Intelligent Design Is Creationism in a Cheap Tuxedo

Physics Today ^ | July 1, 2002 | Adrian L. Melott

[That Subliminal Kid]

ID, as you describe it, provides no new information; it just gives a different (and virtually miraculous) interpretation, which strips us of our ability to understand the development of life on earth.

How does ID prohibit you or anyone else from studying the development of life from a naturalist point of view? It isn't like someone's going to make a new law saying you can't continue to study the way you want.

Not quite. Science deals only with verifiable data. This limits science to dealing with nature, and within that limitation, science has been able to describe the world and provide natural (and testable) explainations for natural phenomena. If there is a super-natural agency lurking in the background, science is incapable of observing it, testing it, probing it, etc. No fault can be assigned to folks who recognize their limitations and who act accordingly.

Science doesn't assume everything has a natural explaination? Of course it does. It must. That is the essence of science. Please observe I have assigned no fault to anyone, and I said before that I agree that science should assume a priori that all phenomena have a natural explaination. Science is the study of the natural world. People may not assume these things if they wish, but science as a discipline does indeed assume that everything has a natural explaination.

Nope. It's the creationists who operate on faith. Science operates on data and logic. Evolution has proposed a natural means by which life evolved on earth, and that natural method is consistent with all the verifiable evidence. No faith is involved.

Yep. The vast majority of supposed evolution has never been observed. The vast majority of transitional fossils are missing due to [fill in your favorite natural disaster]. This isn't to say that all of life didn't develop naturally. Maybe it did. Science assumes a priori that it did and then sets about explaining how based on the data that it can find. So, of course it is taken on faith that life developed naturally. It can't be empirically proven, no matter how many hypothesis and just-so stories scientists can dream up.

I think what you're saying is that ID doesn't deny the facts, it just ignores them, refuses to connect the dots, declares that the obvious patterns don't exist, and assumes that a miracle made everything happen. It's okay if you want to look at things that way, but it's not science, and it doesn't belong in a science class.

You'll need to think again, I'm afraid. ID does not ignore them, nor does it refuse to connect dots. It doesn't claim obvious patterns don't exist, and it does not assume that a miracle made everything happen. ID is based on facts like DNA and genetic variation. ID theorists connect the dots in a way that differs from how you might connect the same dots, because they are not limited by the same ad hoc assumption that science is. ID theorists readily acknowledge that many patterns exist in living things, and it does not deny the inter-relatedness of living things. It does not deny ancestry and it does not deny speciation. Patrick, I'm starting to wonder what if anything you've read from the ID theorists who are publishing work. Honestly, have you read anything at all? I encourage you to do so, I think it might clear up what appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what ID theorists are claiming. Your problem may stem from the possibility that you are getting your information second hand, filtered by a scholar you happen to agree with. It may also be that you are getting your information from lay persons who while they agree with the ID theorists, don't fully understand what exactly they are saying, and in paraphrasing they embellish for their own religious or theistic argumentations. I don't really know what it is, but I advise you to buy or steal a few books by Dembski and read them in full so that you can be better informed. Who knows, you might even be able to defeat me in one of these rousing debates that come along every so often. Good luck!

[PatrickHenry]

I don't have time to deal with all your points, so I've selected only two for a response:

Science doesn't assume everything has a natural explaination? Of course it does. It must. That is the essence of science. Please observe I have assigned no fault to anyone, and I said before that I agree that science should assume a priori that all phenomena have a natural explaination. Science is the study of the natural world. People may not assume these things if they wish, but science as a discipline does indeed assume that everything has a natural explaination.

The key difference between the approach of a scientist and an advocate of ID is that the scientist will continue to search for a natural explanation -- reasonably suspecting, I suppose, that there is such an explanation, based on the magnificent track record of science. The ID advocate, however, is content to halt the search at a convenient place -- such as right now -- and declare that not only is there no natural explanation at this time, but that there will never be one. Thus -- ta da! -- the Intelligent Designer. This isn't science, it's laziness.

Yep. The vast majority of supposed evolution has never been observed. The vast majority of transitional fossils are missing due to [fill in your favorite natural disaster]. This isn't to say that all of life didn't develop naturally. Maybe it did. Science assumes a priori that it did and then sets about explaining how based on the data that it can find. So, of course it is taken on faith that life developed naturally. It can't be empirically proven, no matter how many hypothesis and just-so stories scientists can dream up.

