Intelligent Design (again) - what is the problem?

[davedodo007]

As gym has covered the politics of the ID movement's agenda I will leave this. The problem I have with the ID's is that they work on a false dichotomy. If they can rubbish a well establish scientific theory then they win by default. Sorry this is not how science is done. First they have to show how Intelligent design works, what processes it uses, they have to do this using the scientific method. Until they do this nobody should take them seriously.

[timoneill]

Feb 20, 2011 15:16:37 GMT ignorantianescia said:

To my understanding, ID is a generally religious movement that asserts some biological features are too complex to have developed by methodological naturalism. The official institute of ID, the Discovery Institute, explicitly denies being a form of YEC.

I agree with you that ID is not science, though.

Then there is the Discovery Institute's notorious "Wedge Strategy Document" that shows it is as much a political movement aimed at conservative social engineering as anything.

It's hard to see a movement that pretends to be about science and seeks to establish itself in high schools first to further its social and political aims as anything other than rather sinister.

[davedodo007]

unkieE.

Congratulations for approaching a topic you are ignorant of with impartiality, I just wish we where all afforded such luxury.

The problem with the Theory of Evolution by means of Natural Selection is not that there is anything wrong with the theory, there are problems within the theory as Gould and many others have shown. It's just that the theory counters Paley's watchmaker argument rather too well. It explains how we get complexity from simple means. All though it's the most evidenced theory in all science (not much would make sense in biology without it.) Because it gives an alternative reason for the diversity of life on this planet with no god necessary then it is a focus for religious attacks. After all nobody is proposing intelligent falling against Newton's Theory of Gravity (trust me there is less evidence for this theory than Darwin's.) simple because there is no religious conflict.

There are of course theistic evolutionists, Ken Miller, Frances Collins etc. Though they never explain where god comes into it, they just assume he does (abiogenesis maybe?) Though this is the reason why Darwin delayed publication of his theory and the reason why it has been so contentious ever since. Dawkin's says 'That people could not be truly atheists until Darwin's book' I disagree as there have been many atheists since before Darwin and they had no trouble making their case.

Now the intelligent Design part and also every book that claims Darwin is wrong. This is simply not how it is done. If you want to show Darwin is wrong well there is a procedure, it is called the scientific method. You come up with an idea, you turn it into a hypotheses, you collect evidence, experiment while showing how your hypotheses can be falsified and counter this, analyzed the data, test your hypotheses to desturction and use your results to make predictions. Submit this hypotheses for peer review (if you have got something wrong other scientist will delight in pointing it out to you.) Then bingo, you now get to sit at the top table and get your ideas listened to, you also get to set the current consensus.

There is another (yawn) book out by another anti-Darwinist by Conor Cunningham, Darwin’s Pious Idea: How the Ultra-Darwinists and Creationists Both Got It Wrong. I have seen bits of this book but I already dismiss it. I'm I being arrogant no of course not, if you want to refute Darwin's ideas you have to follow the above procedure and then you get to exclaim you refuted 'The Theory of Evolution by means of Natural Selection.' If you do this you will be acclaimed, you will also win the Noble Prize and be awarded riches (mainly be the religious community) beyond the dreams of avarice I don't blame the religious for this as it it's the fault of science which has led to any mere speculation as a theory and that's why we get 'Evolution it's only a theory.' throw at us. Personally I blame physics which indulgences in such equivocations as 'String Theory', 'M Theory' and 'The multiverse Theory.' They are devaluing science by evaluating such ideas above what they really are, such as hypotheses.

Edit: not/ no

[unkleE]

Thanks for comments so far. I understand how people criticise the Discovery Institute because they think it is dishonest. I don't like dishonesty either, though I've never bothered to follow up about the Institute.

But my main question is a little different - it is about the ideas, not the politics. I have already said that I find it difficult to see how ID can be science, even if it was true, but I can't see how that justifies the enormous nastiness that is directed towards ID proponents, or even towards others who question evolutionary orthodoxy from a naturalistic viewpoint - e.g. Jerry Fodor.

