The Other Intelligent Design Theories

Skeptic Online ^ | May 2006 | David Brin

[Fester Chugabrew]

There is no reason to give equal time for Hindu and Mayan cycles . . .

There is little, if any, reason to introduce intelligent design into every nook and cranny of scientific expression, either. ID is a tentative, overarching theory according to which any example of organized matter performing specific functions might be understood. It is not science or scientific in and of itself any more than tentative suggestions to the contrary, but it is a principle under which science may comfortably take place.

The outcry from Darwinists over the mere suggestion of intelligent design in a public, academic, scientific context is telling. It bespeaks anything but science.

[Dimensio]

Look at the intricate design all around you.

Argument from assertion.

Do you realize, for example, that a bat's sonar is so sophisticated that we don't fully understand its mechanism?

Argument from incredulity.

Evolution says this is a random mutation --

Demonstration of an incomplete understanding of the subject (note: it is more than a product of random mutation).

from inorganic matter to boot.

This statement is false.

[Dimensio]

Will you agree that either evolution is true or it isn't?

And if it's not true, then isn't the answer, necessarily, intelligent design?

False dichotomy. If evolution is proven false then the origin of species diversity becomes an unknown. Intelligent design does not win by default in such a situation. Moreover, note that "Intelligent Design", as pushed by its major proponents, accepts that evolution has occured.

[Dimensio]

ID is a tentative, overarching theory according to which any example of organized matter performing specific functions might be understood.

This is your definition of ID. Intelligent Design as stated by its major proponents is a subject only examining biology, not all matter in general. Please do not confuse your redefinition of ID with what is discussed commonly in contrast with evolution.

[Elpasser]

Paddlefish, i think you've missed the boat here. Either life is so complex that it had to be designed or it isn't. One need not be a fundamentalist to see that. One could be angry at his creator, and reject any relationship with, or duty to, Him altogether, and still acknowledge that there IS a creator or designer.

Your predicate seems to be that ID requires faith. I'm coming at it from the other way. Being a biology major and having been deeply schooled in evolutionary theory, I didn't see enough evidence nor could I assemble enough faith to buy into it. I think an examination of biological complexity declares a creator.

[Dimensio]

The theories should be presented with the appropriate evidence and logical arguments for each.

Please explain the evidence and logical arguments for intelligent design.

[Dimensio]

I'm willing to admit that their are elements of both history and faith in my support for Biblical Creationism.

Please explain the historical elements.

If only the Darwinian secularists were as honest.

What of those who accept the theory of evolution who are not "secularists"? How are people who accept the theory of evolution not honest? Please be specific.

[Stultis]

Even in today's news -- backwards evolution (Darwin's finch). In reality, nothing evolved at all. The finches with longer beaks predominated, then fell into the minority, then resumed predominance. The genes were there in the population mix all along. They didn't mutate or evolve in any evolutionary sense.

So if you're denying that this selection induced variation within single species means anything, as to the possibility of the species genuinely evolving into new types, then you must surely deny that the various species of Galapagos finches are related by common ancestry? (Else why protest so much about the significance of more minor changes?)

This puts you in a fairly unique position among modern creationists. Few (and I don't think any of the "leading" figures) hold to fixed species. Most accept the common ancestry of far more diverse forms than the Galapagos finches. For instance the entire Family of Equids (horses, asses and donkeys) is a paradigmatic example of a single "created kind".

[taxesareforever]

I doubt that the promoters of Intelligent Design really want to see a day come when every biology teacher says: “Okay, you’ve heard from Darwin. Now we’ll spend a week on each of the following: intelligent design, guided evolution, intelligent design of intelligent designers, evolution of intelligent designers, the Hindu cycle of karma, the Mayan yuga cycle, panspermia, the Universe as a simulation…” and so on.

Why not just forget Darwin and then all the others wouldn't be considered either. Oh, that's right, there is an agenda that needs to be promoted. Forget I even mentioned it.

[Paradox]

There is no reason to give equal time for Hindu and Mayan cycles, if there is no evidence and hardly anybody in this country believes that anyway.

I disagree, a science should be studied in variation to the evidence for it, not its popularity.

[Dimensio]

Why not just forget Darwin and then all the others wouldn't be considered either. Oh, that's right, there is an agenda that needs to be promoted.

To what "agenda", do you refer, beyond a comprehensive education of established scientific explanations?

