The Other Intelligent Design Theories

Intelligent Design is only one of many “alternatives” to Darwinian evolution

There is rich irony in how the present battle over Creationism v. Darwinism has taken shape, and especially the ways that this round differs from previous episodes. A clue to both the recent success — and the eventual collapse — of “Intelligent Design” can be found in its name, and in the new tactics that are being used to support its incorporation into school curricula. In what must be taken as sincere flattery, these tactics appear to acknowledge just how deeply the inner lessons of science have pervaded modern culture.

Intelligent Design (ID) pays tribute to its rival, by demanding to be recognized as a direct and “scientific” competitor with the Theory of Evolution. Unlike the Creationists of 20 years ago, proponents of ID no longer refer to biblical passages. Instead, they invoke skepticism and cite alleged faulty evidence as reasons to teach students alternatives to evolution.

True, they produce little or no evidence to support their own position. ID promoters barely try to undermine evolution as a vast and sophisticated model of the world, supported by millions of tested and interlocking facts. At the level that they are fighting, none of that matters. Their target is the millions of onlookers and voters, for whom the battle is as emotional and symbolic as it ever was.

What has changed is the armory of symbols and ideas being used. Proponents of Intelligent Design now appeal to notions that are far more a part of the lexicon of science than religion, notably openness to criticism, fair play, and respect for the contingent nature of truth.

These concepts proved successful in helping our civilization to thrive, not only in science, but markets, democracy and a myriad other modern processes. Indeed, they have been incorporated into the moral foundations held by average citizens, of all parties and creeds. Hence, the New Creationists have adapted and learned to base their arguments upon these same principles. One might paraphrase the new position, that has been expressed by President Bush and many others, as follows:

What do evolutionists have to fear? Are they so worried about competition and criticism that they must censor what bright students are allowed to hear? Let all sides present their evidence and students will decide for themselves!

One has to appreciate not only irony, but an implied tribute to the scientific enlightenment, when we realize that openness to criticism, fair play, and respect for the contingent nature of truth are now the main justifications set forward by those who still do not fully accept science. Some of those promoting a fundamentalist- religious agenda now appeal to principles they once fiercely resisted. (In fairness, some religions helped to promote these concepts.) Perhaps they find it a tactically useful maneuver.

It’s an impressive one. And it has allowed them to steal a march. While scientists and their supporters try to fight back with judicious reasoning and mountains of evidence, a certain fraction of the population perceives only smug professors, fighting to protect their turf — authority figures trying to squelch brave underdogs before they can compete. Image matters. And this self-portrayal — as champions of open debate, standing up to stodgy authorities — has worked well for the proponents of Intelligent Design (ID). For now.

Yet, I believe they have made a mistake. By basing their offensive on core notions of fair play and completeness, ID promoters have employed a clever short-term tactic, but have incurred a long-term strategic liability. Because, their grand conceptual error is in believing that their incantation of Intelligent Design is the only alternative to Darwinian evolution.

If students deserve to weigh ID against natural selection, then why not also expose them to…

This is the deist compromise most commonly held by thousands — possibly millions — of working scientists who want to reconcile science and faith. Yes, the Earth is 4.6 billion years old and our earliest ancestors emerged from a stew of amino acids that also led to crabs, monkeys and slime molds who are all distant relatives. Still, a creative force may have been behind the Big Bang, and especially the selection of some finely tuned physical constants, whose narrow balance appears to make the evolution of life possible, maybe even inevitable. Likewise, such a force may have given frequent or occasional nudges of subtle guidance to evolution, all along, as part of a Divine Plan.

There is one advantage — and drawback — to this notion (depending on your perspective): it is compatible with everything we see around us — all the evidence we’ve accumulated — and it is utterly impossible to prove or disprove. Not only does this let many scientists continue both to pray and do research, but it has allowed the Catholic Church and many other religious organizations to accept (at long last) evolution as fact, with relatively good grace.