I think the nastiness has some bad effects:

1. If an idea is wrong, it will be shown to be wrong, via peer review. But sometimes the peers get it wrong, so we need the mavericks. Rather then cut them down, encourage them to do the experiments that will prove their point. The reason why they think the way they do is irrelevant, it is the truth of the result that counts.

2. As a christian, I accept what science discovers. But, just as nonbelievers are suspicious of ID, I am suspicious of those who draw naturalistic assumptions from their science. The more shrill and nasty the ID critics get, the more suspicious I am that they may be arguing not from an open-minded science view, but from dogma.

3. The protection of evolution bandwagon is so strong that people get caught up in guilt by association - as I still think Martin Gaskell was (as is being discussed elsewhere) - which is unfair if it occurs.

So what are the acceptable limits of protecting scientific orthodoxy? I don't know, but I don't think the critics have articulated this well.

[unkleE]

Feb 21, 2011 0:34:35 GMT davedodo007 said:

unkieE.

Congratulations for approaching a topic you are ignorant of with impartiality, I just wish we where all afforded such luxury.

Thanks. I try. Not sure why it's a luxury.

There are of course theistic evolutionists, Ken Miller, Frances Collins etc. Though they never explain where god comes into it, they just assume he does (abiogenesis maybe?)

Certainly not abiogenesis for those two guys! I don't think God comes into their science much at all, any more than he comes into their mathematics or car driving or choice of football team to follow (except in the way they do those things - ethics, etc). But they believe behind the science God is the best explanation for why things exist at all, and they believe philosophically that God makes more sense than no God, and they believe historically that Jesus was divine, and they may well believe that God has interacted with them personally.

So they have two sets of facts to contend with, those of science, and those of metaphysics/history/experience, and the logical way to put them together is theistic evolution. Makes sense to me.

[wraggy]

Feb 20, 2011 19:50:33 GMT timoneill said:

Feb 20, 2011 15:16:37 GMT ignorantianescia said:

It's hard to see a movement that pretends to be about science and seeks to establish itself in high schools first to further its social and political aims as anything other than rather sinister.

And I think that Science Educators on both sides of the religious divide see things the way you see it.

Numerous Kenneth Miller videos dealing with the ID movement can be found on Youtube. It appears by the number of lectures dealing with the topic that he has spent a fair amount of time trying to counter the ID movement. I remember seeing a video on line where a collection of Scientists were discussing ID and Science and I thought that Simon Conway-Morris was going to break into convultions over the suggestion that ID could be equated with science.

[tertius]

There is no love lost between YECs and IDists. Most Young Earth creationists support ID only to the extent that it posits an intelligent designer responsible for the origin and development of life - which to them obviously can be equated with"God". Apart from that most YECs have big theological and ideological problems with ID, and see it as accommodationist, a flirting with the enemy. YECs thus reject many of the positions put forward under the umbrella of ID.

[tertius]

"It's hard to see a movement that pretends to be about science and seeks to establish itself in high schools first to further its social and political aims as anything other than rather sinister."

ALL movements have a political dimension and all tend to target young people via the education system to further their goals; to "get their message out". Secularists have as much of a message to "sell" as do religionists; progressives and liberals as much as conservatives. For example Leftist neo-Marxist principles still underpin much of the theory and values expressed in high school "socal sciences", history and economic texts. Environmentalist, Indigenous and Multicultural concerns, slogans and PR dominate the school curriculum from Prep upwards. All sorts of "worthy causes" try to get their foot in the school door.

For example, the quote above perfectly describes the activist social and political agenda of the scientific Anthropogenic Global Warming position.

Education is a playground for "sinister" ideas. The problem is we excuse those sinister agendas which fit with our own ideological biases and demonise those that don't.

[bjorn]

Feb 21, 2011 22:16:39 GMT tertius said:

"It's hard to see a movement that pretends to be about science and seeks to establish itself in high schools first to further its social and political aims as anything other than rather sinister."

