?

In part yes. It is not logical to say that if some science is successful, then the scientific method is always equal. Assumptions used to advance science are different in different fields, and some assumptions may be more valid than others. I love science, I think, however, that saying we got from single simple cells to where we are today by random mutation and natural selection alone are like punting on the first down of a football game. In the historical context, it does not seem to explain the increasing complexity or large changes but rather seems to just be a bow to naturalism.

I asked this question earlier, but got no good answer: Kept up on your fencing lessons? The folks with scimitars are coming, and it is only our science and technology that keeps them at bay. What will do you do if you destroy that?

Questioning random mutation does not mean I dislike or question science in general. Science has acheived many things and has proven its meddle time and time again. But I believe in the not to distant future a mechanism (which could be naturalistic in nature) other than random mutation will be found. As long as we were actually created by naturalistic processes evolution will probably be safe in its current form, but if there is some other force or mechanism behind biological change, it will hopefully be discovered.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Is it OK to use non-religious objections to religion?