Posts

"Let's assume for a moment that the universe *is* intelligent. Where does that get us? When we study something, we theorize about its behavior. Considering that this intelligence is impossible to rule out, it would make any inconsistency in a theory attributable to such intelligence. Science wouldn't be where it is today if perturbations in planetary orbit were attributed to intelligence. That's why the "theory" of an intelligent universe is useless."

Bud says:

This is an excellent point.  If one assumes intelligence, it almost always becomes a dead end from a scientific point of view.  If, whenever we are presented with a "gap" in our understanding of a scientific hypothesis, we assume intelligence, we have effectively shut the door on any further study.  As stated correctly above, intelligence can never be ruled out or proven.  There is simply no where you can go, from a scientific standpoint, once intelligence is entered into the equation.  It is a dead-end.  Think of all the discoveries that would not have occurred throughout history, if, everytime we were presented with an incomplete understanding of a problem, we simply gave up and said "it must have been that designer again".  This, in a nutshell, is why ID is not only useful, but is downright dangerous in the filed on scientific inquiry.  If you disagree with this, then I ask the following:  please tell us how the presence of design can be used to extend scientific research.  What further experiments would you propose once design is detected?  What useful predictions and discoveries could result from exploring the concept of design?

"Is there any way to test this kind of idea? It is assumed in the sciences of systems, complexity, chaos and information. Can't we apply these principles to biological evolution and find a way to test them?"

Yes, that is our question too, how do you test it?  How do you falsify it?  How do you show it can make useful predictions?  Please, tell us, we're all ears.

And by the way Prophet, you may not be aware that the greatest obstacle to machine intelligence is the inability of computers to process natural human language. Since chess does not require NLP, computers can sometimes win because of their speed. But their speed is actually a result of their stupidity, not of their intelligence.

"I predict within the next decade the Turing Test will be passed"

No computer has ever passed the Turing test. Very far from it. Humans are NOT smarter than nature. We couldn't run our bodies for an instant if we had to do it consciously. Biologists can't create the simplest of life forms. Neuroscientists have almost no real understanding of how the brain works. A fly is smarter than our smartest computers.

And where exactly did you get the inside information that god is an illusion? Have you fallen for Dawkins' delusions of omniscience? 

No, Prophet. Are we smarter than god because we can make airplanes? It's the same with computers — they seem smart because they're fast. Like airplanes they are specialized machines that cannot operate without human direction. A computer is just as stupid as an airplane. It's seeming intelligence is all illusion.

Computers allow us to automate cognitive tasks that we already know how to do. We must describe the steps in detail in order to get the computer to follow them.

 The intelligence of computers CANNOT be compared to natural human intelligence. Artificial intelligence has NOT produced anything resembling natural intelligence. As brilliant as computers may seem to be, the brilliance is in the engineers, not in the machine.

Your argument has no relevance to Intelligent Design anyway. It seems to be related to the typical materialist argument that intelligence is not a big deal since it can be created so easily. All wrong, on various levels.

"evaluate conserved portions of the nucleotides and structures to understand common genetic foundations between species."

"It is also an absurd and useless theory."

I agree with you, David N. Friedman. However, the emotional charge
surrounding evolution is not going to subside and calm reason will not
prevail any time soon. This is because the acceptance and establishment
of neo-Darwinism as an explanation for evolution is what allowed
scientific materialism to dominated 20th century science. The
scientific materialists, and the atheists, are not going to let go
without a desperate fight.

They have been the high priests of mainstream science for decades. And neo-Darwinism was the key.

So logical arguments mean nothing to them. The more logical you are, the angrier they get.

I don't belong to Discovery Institute and I often disagree with
certain DI members' statements. Especially the ones who sympathize with
creationism or who criticize well-established tenets of evolution and
Darwinism. ID proponents are not infallible. But on the whole, it is
obvious to me that ID is heading in a much more promising direction
than neo-Darwinism.

I do not believe evolution was caused by supernatural interventions,
or that it was consciously planned by a personal god. Maybe that is
what happened, but we have absolutely no evidence that it did, and it
would be utterly unscientific to make those claims. I think a more
reasonable and scientifically modest hypothesis right now would be
something like Developmental Systems Theory, for example.