ALL movements have a political dimension and all tend to target young people via the education system to further their goals; to "get their message out". Secularists have as much of a message to "sell" as do religionists; progressives and liberals as much as conservatives. For example Leftist neo-Marxist principles still underpin much of the theory and values expressed in high school "socal sciences", history and economic texts. Environmentalist, Indigenous and Multicultural concerns, slogans and PR dominate the school curriculum from Prep upwards. All sorts of "worthy causes" try to get their foot in the school door.

For example, the quote above perfectly describes the activist social and political agenda of the scientific Anthropogenic Global Warming position.

Education is a playground for "sinister" ideas. Usually we excuse those sinister agendas which fit with our own ideological biases and demonise those that don't.

It is rather safe to say that Thomas Huxley (aka Darwin's bulldog) attempted to propagate evolution in much the same way in the 1800's, the X Club and all that.

[davedodo007]

The USA has Between 40% and 44% of people who are 'YEC' in a poll of 34 countries America comes just above Turkey for people who accept evolution. Is it any wonder that the NCSE and its education institutes are hyper-sensitive to anybody with even a tenuous link to ID.

[noons]

Feb 21, 2011 23:03:43 GMT davedodo007 said:

The USA has Between 40% and 44% of people who are 'YEC' in a poll of 34 countries America comes just above Turkey for people who accept evolution. Is it any wonder that the NCSE and its education institutes are hyper-sensitive to anybody with even a tenuous link to ID.

While you're probably right about the NCSE, if you look at the way the question is phrased, you can't really say that 40-45% are YECers. The question is usually in multiple choice, with one option being "God created humans in more or less their present form sometime around 10,000 years ago"

The key term there is "humans" not "the earth."

[eckadimmock]

Feb 21, 2011 23:11:50 GMT noons said:

Feb 21, 2011 23:03:43 GMT davedodo007 said:

The USA has Between 40% and 44% of people who are 'YEC' in a poll of 34 countries America comes just above Turkey for people who accept evolution. Is it any wonder that the NCSE and its education institutes are hyper-sensitive to anybody with even a tenuous link to ID.

While you're probably right about the NCSE, if you look at the way the question is phrased, you can't really say that 40-45% are YECers. The question is usually in multiple choice, with one option being "God created humans in more or less their present form sometime around 10,000 years ago"

The key term there is "humans" not "the earth."

I wasn't surprised by the figures for the States, which is probably the most religious of western countries but I was amazed when I read that in secular, post-Christian Britain there is still widespread support for the YEC view.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/4410927/Poll-reveals-public-doubts-over-Charles-Darwins-theory-of-evolution.html

Richard Dawkins is predictably apoplectic, but as Lord Carey points out, he has done his part to reduce the argument to a stark choice between Darwin vs. cloth-eared biblical literalism, so he shouldn't be surprised when some choose the latter.

[elephantchang51]

Bit harsh blaming RD,how many people have even heard of him or I.D.,or YEC?I would give far more credibility to Joe Public's views on the latest celebrity gossip.This type of poll with no details of sample size,age,gender,or class of responders is, to be kind ,worthless.Sometimes we conflate our own idiosyncratic interests with those of society as a whole...

[matt]

Though we should remember that poll mentioned on another thread (I'll post a link when I find it) that said that a significant percentage of atheists believe in a personal god. Maybe some of the creationists also believe in evolution (or evolutionists believe in YEC).

ID certainly is propped up and oversold by those with political interests in getting it into textbooks and benefiting from "The Culture Wars". Some ID proponents are YECs, some OECs and some, like Michael Behe, are evolutionists with a twist. It seems the one basic thing from ID is that there are a few things we have seen that natural selection by itself cannot account for. Being outside the science field I claim no expertise on the ability to know what natural selection can and cannot account for. What I don't understand is why we can't just mark an X over the handful of things that can't be explained by evolution and continue to research the zillions of things that can. I think a reasonable take on ID could be "qualities x, y and z cannot be accounted for on evolution alone and it is my inductive philosophical belief that this implies they were designed." Then the science stuff would have to just be called irreducible complexity or non-selected evolution or something like that.

