"Intelligent Design": Stealth War on Science

Revolutionary Worker ^ | November 6, 2005

[Louis Foxwell]

I seem to be one of the few people who listens to myself.

[balrog666]

Your reply makes me wonder where you got such a strange idea in the first place. Can you enlighten us?

[betty boop]

The molecules in water vapor are subject to precisely the same ordered set of laws as the snowflake. Therefore, how can you say the ordering of the physical laws is what leads to the order in the snowflake.? Why is the water vapor disordered? The same laws apply!

Yes of course, but they apply to different initial and boundary conditions differently. Or so it seems to me.

[blowfish]

Nope, it's all hydrogen bonding and gas laws. They apply everywhere.

And I would strongly disagree that the processes that influence the assembly of organic molecules associated with life are qualitatively different than any other chemical system. It's all electronic attractions and repulsions and molecules trying to reach lower energy levels in one form or another. There's plenty of evidence that the creation of complex organic molecules is neither random or particularly difficult.

[occamsrapier]

I'm sorry Alamo girl, I don't mean to belittle you, as you seem to be arguing in good faith. However, the criticsm of your statement in this post is withering.

"Therefore, if the mere existence of physical laws lead to order, how can chaos exist?"

As this says, by your logic, you have eliminated the concept of randomness at all. To say otherwise, you would have to demonstrate a physical system where the laws of physics were suspended. If you can do that, you should really stop posting here and collect your Nobel prize.

But instead of dealing with his criticsm, you dodged it completely, first by saying you had to leave then by citing a whole host of cosmological theories, and totally ignoring that the central tennet you hold to has been eliminated.

You must stay on point, this is water muddying.

No scientist is going to stand up and tell you that their cosmological model is complete or bulletproof. But evolution is not cosmology, and makes no cosmological claims. If you assume that ID does, than you are really operating on a universal fine tuning framework which postulates a supreme being who is supernatural. The supernatural is by definition ascientific.

Put another way, if you believe that you can prove God with cosmology, then he must also be disprovable. God is flatly an unequivically impossible to disprove. He exists beyond the realm of physical proof.

So again, the information you provide, seems to place the flavor of ID you advocate squarely outside of science and into the realm of philosophy. I agree, ID is philosophy and not science.

[js1138]

placemarker

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your posts!

But I must caution that personal assaults are disallowed on the forum, so to avoid problems it is always best to address the disagreements to the subject itself and not to any particular correspondent.

No, the challenge falls on Behe to prove IC exists. He has failed. I never disputed the definition. I merely said that the thing it defines is not real. He has failed to prove it as real, and your semmantic argument completely ignores that critical point, sans proof, it is not real.

I’m not arguing for the irreducible complexity model – I am merely asking you to choose one from the list at post 205 so we can communicate better. Or if you prefer one that is not on the list, please name it, define it or provide links so we can get on the same page.

Neither yours, nor the one posted by Amos fills the criteria. Neither is testable or falsifiable. Neither offers any explanatory power. You need to prove that it is both of those things. We are not in disagreement over terms. The definition that you offer, rules out the hypothesis you provide. Thanks.

The hypothesis I offered is not my own, it is the official intelligent design hypothesis: that certain features of the universe and life are best explained by intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.

You assert that it is neither testable nor falsifiable and that it does not have explanatory power. I disagree.

Concerning the selection of mates being an intelligent cause vis-à-vis explanatory power you asserted:

It might, if you postulated any mechanism or designer, but without those, there is no real explanatory power here. Using your bird plumage example, please show me the explanatory power of inferring a designer. There is none. If the designer can be anything and anyone, than there is no ability to explain the world based on inferring he exists. This is a weakness in a scientific theory. Moreover, if your assertion of the designer is vague enough that it can be either God (supernatural) or Aliens (natural), than no further inferrence can be made. Again, back up your contrary assertion with proof, or narrow your focus to something provable, until you do, this is philosophy or fiction.

It is not necessary to stipulate an agent as an intelligent cause for the same reason it was not necessary for Darwin to stipulate an origin of life to propose a theory of speciation. In the example given, the “designer” aka “intelligent cause” is the phenomenon of intelligence exercised by selecting a mate. In this construct, intelligence is more than simple awareness and includes decision making .