Ah, so any missing evidence is adequeate for the ID advocate to declare that the whole enterprise of science is bogus. However, in the real world we often lack all the desired data points. For example, if you are hunting a fugative who leaves Utah and who ends up in West Virginia, you may have a few sightings along the way, enough to point you in the general direction. The ID advocate, however, asserts that unless you have a heliocopter flying over his car and filming the entire journey, we don't know what has happened, and we are unjustified in assuming that he traveled from one point continuously to the other. The ID approach is a mere convenience for denying the obvious conclusion presented by the available evidence.

[AndrewC]

For example, if you are hunting a fugative who leaves Utah and who ends up in West Virginia, you may have a few sightings along the way, enough to point you in the general direction.

There's a road. People can travel on it at any time.

[balrog666]

There's a road. People can travel on it at any time.

Deliberate-point-missing, invincible-ignorance-rampant, going-on-vacation placemarker.

[PatrickHenry]

Happy 4th.

[That Subliminal Kid]

The key difference between the approach of a scientist and an advocate of ID is that the scientist will continue to search for a natural explanation -- reasonably suspecting, I suppose, that there is such an explanation, based on the magnificent track record of science. The ID advocate, however, is content to halt the search at a convenient place -- such as right now -- and declare that not only is there no natural explanation at this time, but that there will never be one. Thus -- ta da! -- the Intelligent Designer. This isn't science, it's laziness.

Here's the crux of the matter, for me. Science has totally failed to provide empirical evidence for any natural mechanism capable of producing the wide and varied biological diversity we see today. It is theorized that the examples of genetic variation and natural selection that we have observed can be extrapolated to account for every facet of biology. You have faith that if we look long and hard enough, we will eventually arrive at some sort of mechanism and description of this mechanism that accounts for the development of life from non-living matter to the single cell and beyond. Right now you do not have this, or anything close. You have conjecture based on sparse evidence. You may be right, but to assert that any particular conclusion is "obvious" from the evidence at hand is absurd. It's only obvious in so far as science is a field studying the natural world. In this paradigm I fully agree that natural evolution is the obvious conclusion. I simply see no reason to conclude that science's presupposition is in fact exclusively true simply because in the realm of science it is true by definition. You seem to think science has some sort of monoply on what is possible. I think that's a rather narrow way to look at the world. I think science is a great thing, and a powerful thing, but when you begin to make leaps in logic based on sparse evidence all of which is founded upon a massive presupposition about the nature of reality itself, you can't honestly expect other people to agree with you, unless they too have an alterior motive, such as proping up atheism.

Ah, so any missing evidence is adequeate for the ID advocate to declare that the whole enterprise of science is bogus. However, in the real world we often lack all the desired data points. For example, if you are hunting a fugative who leaves Utah and who ends up in West Virginia, you may have a few sightings along the way, enough to point you in the general direction. The ID advocate, however, asserts that unless you have a heliocopter flying over his car and filming the entire journey, we don't know what has happened, and we are unjustified in assuming that he traveled from one point continuously to the other. The ID approach is a mere convenience for denying the obvious conclusion presented by the available evidence.

I'm an ID advocate and I don't think the entire enterprise of science is bogus. I don't even think 95% of science is bogus. I've never heard an advocate of ID theory assert that lack of evidence is itself evidence. On the contrary, they seek to provide evidence that the specified complexity of biological information cannot be naturally produced. This is the exact opposite of a lack of evidence. Another problem you have it seems to me is that you are clouding the issue perhaps with what you've read of the "Wedge Strategy" which itself is wholly different from ID theory, although it uses ID theory as a tool to be sure. Those behind the Wedge Strategy often use science's lack of an explaination, and to much success, to pull people who may not be sure away from naturalistic explainations towards a theistic persuation. That's their right to try, and I certainly don't have a problem with it, though I myself think people should study all sides of the issue and come to their own conclusions. ID theory is separate and distinct from those who would use it as part of a wider agenda, which of course exists. It does not and has never used a lack of evidence as evidence for the contrary. Again I challenge you to find a reference or quote or anything where a practicing ID theorist does this.

In conclusion, I would point out once again that what is an "obvious" conclusion totally depends upon the paradigm in which one is examining the "evidence". What is obvious to you may not and probably on a number of points regarding natural evolution is not obvious to me. I appreciate hard empirical science. Experiments that can be repeated. Hypotheses that can be subjected to the scientific method. I have little respect and a high level of disdain for speculative theories based on limited data filtered through a materialist paradigm and foisted on people as "the truth".

[medved]

However, in the real world we often lack all the desired data points

In the real world in the cases of believable scientific theories, you often lack A FEW data points. When ALL the data points are lacking, as in the case of evolution, real scientists are usually not in the business of patching together BS theories based on said total lack of data.