Of course, this is assuming there's anything to irreducible complexity. What do you think?

[himself]

Some random thoughts

• Neither evolution nor the various theories trying to explain it have the least bit to do with creation; but very few Postmoderns or even Moderns seem to catch this point. Creation is the conjoining of an essence to an act of existence. Evolution is (as the name implies) a "rolling out" of new forms from old.
  
• The current fashion is to call a theory "scientific" if it is falsifiable. This led Popper, the godfather of falsification, to point out that Darwinian evolution was not falsifiable and hence, not scientific. He was taken to the woodshed and told that he'd be called a "creationist" if he persisted, so he backed down.
  
• ID is actually falsifiable, and hence scientific. ID holds that a particular structure X is inexplicable by means of Darwinian natural selection: that is overbreeding + Malthusian collapse with the "better fit" surviving. This can be falsified by demonstrating an actual Darwinian pathway. Unfortunately, the usual recourse is to a Just-So Story: here is a way that we imagine it could have happened, but no empirical proof required.
  
• Both "evolution" and "intelligent design" are continually being used in equivocal senses. The former is taken to mean any and every kind of natural process; the latter is taken to mean any sort of action by an intelligent entity. The confusion comes due to bad philosophy and the refusal to make important distinctions.
  
• ID in particular claims that certain structures are complex in such a way as to be inexplicable by the struggle for existence, and therefore must be due to an intelligence deliberately designing it that way. [Note: not simply "complex" but complex in such a way that incremental Darwinian steps cannot get you from the ancestral structure to the present structure without passing through a region of "unfitness."] That is an intellectually respectable position, since no scientific theory explains everything. The theory of gravity explains much motion, but not the motion of charged particles, for which we need Maxwell's theory.
  
• The big leap is from "this cannot be explained by the Darwinian struggled for existence" to "therefore, it must be due to direct intervention by an intelligence." It is entirely plausible for another evolutionary theory to explain the phenomenon.
  
• If the empirical evidence demolished the Darwinian theory tomorrow, we would start looking immediately for another theory. It would not leave a "God-shaped hole."
  
• But then it follows that it is not presently filling a God-shaped hole, and never has.
  
• Shapiro points out that both naturalists and creationists are arguing from obsolete models of the "gene." In fact, internal editorial features in the genome tend to accommodate mutations with the consequence that phenotype changes can be massive and rapid. Hence, Behe's irreducible complexity becomes moot. There need not be a series of small incremental changes. bostonreview.net/BR22.1/shapiro.html
  
• The neutral theory essentially states that it is not so much natural selection of favorable traits as the impulse of the organism to survive. If the trait is not immediately fatal, the organism will find some way of using it. That is, there is no point in concocting Just So stories for why the giraffe's long neck endowed a survival advantage. Some deer grew longer necks and made the best of it and now we call them giraffes.
  
• Even genetics may not be as explanatory as once thought. E.g., Cloned populations of water fleas (i.e., having identical genes) matured into different forms depending on chemicals in their environment.
  
• We live in interesting times.
  
• Paley's probabilistic argument presumes the same dead Newtonian mechanical universe as do Dawkins and Behe. It is bad theology long before it is bad science.
  
• The same bad philosophy is why naturalists and creationists alike cannot seem to conceive of God as anything other than another efficient cause in competition with other efficient causes.
  
• Augustine of Hippo pointed out that in Genesis God commanded the Earth to bring forth the living kinds, and that the Earth did so, concluding that this must be understood causally.
  
• Aquinas, when he mentions in passing the possible emergence of new species, says that they would arise from putrefaction due to the powers endowed on "the stars and the elements" in the beginning. He did not say they would "poof" into existence, but would emerge due to pre-existing powers.
  
• Aquinas' Fifth Way argues toward God not from some improbable exception to the natural order, but from the natural order itself. Darwin's "laws" (to the extent that they are laws like Einstein's or Maxwell's or others in the hard sciences) would provide incremental evidence for God.