Most Judeo-Christian sects dislike speculating about possible origins of the Creator. But not all avoid the topic. Mormons, for example, hold that the God of this universe — who created humanity (or at least guided our evolution) — was once Himself a mortal being who was created by a previous God in a prior universe or context.

One can imagine someone applying the very same logic that Intelligent Design promoters have used.

There is no way that such a fantastic entity as God could have simply erupted out of nothing. Such order and magnificence could not possibly have self-organized out of chaos. Only intelligence can truly create order, especially order of such a supreme nature.

Oh, certainly there are theological arguments that have been around since Augustine to try and quell such thoughts, arguing in favor of ex nihilio or timeless pre-existence, or threatening punishment for even asking the question. But that’s the point! Any effort to raise these rebuttals will:

1. make this a matter of theology (something the ID people have strenuously avoided). 2. smack as an attempt to quash other ideas, flying against the very same principles of fair play and completeness that ID proponents have used to prop up this whole effort.

IDOID will have to be let in, or the whole program must collapse under howling derision and accusations of hypocrisy.

Yes, you read me right. Recent advances in cosmology have led some of the world’s leading cosmologists, such as Syracuse University’s Lee Smolin, to suggest that each time a large black hole forms (and our universe contains many) it serves as an “egg” for the creation of an entirely new “baby universe” that detaches from ours completely, beginning an independent existence in some non-causally connected region of false vacuum. Out of this collapsing black hole arises a new cosmos, perhaps with its own subsequent Big Bang and expansion, including the formation of stars, planets, etc. Smolin further posits that our own universe may have come about that way, and so did its “parent” cosmos, and so on, backward through countless cycles of hyper-time.

Moreover, in a leap of highly original logic, Smolin went on to persuasively argue that each new universe might be slightly better adapted than its ancestor. Adapted for what? Why, to create more black holes — the eggs — needed for reproducing more universes.

Up to this point we have a more sophisticated and vastly larger-scale version of what Richard Dawkins called the evolution of evolvability. But Lee Smolin takes it farther still, contending that, zillions of cycles of increasingly sophisticated universes would lead to some that inherit just the right physical constants and boundary conditions.

Well, now it’s our turn to take things even farther than Smolin did. Any advocate of completeness would have to extend this evolutionary process beyond achieving mere sapience like ours, all the way to producing intelligence so potent that it can then start performing acts of creation on its own, manipulating and using black holes to fashion universes to specific design.

In other words, there might be an intelligent designer of this world … who nevertheless came into being as a result of evolution.

Sound a little newfangled and contrived? So do all new ideas! And yet, no one can deny that it covers a legitimate portion of idea space. And since “weighing the evidence” is to be left to students, well, shouldn’t they be exposed to this idea too? Again, the principles now used by proponents of ID — fair play and completeness — may turn around and bite them.

Perhaps the whole thing does not have a clear-cut beginning or end, but rolls along like a wheel? That certainly would allow enough macro-time for everything and anything to happen. Interestingly, the cyclical notion opens up infinite time for both evolution and intelligent designers … though not of any kind that will please ID promoters. Shall Hindu gurus and Mayan priest kings step up and demand equal time for their theories of creation cycles? How can you stop them, once the principle is established that every hypothesis deserves equal treatment in the schools, allowing students to hear and weigh any notion that claims to explain the world? 5. Panspermia

This one is venerable and quite old within the scientific community, which posits that life on Earth may have been seeded from elsewhere in the cosmos. Panspermia was trotted out for the “Scopes II” trial in the 1980s, when Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinge were among the few first-rank scientists to openly disbelieve the standard Origins model — the one that posits life appeared independently out of nonliving chemicals in Earth’s early oceans. Their calculations (since then refuted) suggested that it would take hundreds of oceans and many times the age of the Earth for random chemistry to achieve a workable, living cell.