[medved]

Also, people would have been able to get around faster [ in lesser gravity], and probably would have developed flight.

Would major evidence of a biplanetary society in ancient times suffice?

[AndrewC]

Deliberate-point-missing, invincible-ignorance-rampant, going-on-vacation placemarker

Why should anyone else care what you think of yourself?

[forsnax5]

That's right, that's a man sitting on top of that stone. The stone is about 100'x20'x20' and is found near Baalbek Lebanon near the temple of Jupiter, which is comprised in part of several similar stones.

You might have mentioned that the stone in the picture is still in the quarry -- it was not moved from where you see it. Also the three similar stones are somewhat smaller -- a mere 1000 tons. :)

Known as Hajar el Gouble, the Stone of the South, or the Hajar el Hibla, the Stone of the Pregnant Woman, it weighs an estimated 1200 tonnes.(2) It lays at a raised angle - the lowest part of its base still attached to the living rock - cut and ready to be broken free and transported to its presumed destination next to the Trilithon, the name given to the three great stones in ancient times.

Those column stones were not created by dinosaurs 70 million years ago and the Army Corps of Engineers has flatly asserted that no modern technology, much less any ancient technology, could move them (in present gravity that is).

You'll need to update this assertion from the Army Corps of Engineers. At the following site:

http://www.demag24.com/en/produkte/gittermast/index.asp

You'll find (with pictures):

Lifting the heaviest loads to the dizziest of heights

Demag lattice-boom cranes are capable of lifting the heaviest loads to incredible heights. In the case of the CC models, the crawler carrier ensures a high level of mobility, while the TC range comes with a road-going truck carrier. Demag lattice-boom cranes are characterised by an intelligent design concept incorporating highly refined erection and transportation logistics. All Demag lattice-boom cranes offer superior lifting technology, with the various models capable of lifting capacities ranging from 300t to a gigantic 1600t, and lifting heights of up to 234m.

CC 12600

With a maximum lifting capacity of 1600t and 22m radius, the Demag CC 12600 is the world's most powerful crawler crane with pick-and-carry capability. The 114m main boom can be combined with a 120m luffing or fixed jib to give a maximum hook height of 234 m! All the crane components have been optimised for effective transport logistics and can be easily assembled and dismantled.

[PatrickHenry]

Here's the crux of the matter, for me. Science has totally failed to provide empirical evidence for any natural mechanism capable of producing the wide and varied biological diversity we see today. It is theorized that the examples of genetic variation and natural selection that we have observed can be extrapolated to account for every facet of biology.

I totally disagree. The mechanisms of evolution -- mutation and natural selection -- are supported by abundant evidence. I know of no species which is immune to these influences. Over time -- lots more time than the "young earthers" will admit -- the cumulative effects of mutation and natural selection can account for the presently-observed diversity of life on earth, as well as the fossil record of life in prior eras.

You may be right, but to assert that any particular conclusion is "obvious" from the evidence at hand is absurd. It's only obvious in so far as science is a field studying the natural world. In this paradigm I fully agree that natural evolution is the obvious conclusion. I simply see no reason to conclude that science's presupposition is in fact exclusively true simply because in the realm of science it is true by definition. You seem to think science has some sort of monoply on what is possible. I think that's a rather narrow way to look at the world.

All I'm talking about is science, which does indeed have a monopoly on what is possible -- in the natural world. If you want to discuss the happenings in the spirit world, I'll have to drop out of the discussion, because I can only deal with verifiable evidence. There may be loads of things happening among the incorporeal spirits, but without evidence we can see, touch, etc., I don't know how I'm going to learn about such matters.

In conclusion, I would point out once again that what is an "obvious" conclusion totally depends upon the paradigm in which one is examining the "evidence".

I'm sure that's true. But a non-scientific paradigm -- although one is perfectly free to persue it -- has no place in a scientific setting. This is my principle point.

I have little respect and a high level of disdain for speculative theories based on limited data filtered through a materialist paradigm and foisted on people as "the truth".

Me too. But I don't think evolution is one of those theories. I guess we'll just have to leave it there.

[supercat]

He couldn't even think about flying in our present world, but he did fly in the ancient world, with the lesser gravity.

Lesser gravity, or denser atmosphere?

[supercat]

At least this is SOMETHING that is being claimed as a benefit of evolutionary theory. What is the goal -- to get the animals to evolve so they won't be so vulnerable to extinction any more? Playing a bit of the role of an (ahem) creator?