[freedumb2003]

I suspect that the Philosophical Materialists, your typical Darwinist

Please prove this assertion. Most "Darwinists" (as you call those who understand science) that I know are Christians.

[trashcanbred]

Evolution says this is a random mutation -- from inorganic matter to boot. There is none so blind as he who will not see.

Read the follow:

In addition, experiments have made it clear that many mutations are in fact "random," and did not occur because the organism was placed in a situation where the mutation would be useful. For example, if you expose bacteria to an antibiotic, you will likely observe an increased prevalence of antibiotic resistance. In 1952, Esther and Joshua Lederberg determined that many of these mutations for antibiotic resistance existed in the population even before the population was exposed to the antibiotic — and that exposure to the antibiotic did not cause those new resistant mutants to appear.

Random mutations happen all the time. I am confused why you would disbelieve it given the proof of antibiotic bacteria among other things.

[Paddlefish]

Thank you for your reply, but you're missing the point entirely. I'm not making any statement about the validity of ID or evolution. I'm commenting on the fact that ID'ers are not being truthful about their real agenda which is converting people to their Biblical interpretaion. The vast majority of ID'ers are fundamentalist Christians who are attempting to impose their fundamentalist Christian Biblical interpretations on the public under the rubiic of "science." See The History of Creationism I just think it's ironic that they aren't following Biblical mandates in their attempt to impose their Biblical views on everybody.

[freedumb2003]

I think an examination of biological complexity declares a creator.

That is not ID (most people who understand TToE believe in a Creator). Examination of who built a Universe that is so complex belongs in the area of theology or philosophy, not science.

Many scientists come to the same conclusion as you -- in many different disciplines. You don't see a physics version of ID, do you?

[blowfish]

There is little, if any, reason to introduce intelligent design into every nook and cranny of scientific expression

Here we agree. In fact, since there's no example of a specific physical case where ID has had any detectable effect, there's no reason to introduce it into *any* 'nook and cranny' of scientific expression.
So we could limit the discussion to "there are those who believe there must be some intelligence behind the behaviour of physical object, but they have no examples or evidence to support their belief."

Works for me.

[freedumb2003]

Why not just forget Darwin and then all the others wouldn't be considered either.

And that silly Copernius dude. Oh, and Einstein. And Keppler. And Newton. And Curie.

Let's just teach the Bible as Science. Because that is what it is, right? A science text?

[trashcanbred]

The outcry from Darwinists over the mere suggestion of intelligent design in a public, academic, scientific context is telling. It bespeaks anything but science.

Fester, And what pray tell can we deduce about the outcry from the likes of Pat Robertson when Dover, PA, decided to oust the school board for pushing ID?

[tortoise]

Do you realize, for example, that a bat's sonar is so sophisticated that we don't fully understand its mechanism?

What does that mean? All mammals, including bats, have the same sound processing hardware. The mechanisms of echo-location (which humans possess, incidentally) and aural spatial processing are quite well understood. It is the reason we can artificially induce the experience in humans using off-the-shelf computer technology and slightly clever software algorithms.

The difference in "bat sonar" resolution among mammals is mostly a function of phase discrimination sensitivity, which involves some trade-offs in neuron wiring. Very high resolution phase discrimination requires dedicating a lot of hardware and neural paths, so critters that do not strictly need it tend to dedicate less hardware to the task at the cost of reduced discrimination. The difference between "bad" and "excellent" phase discrimination in mammals is several orders of magnitude timing precision due almost entirely to neuron wiring.

I'm at a bit of a loss as to where the mystery is now that I think about it. It is a relatively straightforward case of two-channel signal processing, with all the flaws and weaknesses implied. We understand it so well that we can very convincingly fool and spoof mammalian brains. Bats, cetaceans, and humans have some of the higher precision sound processing cortices, the microbats (the best) exceeds human phase discrimination by about two orders of magnitude. Some types of fish have phase discrimination that exceeds that of microbats by another order of magnitude or two, but they are also using different biological hardware.

[freedumb2003]

We look for ways to reconcile both, we just don't give 200 years of human scientific thought equal footing with the Creator. When there is a conflict, unless we've misunderstood the Creator, our money is on the Creator.

Which Creator? Whose Creator? Yours? Truth is a popularity contest? The best way to examine a scientific theory is by a show of hands? And what proof do we have of such a Creator?

In philosophy class all that fun stuff can be discussed. Why don't they have ID in physics? Things like quarks and strings looked like they required an Intelligent Designer whe they were first detected. They should study ID there too, right?