Alas for the Creationists of that day, Hoyle and Wickramasinge did not turn out to be useful as friendly experts, because their alternative offered no comfort to the biblical Genesis story. They pointed out that our galaxy probably contains a whole lot more than a few hundred Earth oceans. Multiplying the age of the Milky Way times many billions of possible planets — and comets too — they readily conceded that random chance could make successful cells, eventually, on one world or another. (Or, possibly, in the liquid interiors of trillions of newborn comets.) All it would take then are asteroid impacts ejecting hardy cells into the void for life to then spread gradually throughout the cosmos. Perhaps it might even be done deliberately, once a single lucky source world achieved intelligence through … well … evolution. (Needless to say, Creationists found Hoyle & Wickramasinge a big disappointment.)

So far, we have amassed quite a list of legitimate competitors … that is, if Intelligent Design is one. Now a cautionary pause. Some alternative theories that I have left out include satirical pseudo-religions, like one recent internet fad attributing creation to something called the “Flying Spaghetti Monster.” These humorous jibes have a place, but their blows do not land on-target. They miss the twin pillars of completeness and fair play, upon which promoters of Intelligent Design have based their attack against secular-modernist science. By erasing all theological details, they hoped to eliminate any vulnerabilities arising from those details. Indeed, since the Spaghetti Monster is purported to be an Intelligent Designer, they can even chuckle and welcome it into the fold, knowing that it will win no real converts.

Not so for the items listed here. Each of these concepts — adding to idea-space completeness and deserving fair play — implies a dangerous competitor for Intelligent Design, a competitor that may seduce at least a few students into its sphere of influence. This undermines the implicit goal of ID, which is to proselytize a fundamentalist/literalist interpretation of the Christian Bible.

There are other possibilities, and I am sure readers could continue adding to the list, long after I am done, such as…

* We’re living in a simulation… * We’ve been resurrected at the Omega Point… * It’s all in your imagination … and so on.

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.

Each of these viewpoints can muster support from philosophers and even some modern physicists, and can gather as much supporting evidence as ID. In any case they are all equally defensible as concepts. And only censoring bullies would prevent students from hearing them and exercising their sovereign right to decide for themselves, right? Or, perhaps, they might even start private sessions after school, to study the science called … biology.

A day may come when the promoters of Intelligent Design wish they had left well enough alone.

"Most if not all of you doubters, by choice, have not read the Bible and don't care to; nor, do you really know much about true science."

Um, no.

"The odds required for just one protein molecule to form spontaneously is one in a number equal to all the atoms in the known universe and even then you would only have a very miniscule piece of the human cell structure."

Please provide, in detail, how you calculated that, and what your assumptions are about how a protein molecule would have to form.

"Quite frankly, I think the fear of God is extremely appropriate, both the awesome form and the terror form. He has the power of eternal life and death.

If you want to choose to ignore Him and suffer the consequences, so be it..."

Most people who accept evolution are Christians. Your presumption is wrong.

"The more science discovers the more thinking scientist are impressed with creation and are defecting to "Intelligent Design"."

About 95% of working scientists accept evolution; of those that actually work in related fields (like biology) the percentage is even higher. ID appeals to the fringe elements and the con men out to make a buck that always exist.

"If you choose to hold on to this "Flat Earth", "God denying", theory to your own peril... go for it. However, God will have the last word and you will NOT have a choice about that."

You ARE aware that the major ID proponents vigorously deny that ID has anything to do with religion/theology/God, right? Are they lying when they say that?

BTW, they also accept most of the elements of evolution, including a very old earth, common descent, natural selection....

"Where are the billions of missing links that would be required for evolution to be plausible???"

Are you under the impression that most organisms fossilize?

Your screed WAS amusing though. Thanks for the laugh! :)

"..but it does not logically follow that only one specific philosophical foundation can lead to acceptance of the theory."

So, in other words, someone can, possibly, accept the 'truth' of evolution, from the position of more than one philosophical tradition? What about logical reasoning itself? Is that not also based purely in one or more philosophical traditions?