How about understanding the effects of releasing animals bred in captivity into an area other than that from which their parents originated? To be sure, Darwinian mechanics are of somewhat limitted usefulness here as the consequences of such action are largely speculative. But an understanding of Darwinian evolution may help in predicting what's apt to happen (and thus in deciding whether such a planned release is a good idea).

[supercat]

So no, the worst thing one could do is follow evolutionary theory in breeding animals. In fact breeding results in the opposite of what evolution requires.

INbreeding does indeed have such effects; Darwinian mechanics suggests that inbred animal populations of moderate size are apt to become unduly adapted to the circumstances in which they are bred. If there is a characteristic which would provide a major survival or reproductive benefit in most situations but it provides even a slight disadvantage in the situation where animals are inbred, that useful trait will be "evolved out" of the inbred animals.

Of course, in many cases Mendel's understanding of genetics and the effects of recessive genes is a more important consideration, but from what I understand it is Darwinian mechanics that exposes the risk of captive-breeding programs that select against traits that are needed in the wild.

[supercat]

In fact your example is a contradiction of natural selection, it says that isolation would enable a species to become less fit and lose abilities it previously had. This is subtraction again attempting to justify a process (evolution) which requires addition.

The animals on either side of the divide would become more specialized as a result of separation from former predators. Such speciailization is not a matter of addition or subtraction, but rather substitution. Or, to put it another way, it's about subtracting what would have been obstacles to the addition of what (under new circumstances) are clearly desirable traits.

BTW, the reason I espouse the position I do is not that I believe in any particular mechanism by which a technically new species might come about, but rather because I believe that the position that nearly all species were created by a means other than evolution is more easily supportable than the claim that absolutely all species were so created, and yet the religious implications of the two statements are essentially identical.

The statement that absolutely no species came about through evolution is essentially unprovable (since one can't prove a total negative) and yet could potentially be disproven by a single counter-example. The claim that evolution is responsible for the creation of at most a very small portion of the species in existence is much more strongly supportable, since not only would it require many counter-examples to disprove, but the fact that counterexamples have not been discovered provides strong evidence that they cannot be numerous.

[gore3000]

Creationism and ID both require a creator -- or designer -- as the essential cause of the proliferation of species we see, and both claim that natural evolution is impossible.

Even if the above is granted, so what? Just because ID may imply the existence of God does not mean it is untrue. Just because ID is an attack on evolution, does not mean it is not true. Just because ID may imply a non-material entity does not mean that it is not science. Many astronomers think that the universe implies a Creator, that does not mean that astronomy is not science.

What evolutionists are trying to do with ID is just dismiss it out of hand. Now that is not science. A theory that claims to be science has to answer to scientific questions. The questions being posed by ID are indeed scientific questions and can be responded to by science. Evolutionists know this, their problem with ID is that they do not like to answer the questions.

[gore3000]

And still you refuse to see. Take a quarter out of your pocket (again!) and start flipping (again!). Each flip equals one child. Heads they're unmutated, tails they got the mutation. Flip it ten times. How many tails (mutations) did you get (pass on)?

No Jenny, it is you who refuses to see. What matters is not how many children the person who has the child produces, it is the differential between how many children that person and the rest of the population produce that is the problem for transmission. Unless the mutation gives a tremendous advantage to the procreation of the individual - right away - it is almost impossible for it to beat the odds of 50%. Let's remember this, the casinos in Vegas were built with far smaller odds. A 5% odds against the gambler is enough for them to make a fortune. Now the odds against any mutation being spread are 50%! Those odds are way too big for the mutation to spread amongst a species.

[gore3000]

LBB doesn;t remember the part about HMS Beagle, does he?

He did no experiments on the Beagle. His famous finches, he did not even classify them properly and did not show much interest in them. So, yes, Darwin was no scientist. He did no experiments, certainly none that had anything to do with evolution. The man was a charlatan. A very good charlatan, but a charlatan nevertheless.

[gore3000]

You are right, having the exact condition that "1 million DNA base pairs. Now you would need to construct such a sequence totally at random, you would need to construct the paired sequence to be the exact mirror image of the first, you would have to construct a string of RNA to transcribe the same." happen is long odds. So is any other specific result. But one was guaranteed, and this is the one.

That is totally absurd! Who or what guarantees that such a sequence will be formed at random? Nothing, nothing at all. You have to have the exact sequence not just any sequence. The exact sequence in the exact order. That is even harder than a lottery where the order does not matter. The chances are just as slim as a bunch of monkeys writing Hamlet - or worse.

[gore3000]

He did? like what? Are you getting him confused with Archimedes?

Well, I consider his disecting animals to see how their organisms work experimentation. Perhaps you do not.