Using your example of bird plummage, because evolution suggests a mechanism we can explain and make predicitions. We can predict that indiiduals with poorly colored or dull plummage will be less likely to mate and therefore less likely to affect the evolution of their group. We can predict that the ancestors of the birds we observe had less plummage. We can analyse the gene and look for copying errors, or markers that demnstrate the pathway through which this change arose, and having found those markers, we use them to piece together the geneology of the birds. We can use their ancestors to search for recessive traits that may not express themselves in the modern strain. That is explanatory power. Those are testable and falsifiable. ID has none of that.

To the contrary, you are overlooking the selection itself. If birds mated by happenstance there would be no pattern at all of poorly feathered birds failing to be picked as mates.

Right Wing Professor: "Therefore, if the mere existence of physical laws lead to order, how can chaos exist?"

you: As this says, by your logic, you have eliminated the concept of randomness at all. To say otherwise, you would have to demonstrate a physical system where the laws of physics were suspended. If you can do that, you should really stop posting here and collect your Nobel prize.

Randomness was my first point at post 205, namely:

What we declare is “random” in space/time may not be random in the "system" since we do not yet know what the “system” is. It would be more correct to say “apparently random”.

For instance, an additional time-like dimension would allow for all particles in 4D space/time to be multiply imaged up to 10⁸⁰ times from as little as a single particle in the fifth dimension. Here’s a recent discussion for more on the mysteries of mass.

Again, this is an unequivocal statement. One cannot demand that another accept that randomness exists in a system without first being able to say what the system “is”.

No doubt stochastic methods are quite handy in quantum mechanics and other disciplines, but frankly nobody can make a declarative statement of fact that randomness exists in space/time and expect anyone else to take it seriously since we do not yet know how many spatial and temporal dimensions actually exist - or whether we are looking at an actual particle or motion or one of n multiple images of one or more particles/motions in another dimension.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

The subjects of order, complexity and randomness are very much related (especially in math) - and therefore, I assert it is a good idea to come to an agreement on the terms before we continue.

From your post I gather that you prefer the Kolmogorov definition of complexity. Thus if we observe a high degree of auto-correlation would we say the phenomenon is a low Kolmogorov complexity, i.e. the large string can be produced with a small expression as determined by Solomonoff induction, etc.

I do not however believe it is useful to equate order and auto-correlation. Hamlet for instance would have a high Kolmogorov complexity and a low auto-correlation. But we would consider it highly ordered.

Conversely, in the example you used of a string of "A"s, there is a high auto-correlation and low Kolmogorov complexity. But we would not consider it highly ordered. If physical reality consisted only of "A"s it would be at maximum entropy (LOL!)

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for sharing your views!

I'm not sure why on every Evolution thread you want to deflect the discussion to some esoteric ruminiation on the origin of the universe, when there are occasional cosmology threads for that.

It does seem that many of the debates come down to a difference in worldviews usually centering around "what is reality?" When we arrive at the point where each side has taken opposite views in the Aristotle v Plato paradigm (math) - then we can usually end the debate in mutual respect, because people of good conscience can disagree.

However, it is inappropriate to view biology as autonomous among the sciences. At the root - all of biological life must obey the physical laws, rocks and rabbits are comprised of the same geometry and energy/matter.

Cosmology and mathematics inform astronomy, physics and quantum mechanics. They inform biology as well.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you both for your replies!

What configurations do you think a chaotic system must avoid?

Mathematical chaos is deterministic. And by definition, chaotic systems must be bounded, be sensitive to initial conditions, be transitive and have dense periodic orbits. Therefore, order cannot rise out of chaos in an unguided physical system.

Another example would be emergence, emergent properties cannot arise without rules, i.e. the whole greater than the sum of the parts.

Such initial conditions, boundaries and rules are required in self-organizing complexity models, cellular automata, etc.

In these intelligent design discussions, I am keenly interested in the measures of complexity and the guides to the systems. And of course the related issues: information (successful communication), autonomy, semiosis.