According to Systems Theory, consciousness is not confined to
physical brains. Consciousness, and intelligence, are a natural
property of the universe, or universes. In this framework, the origin
and evolution of life is not surprising or unlikely. It is exactly what
we should expect. Systems Theory makes sense, and it's scientific. No,
it does not give us a detailed explanation of evolution. But it is a
reasonable framework and starting point.

So why wasn't a Systems Theory view of evolution accepted decades ago?
Because the idea of an intelligent universe is extremely threatening to
scientific materialism and atheism. If the universe is intelligent,
then maybe religion is something more than ignorance and wishful
thinking. It would not be so easy to denounce and disdain any and all
spiritual or supernatural beliefs. Without neo-Darwinism to lean on,
scientific materialism would lose its strongest arguments against
religion.

Scientific materialists see science and religion as natural enemies.
Giving scientific credence to religion would be devastating to them. So
they are fighting desperately and seriously. They are fighting for
their survival as an intellectual and political force. Therefore, they
are not likely to listen to reason or pay attention to evidence.

"
No one can read everything and no one can know anything."

Meant to say: "
No one can read everything and no one can know everything."

to realpc,  

I have enjoyed your trolling above but no way are you sucking me in.

And by the way this captcha challenge is buggy. 

"Materialism allows us to include anything in the natural world in scientific study. An attempt to include something that materialism rejects (like otherworldly intelligence in nature) is an attempt to include something supernatural."

The last comment was me.

"where we're beginning to uncover design instead of just physical laws and constructs?"

It is not a question of "design" vs. "physical laws and constructs." I think design is a law of nature. Nature designs, and creates. Nature is intelligent.

And it is not a question of evolution vs. Intelligent Design. ID does NOT oppose evolution, only a particular theory of evolution.

The currently accepted theory grew out of Darwin's hypothesis about the cause of evolution. After the discovery of DNA, Darwin's hypothesis was accepted, almost as a fact.

ID says that the current theory was accepted to easily, without evidence. The evidence for evolution, which is plentiful, has been misconstrued as evidence for neo-Darwinism.

Neo-Darwinism says that random variations acted on by natural selection can fully account for the origin of species. This is merely a claim, without evidential support. Neo-Darwinists often argue that many factors in addition to random variations and natural selection are involved. But any other factors they mention turn out to be some version of random changes and natural selection.  Gene duplication? Well that's a random change isn't it? Sexual selection? Well that's a type of natural selection. Population drift? More random changes.

 We already have scientific evidence that genetic mutations can respond in quality or quantity to environmental challenges. DNA somehow "knows" what's happening outside the organism, at least in some cases. No one is suggesting God is directing the DNA and giving in inside info. But we are beginning to see signs of purpose and intelligence within the cell.

Contemporary materialism assumes that intelligence is something created by brains. How was  that conclusion reached? It is entirely an assumption. Computer scientists know that anything can be a computer and information processing does not depend on any particular medium. Why does it have to be brain cells? Why can't information processing happen within cells, molecules, or atoms? It should be obvious that it can.

If intelligence is information processing, and information processing can happen in any medium, then materialist science has been wrong all along. Nature can be intelligent.

And that is what the science of Intelligent Design is all about. 

I suppose my difficulty with your points, cg, is that you fail to separate what is science, what is religion and what is philosophy.

If you wish to make the point that Phillip Johnson, for one, is a strong Catholic and his "theism" colors and animates his science, I possibly honor the point but I would say that his theism is his philosophy.  As for the debate over evolution, it is a scientific debate and even if those who are skeptical about the power of natural, undirected forces to explain the evolution of life and complex systems–belief or non belief in God is clearly a separate consideration.

Rav Kook was quick to embrace Darwinism and he felt if Darwin was true, this is an even greater tribute to Hashem.  Today, a good minority of Orthodox Jews accept what could be called the "party-line" on evolution and this does not at all diminish their faith in God.  Natan Slifkin has led this movement.  It is my belief that Slifkin is wrong on the science.