There is no absolute standard by which to trust logic .... is there?

What I'm saying is that in order to logically defend any position, one must hold to a single 'truth' reference, thus, a single philosophical tradition. The common one of course here is that gentle spirit, 'reason'. But reason itself is based in a philosophical tradition.

And the one I state that your typical Darwinist adheres to is this: the 'stuff' out there is all that there is. That is the beginning faith point, by which all else, including Darwinism is derivative. And, given the only evidence available, on a predictable basis, points in this direction, it is no wonder the world is chock full of materialists.

Natural selection does not have to apply universally in order for a parallel to be drawn.

On the contrary, it does. Natural selection is presented as an explanation for the diversity of biological life form. Proponents of biological ID claim that natural selection is insufficient to account for certain biological structures, and introduce ID as an explanation to account for the alleged inadequacies of natural selection.

To contrast, there is no current explanation for the ultimate cause of "organized matter performing specific functions" as a general case. As such, you cannot point to an explanation as being inadequate to explain specific properties of these specific functions, because there is no such explanation. Thus, your comparison is invalid because proponents of biological ID are making an argument from incredulity applied to natural selection, while you are attempting to apply your claim where no preexisting explanations exist. You cannot claim inadequacies in an explanation when no explanation exists.

So, in other words, someone can, possibly, accept the 'truth' of evolution, from the position of more than one philosophical tradition?

Yes. Are you suggesting otherwise?

What about logical reasoning itself? Is that not also based purely in one or more philosophical traditions?

To some extent, yes it is.

There is no absolute standard by which to trust logic .... is there?

An appeal can be made to its consistency. Are you attempting to make a point?

What I'm saying is that in order to logically defend any position, one must hold to a single 'truth' reference, thus, a single philosophical tradition. The common one of course here is that gentle spirit, 'reason'. But reason itself is based in a philosophical tradition.

Reason is a function of thinking.

And the one I state that your typical Darwinist adheres to is this: the 'stuff' out there is all that there is. That is the beginning faith point, by which all else, including Darwinism is derivative. And, given the only evidence available, on a predictable basis, points in this direction, it is no wonder the world is chock full of materialists.

This appears to be a great deal of verbiage, but I do not understand how it supports your claim that the theory of evolution is "acidic", or that all who accept it are materialists.

"In your not-so-humble opinion?"

As you may recall, I'm referring to suffering. In my experience, folks who avoid and/or run from any experience which involves suffering are the norm. Being made fun of is the weapon of choice by those who attack those who don't turn and run. At minimum, it reveals in stark light to the timid the consequences of not running.

"...using that ignorance to attempt to discredit TToE is doing the work of Satan -- period."

So, I'm doing the work of Satan? I suppose that is going beyond making fun, yes?

"Trying to discredir the Theory of Evolution is the same as trying to discredit the Theory of Gravity."

The acceleration due to the gravity of Earth can be measured to roughly 9.8 m/s2. This can be proven, repeatedly, in the lab.

I forget, would you please tell me what evolutionary parameters, have been measured, repeatedly, in the lab?

Defying the law of gravity can kill you. Defying the law of evolution? Well, I would argue that some believe it is worth killing over. But I don't believe that.

And by the way, I never am interested in discrediting ToE as near as much as I'm interested in crediting the Way. No matter how effective I am at discrediting ToE, it is for naught if the only result is that someone casts about for something else as inane as philosophical materialism ... e.g., scientology. Or Christian Science.

Hmmmm. You do realize the death of a loved intersects both Darwinism and Christian Science? For Charles, who only had a formal degree in Theology, it was the death of his daughter, 12 year old Annie, that was the tipping point. For Mary Baker Eddy, it was the death of George Glover, her husband, but especially, it was when her Dad's new wife kicked out Mary's little boy, George Jr. Can't imagine a grief like that, that she suffered through...