[Louis Foxwell]

Thank you, Alamo-Girl, as always, for your keen erudition and profound grasp of the subject at hand. I lack your meritorious training in the sciences. My background is in philosophy and theology, although I do not consider myself scholarly in any field. I am, rather, populist and Renaissance.
I have an eclectic intellectual palette with just enough depth to get myself in trouble. I sit at your feet in wonder when reading posts such as those you have just generated.
This brings me to an issue that troubles me deeply. I have, on this and other threads, been gang raped, mauled, slaughtered, buried and circle pi$$ed on my grave. Actually, it was not me to which these travesties were done. It was a cartoon characterization of me, created by my tormentors for their sadistic pleasure.
I do not have a background in the sciences yet am keenly interested in the impact that scientific thought has on society in general and our children in particular. Thus, I find myself injecting my opinions in matters where I am told I do not belong. I have never been much good at kowtowing to effete snobbery.
My assumption has been, since the late 90’s when I first encountered you and others on this forum, that anyone can play. The rules of the playground are simple: no cussing, no personal attacks, no chewing up bandwidth for self- aggrandizement.
Now, on this and other ID/evo threads, I find there is a gang of bullies on the playground that beats up anyone deemed to have broken its esoteric rules. If this were a purely intellectual exercise it would be acceptable. It is not. The attacks are personal and nasty.
I have been berated, belittled, insulted, maliciously taunted, pompously dismissed, accused of illiteracy (gasp), and told I cannot play because I do not know the rules. All on this one short thread!
I deem my tormentors to be college professors and graduate students, self-styled protectors of scientifica didactica. They are not research scientists, theoreticians or engaged in applied science. They are teachers: pompous, oafish, supercilious, ivory-towered elitists, the keepers of the keys, who grade peons like myself on our ability to follow their rules, as if we were all students in their vaunted classes. They remind me of a gaggle of lanate theologians protecting sacred dogma. As I said, I am not good at boot licking.
I am a layperson with opinions about matters inmpinging upon the teaching of science to children. I am also a theist who practices the presence of God-principles in my daily life. These I deem to be central to the nature system.
If there is no room in scientific methodology for foundational principles that are expressive of something other than happenstance then fie on science and fie especially on those who wish to protect the hallowed grounds of theoretical science from the incursions of God. I am okay with a raucous debate on the confluence of theism and science. What I am not okay with is being treated as a Neanderthal.

[Louis Foxwell]

Not that I have anything against Neanderthals.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for airing your grievance!

And thank you for your encouragements – but truly, I am nothing notable in any earthy respect at all.

My background is in philosophy and theology, although I do not consider myself scholarly in any field. I am, rather, populist and Renaissance.

Truly, all science derived from philosophy/theology. And just like cosmology and math informs biology, so does philosophy/theology – though many would like to keep any philosophy which does not enforce their presuppositions, out of the lab.

The result is the dangerous “second reality” so obvious in Lewontin, Singer, Pinker and Dawkins – which would merely be amusing if it were not that, from their lofty positions of power over the sciences, they also effect public policy. Singer, for instance, suggests that parents be allowed to kill their children within months or perhaps a year after birth.

If any here would protest that statement, I welcome the debate! Remember though that methodological naturalism itself is a philosophy and thus science has never successfully made a wall between itself and all the other disciplines of epistemology. Science used to be most closely related to epistemology, BTW. Sad that it no longer is this way in the U.S.

This brings me to an issue that troubles me deeply. I have, on this and other threads, been gang raped, mauled, slaughtered, buried and circle pi$$ed on my grave. Actually, it was not me to which these travesties were done. It was a cartoon characterization of me, created by my tormentors for their sadistic pleasure.

I do not have a background in the sciences yet am keenly interested in the impact that scientific thought has on society in general and our children in particular. Thus, I find myself injecting my opinions in matters where I am told I do not belong. I have never been much good at kowtowing to effete snobbery.

My assumption has been, since the late 90’s when I first encountered you and others on this forum, that anyone can play. The rules of the playground are simple: no cussing, no personal attacks, no chewing up bandwidth for self- aggrandizement.

Now, on this and other ID/evo threads, I find there is a gang of bullies on the playground that beats up anyone deemed to have broken its esoteric rules. If this were a purely intellectual exercise it would be acceptable. It is not. The attacks are personal and nasty.

I have been berated, belittled, insulted, maliciously taunted, pompously dismissed, accused of illiteracy (gasp), and told I cannot play because I do not know the rules. All on this one short thread!