Further, when Dawkins said that belief in evolution allows oneself to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist–he made several points.  First, he speaks for a lot of people with an anti-God mindset that wish to employ science against those who believe that God created our physical reality.  Further, he is demonstrating that science can easily be contorted to fit an agenda and if you quickly suspect  the majority for not finding a full truth in the party line of evolution, one can just as easily find a related bias in the eyes of the minority who may be looking for a scientific justification of their atheist philosophy.

It is my point of view that science should be kept free or competing philosophical claims and as pure as possible to research the facts.

Because the Left has a loud voice, they have quickly and adamantly demonised ID  and claimed, like you–that they are simply creationists. This is why they have put together a list of hundreds (over 700) scientists (most having PHD's) who will publicly come forward in opposition to the party line of evolution as testimony that a better answer lies elsewhere.  For objective people, this is more than enough evidence to suggest that there is a legitimate scientific debate concerning the basic creative force of life on this planet.

By contrast, there cannot be a real debate over the fact and basic reality of the theory of gravity.  Do not change the topic by suggesting that no one studies gravity or if gravitational effects are understood or not.  The force of gravity is right in front of us to test and observe.

No one has ever seen an act of macro-evolution and there is no coherent theory as to how how nature could manifest the evolution of life on its own without direction.  There is no theory as to how DNA and RNA could have evolved, there is no understanding even how it is possible for amino acids to combine natural to form a functioning protein.  The evolutionary paridigm is simply an ad hoc theoretical formulation.  Further, another really telling sing is despite the fact that evolution (meaning the specific formulation concerning natural selection and random mutations plus luck as the driving force behind the creation and development of novel forms) is promoted and pushed as such a supposedly critical feature of science, its actual scientific study at the university level is very small. They are told in high school that is the wondrous catch- all that makes science what it is and then it is rarely referenced as a day to day study when a student develops a specialty.

This is why evolution is more dogma than science and more philosophy than testable formulations. Design, is a good beginning premise and its actual utility as a working scientific discipline is being worked out.  

Regarding the predictions of ID–I find it very valuable and scientific as an "if,then" proposition.  Please give me some sense of the prediction of evolution regarding, for example, malaria and I will better understand your question. 

I wonder why scientists put their faith in the asumption that standard model and general relativity can actually unified.

I'm sorry, I didn't really respond to the brunt of your writing, and I apologize for basically blowing it off.  As much as I'd like to think I'm better than this, I see where you're coming from, but I'm too stubborn to accept the idea, and specifically, not knowledgeable enough in reference to the plant hormone issue to discuss it.  I don't know how you'd respond, but I have the feeling that if I kept discussing the subject, I'd let it deteriorate into a typical flamewar scenario.  Thanks for your understanding.

Lack of scientific knowledge does not prove God–true.

The ignorance of the ancients regarding lightening is evidence of their ignorance, and no implication that gods caused the thunder.  The contrast with today's scientific world is extreme.  I hold no respect for the expertise for the ancient Greeks–by contrast, I hold great respect for the expertise for modern science.  We are able to decipher and study a whole heck of a lot.

 For example–please consider my example about the plant hormone auxin.  Even though today's science cannot approach how it works–I am granting the fact that one day science will be able to not simply chart it, they will have a good understanding of how it actually works.  I am making this extrapolation.  My trust that this is a sign of design has nothing to do with the fact that we are currently ignorant and everything to do with the monumental complexity of the process.

The kind of complexity that is so specified and so precise in its inner workings has sure trademarks of design.  We know enough right now to understand that even if we knew all the secrets, the belief that it could have emerged randomly and naturally strains all credibility.  This is why I am happy to grant some miracles–since miraculous things might happen.  What I am not willing to grant is so many miracles that we stubbornly ignore a plan and a purpose that is evident when you see a live organism in operation.  Modern science has its hands full with quantum theory.  By contrast, I think modern science should be able to figure out the cell and how a blade of grass grows.  The fact that such matters are highly clouded in mystery has a clear message and a clear implication concerning the designing power of raw, natural agents acting without an alleged plan or purpose.  If modern sophisticated scientists cannot decipher many things–no problem.  On the other hand, if they cannot get a grip on a blade of grass and a guess as to how it could be naturally manifested in terms of its total working parts–this implies that it has a kind of sophistication that is much higher than human beings armed with very good tools of analysis.