It must have broke her heart ... so she invented a new religion with herself as the first high priestess....and oh yes, she wrote a book, and it is quoted from this day in her 'churches', and specifically, she attacks the ressurection of Jesus as being a fraud.

But I wouldn't claim Darwin himself, or Mary B. E. are 'doing' the work of Satan. I would say lazy folks are refusing to do the work of Christ, and include myself in that group at too many times.

And by the way, Christianity is also loving God first, others second, and especially, loving others as Christ loved us.

Sometimes Christians struggle with this, and make too much room for the enemy as a consequence.

"Reason is a function of thinking."

Oh. But only for the reasonable people, right? I like that word, reason, much better now. I have a copy of the 1828 original Websters ... and looked up 'reason'. Turns out its origin is from the latin 'ratio', which merely means 'to number'.

So much of reasoning, all?, thus, is based on the ability to be numerate. But woe betide the illnumerate.

Ah sweet reason, lovely logic ... the power of thinking.

Maybe we can make headway via another route ... tomorrow.

Are you a golfer?

I need to cut through your bluster to get to the heart of the matter. The wages of purposively spreading misinformation and ignorance I leave to the observer and perpetrator.

The acceleration due to the gravity of Earth can be measured to roughly 9.8 m/s2. This can be proven, repeatedly, in the lab.

Thus showing you don't know what a theory is. You have a data point -- great.

I forget, would you please tell me what evolutionary parameters, have been measured, repeatedly, in the lab?

Micro-evolution has been proved countless times. Multiple dating methods have established the age of the proof. Anthropological analysis have provided context and demonstrated the veracity of TToE for Macro-Evolution. There are more data points for TToE than Gravity.

Learn what a theory is, then comeback. Oh, and if you are here to proselytize, then save it for the religion threads. (And by the way, I never am interested in discrediting TToE as near as much as I'm interested in crediting the Way.)

Humans use their stereo hearing to determine if sound is coming from the right or left, front or rear, up or down, near or far.

One of the weaknesses of our hearing is that we think we can directionalize sound in the plane equidistant from the ears far better than we actually can. Left-right aural localization in humans is very competent due to good phase discrimination in the brain -- I would guess that complex vocal communication drove this ability in our species. The primary cues for location in the equidistant plane is notch filtering by the outer ear which changes frequency depending on the relative angle, and our ability to see the object making the sound. It is well known that vision localization over-rides sound localization, such that if you hear a stationary sound that looks like it is coming from something in front of you, you will hear it in front of you even if the sound is actually originating behind you.

The notch filters in that plane allow us to localize in two primary ways. First, a sound moving in that plane will have its perceived spectral content change due to the angle dependent notch filters, providing cues for relative position to the brain. Second, for very familiar sounds where the brain has a memory of the spectral content, it will guess the location of a stationary sound by any apparent notches in the sound relative to memory. For stationary unfamiliar sounds in that plane, particularly in an environment without a lot of good reflections, a blindfolded person will do very poorly at localizing the sound.

Incidentally, humans are capable of pretty astonishing echo-location, far better than most people would guess. It has been studied in a number of contexts. Vision so dominates our experience that it does not get consciously utilized very much. It takes very little training to do rudimentary echo-location, and blind people with good hearing can echo-locate and spatialize their space with a cross-section of a few square centimeters at several meters. Which is why blind people frequently have uncanny ability to know what is going on around them; absent vision constantly over-riding the aural cortex, they mature the ability to "see" their environment by sound, both active and passive. Again, it is not bat-like in resolution but still highly functional.

There is no evidence- but deduction, inference, and logic still hold. These are "arguments", which may be countered with other arguments or eventually disproven with evidence.

To summarily dismiss all arguments for lack of proof seems foolish..... why say anything or have conversations without citing numbers for everything?

Hi. Nice weather.

Prove it! Show me your data that this weather is "nice"!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.