I deem my tormentors to be college professors and graduate students, self-styled protectors of scientifica didactica. They are not research scientists, theoreticians or engaged in applied science. They are teachers: pompous, oafish, supercilious, ivory-towered elitists, the keepers of the keys, who grade peons like myself on our ability to follow their rules, as if we were all students in their vaunted classes. They remind me of a gaggle of lanate theologians protecting sacred dogma. As I said, I am not good at boot licking.

Many of us dismiss personal assaults – especially from newbies. But, as you say, it is impossible to ignore it when the correspondents are “ganging up”.

But here’s the good news: when your correspondents turn to personal attacks it means they have run out of ammunition and have nothing left to use but verbal spitwads. It means you are winning the argument, and most all Lurkers see this and understand it.

On the downside, it discourages the Lurkers from joining Free Republic and posting themselves – because they wouldn’t want to be in your shoes, receiving a personal attack. When that line has been crossed, it is bad for the forum and is time to mash the abuse button.

That is what the abuse button is for. If a Freeper feels he has been subjected to a personal assault – or notice it happening to another poster – then he should complain directly to the moderator by mashing “abuse”. There are consequences, especially if the abuse button is hit by more than one Freeper. Some threads get removed, others locked, some banished to the smoky backroom, some Freepers get warned, some suspended and some banned.

It has happened around here many, many times and especially on religion, science and drug enforcement threads (we have a lot of libertarians evidently).

I am a layperson with opinions about matters inmpinging upon the teaching of science to children. I am also a theist who practices the presence of God-principles in my daily life. These I deem to be central to the nature system.

If there is no room in scientific methodology for foundational principles that are expressive of something other than happenstance then fie on science and fie especially on those who wish to protect the hallowed grounds of theoretical science from the incursions of God. I am okay with a raucous debate on the confluence of theism and science. What I am not okay with is being treated as a Neanderthal.

You are not alone in your desire to look for the underlying principles of the universe and of life. I am most assuredly interested. And, as you know, I readily confess Jesus Christ is Lord and join with you in welcoming a raucous debate on the confluence of theism and science.

To the extent underlying principles are not translated to religious doctrine in publicly funded schools, I see no prohibition in the Constitution or by legal precedent in Supreme Court decisions of Lemon, et al.

In private schools and homeschooling – both of which are gnawing away at the establishment – there is no legal prohibition under the “establishment clause” but there remains a cultural prejudice against the body of believers so educated. Christians, however, were warned it would always be this way and we should not be intimidated by it (I Timothy 6:20-21)

After all, if there were no underlying, organizing principles to the universe and life – it would be completely unintelligible and neither science nor math would have anything to do.

[Ready2go]

God bless all of my Christian brothers & sisters!

1 Tim 6:

12 Fight the good fight for what we believe. Hold tightly to the eternal life that God has given you, which you have confessed so well before many witnesses.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Intelligent Design: Relevant to Science

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you oh so very much for your blessing and for the beautiful Scripture!

[betty boop]

Remember though that methodological naturalism itself is a philosophy and thus science has never successfully made a wall between itself and all the other disciplines of epistemology.... if there were no underlying, organizing principles to the universe and life – it would be completely unintelligible and neither science nor math would have anything to do.

But these are the very issues that the methodological/metaphysical naturalists absolutely refuse to apperceive, dear Alamo-Girl! Which is why there is so much "heat" and so little "light" in these debates.

Amos, don't let the abusive attacks get you down. Try not to take ad hominum attacks on you personally. They come from people who do not approve of how you think, but that is more their problem than yours, if you ask me. As a last resort, you can always take A-G's great advice and mash the Abuse Button. :^)

Thank you both for your excellent essay/posts!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your encouragements!!!

But these are the very issues that the methodological/metaphysical naturalists absolutely refuse to apperceive, dear Alamo-Girl! Which is why there is so much "heat" and so little "light" in these debates.

Very true! IMHO, the risk of a thread becoming all heat and no Light is precisely why it is so important for Christians to stay engaged in the debate despite all the flames, noise and discomfort.

[betty boop]

...the risk of a thread becoming all heat and no Light is precisely why it is so important for Christians to stay engaged in the debate despite all the flames, noise and discomfort.

I completely agree, A-G!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your agreement! Hmmm.... the thread seems to have gone to crickets...