We should never give up trying to understand how nature works and this is why your concluding shot is such a contortion of the truth.  The suggestion, forced down kid's throats with the full force of the law, that a natural mechanism drives the evolution of life is precisely the kind of thing which harms curiosity. The auxin story is a great example–the secularists merely chart one hormone and then fold up tent by saying that it is a victory for Darwin.  Evolution works, that's it.  Let's pretend we know it all, even when it is clear we know almost nothing. 

The job is to understand HOW it works.  It is much more empowering for many more people to say, gee, this looks like it was planned.  Let's try to figure out how it was planned.  Indeed, if a purposeful agent (God)brought a universe into existence out of nothing and made  a planet capable of producing life and culminating in creatures (Mankind) made in his image with the ability to see the patterns and the purpose–that message is much more motivating in favor of scientific discovery than to tell our kids that we are only the evolved descendants of pond scum and we have emerged only as a fluke.

Thanks–I will keep responding. 

When we say "designed" we are not thinking of some guy with a white beard at a drawing board. It should be framed more scientifically — for example, the universe, and nature, possess some kind of intelligence which guides and motivations the creation of the complex machinery of life. Complex machines are expected to emerge in a universe which is naturally intelligent and creative.

Is there any way to test this kind of idea? It is assumed in the sciences of systems, complexity, chaos and information. Can't we apply these principles to biological evolution and find a way to test them?

I have no problem with ID as a scientific theory – provided it can be tested and it makes measurable predictions.  If it can't be tested then it isn't a useful theory, true or not.  The problem is that if it can't predict anything then it shouldn't be dressed up as a science.

ID advocates are making a big claim – that there is something guiding the hand of evolution.  Biologists make the opposite claim – that there doesn't need to be a guiding hand.  The phrase "Russell's teapot" springs to mind.  ID is a hypothesis.  So is evolution by natural selection.  I'm open minded, but the problem is that the evidence only points to natural selection.

Now, could somebody (e.g. realpc) please point me to one concrete measurable prediction of ID?  Thought not.  ID advocates may genuinely believe that they have evidence, but it never survives even casual scrutiny.  Which of course makes me question what kind of truth these people are peddling.  If what they claim about biology is wrong, maybe what they claim about theology is also wrong?

Another thing – why pick on biology?  I mean, we could have a theory of "intelligent gravitation", or a theory of "intelligent thunder", or a theory of "intelligent supersymmetry".  Thunder is too complex to arise naturally – it must be Thor.  Science actually started making progress when we stopped looking for God in the clockwork.

Anonymous, you're confusing the idea of abiogenisis (life arising from previously inorganic matter) with evolution. The theory of evolution is not concerned with the beginnings of life, merely every step after that first one.

From TalkOrigins.org:

<blockquote>"The word evolution has a variety of meanings. The fact that all
organisms are linked via descent to a common ancestor is often
called evolution. The theory of how the first living organisms
appeared is often called evolution. This should be called abiogenesis.
And frequently, people use the word evolution when they really mean
natural selection — one of the many mechanisms of evolution."

<br>And "One should also note that the theory of evolution doesn't depend on how the
first life began. The truth or falsity of any theory of abiogenesis
wouldn't affect evolution in the least."</blockquote>

I don't want to say characterizing evolution as explaining the origins of life is "playing right into their hands", but I believe that is a major reason why many people so quickly dismiss it.

ID advocates are individuals and there must be some differences between their beliefs. Maybe there is a small minority that denies evolution. However, denial of evolution is definitely not typical. I can't imagine how you got the idea that Dembski denies evolution; he definitely does not.

Sometimes people use "evolution" as a synonym for "Darwinian evolution," unfortunately. This creates enormous confusion. ID advocates oppose one particular theory of evolution, which originated with Darwin and Wallace in the 19th century, and is now sometimes called neo-Darwinism. ID does not oppose or deny evolution; it is an alternative theory of evolution.

http://www.answers.com/topic/materialism

Philosophy. The theory that physical matter is the only reality
and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be
explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/materialism

a theory that
physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being
and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or
results of matter

evolution says that billions of years ago there was a chance combination of chemicals in the worlds oceans that made a series of reactions that we now call life. you end up with a "cell" that does nothing but make more of itself and does so by using a molecule (called DNA) to "control" what happens and when.  sometimes the DNA makes a mistake when copping itself and the VAST majority of these mutations are either harmful or useless.  however, sometimes, just by chance, it is helpful then that particular cell can live longer and produce more offspring and pass on that mutation. eventually you end up with a cell that is nothing like the first one. maybe the new kind of cell eats the original and becomes the dominant species on the planet (it can do that because the original has nothing to defend itself with) with so many mutations happening all at once for billions of year you end up with all of the diversity we see today

a billion years is a LONG time longer than most people can comprehend, I know its longer than my interpretation, so perhaps time itself is an intelligent designer. after all its just a bunch of chemical reactions.

When As Usual says that Intelligent Design accepts common descent, he is "correct" only if you use their definition.

When I say common descent, I would mean "living things creating offsrping that are subtly different, until eventually descendents are extremly different organisms.

ID "accepts" common descent only if it means "An intelligent designer took one organism, and then radically improved it to create a new organism from the old.  In that way, the new 'descended' from the old."

Those are not the same conepts. 

"Materialism IS a methodology"

It is NOT a methodology. A dictionary definition:

"a theory that
physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being
and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or
results of matter"

Materialism is a belief, and it's a belief that doesn't make any sense. We don't even have a definition for "physical matter."

Physicists study fields and energies that are nothing like the "physical substances" of our "physical world." The word "physical" just means natural. And what does "natural" mean?

None of these concepts are easy to define. And there is absolutely nothing in modern science that precludes the idea that nature possesses intelligence. You must agree that something we call "intelligence" exists. You believe it can only exist as a product of a physical brain? Why? How can you assume that? We don't even know what intelligence is, and we have absolutely no basis for assuming that whatever it is we call intelligence cannot exist except as a product of a physical brain. 

" life likely arises easily and often in the universe."

You're sure about that? Life arises easily by accident? Then why haven't scientists been able to create life intentionally? Easy to create by accident, difficult or impossible to create on purpose? Where is the logic in your belief? And where is the evidence? There is absolutely none. You take it on faith that life can arise easily by accident.

We have no theory about how life originates. Remember there is no DNA before there is life, so there are no random mutations to select from. You think you can explain the origin of species that way (although many of us disagree). But you have absolutely no plausible theories to explain the accidental origin of life.

It is NOT scientific to hold beliefs simply because they support a particular ideology. 

Jason,

You didn't even read Klinghoffer's comments. You stubbornly continue to pretend that the DI opposes evolution. But you know very well, or certainly should know, that they accept evolution and common descent.

There are several different groups involved in this controversy. There are Christian creationists who deny evolution. Almost none of that group are scientists. None of them are educated in the basic facts of biology. Christian creationists might claim to believe in ID, but it's unlikely they understand anything about ID.

ID does NOT oppose evolution and common descent. ID advocates and Christian creationists are NOT the same people, in most cases. Yes, ID advocates oppose the materialist philosophy that dominates contemporary biology. Materialism is a philosophy and scientific research should NOT be dominated by any particular ideology. A scientist SHOULD be allowed to say that some kind of intelligence seems to be at work in nature. A scientist SHOULD be allowed to express the opinion that it seems unlikely that a dead mindless universe would give birth to the complex and intelligent machinery of life.

The evolution controversy is so much deeper and more sophisticated than the silly debate you insist on pretending it is. An uneducated Christians might protest that he "ain't descended from no monkey." But that has absolutely no resemblance to the position of the DI.

I am not a DI member, and I often disagree with them on certain points. But I always defend them against these nonsensical accusations. They do NOT deny evolution or common descent. You do not seem capable of understanding that.