ID? It's all OUR Fault!

Systems biology does use intelligent design. They have been trying to intelligently design custom biomolecular pathways for years now. Those intelligently designed pathways never work anywhere near as well as those evolution has come up with, even the simple ones.

Joe Rennick as is the creationists' wont is careless with his terms. Design/engineering principles are simply rules based on physical phenomena. Guidelines to be sued so that you do not make something or do something that breaks up what you are making or reduces its useful life or produces a lemon. Since organisms are made of substances containing the same fundamental particles, body fluids, organismal structures would too work pretty much the same way. We are going to be looking for the same properties of matter, and characterising them just as we do with any piece of alloy or composite or polymer.

Interestingly enough, I picked up Christopher McGowan's Dinosaurs, Spitfires, & Sea Dragons which deals with the body plans of dinosaurs, marine reptiles, pterosaurs, etc. inside & out (and shockingly has no endorsement of ID). It's a bit dated (1991) but it's still a good read and applies principles and engineering to biological structure and makes sense of why certain forms seem to work, whether they be the shape of an airplane or of pterosaur skeletons. As always seems to be the case, the IDers seem to have gotten so excited over their new line of supposed evidence that they didn't even both to actually look at the natural world or do any actual research.

"didn't even both..."

Oops, that should be "didn't even bother to"... that's what I get when I don't even bother to preview, d'oh!

He's right!

If, with the others, David Hume says appearance of design in biology within science is uncontroversial, then we Darwinists should probably back off.

Who's with me?

"My reference to design principles in my article was made fully within the context of systems biology, not a conclusion to an intelligent designer. You and your colleagues are the ones making the conclusion to a designer, not me."

Did you really mean that Joe, I mean as stated, w/o qualification? Let me qualify it then. I'd put it, "You and your colleagues are the ones making the conclusion of an 'omnipotent YEC based magical entity', not me." Or as Dave Thomas wrongly characterized the ID position, "... but that doesn't automatically mean they think "designs" in nature must be "poofed" into existence by an un-named magical being." The straw man here is 'Creationism', and not ID. Joe concluded with, "I admit to the obvious implications, but it is impossible to make a conclusion to a transcendent designer within the methological limits of science and I have never done that."

I can't speak for Mr. Renick, but I can speak for the ID crowd. Evidence of design is the what is investigated, is evolving as science, and by explicitly not injecting God into science (or the class room). To be fair, this misunderstanding of ID is due in part, to those with religious motives co opting the term 'ID' for 'creationism', a good example being the school board in Dover PA, William Buckingham et al. Another being the Wedge document, which to be fair sought over time to balance abject materialism with cultural values and a sense of spirituality. Not part of today's investigative premise, however.

To make ID a little more palatable, picture the cosmos more as a workshop for entities, likely spirit based (as are you guys, like it or not), with the biologic form a vehicle for that entity, allowing it access to earth as a kind of 'theme park'. If that be true, you guys could well have had a hand in a guided evolutionary process of biologic evolution.

But I am not here to argue conjectural 'philosophic' scenarios, but rather to correct your misunderstanding of ID's central hypothesis. Interesting that while some coreligionists use the term, most fundamentalists detest the concept that their canonical God would have to stoop to 'genetic engineering' over eons. So get used to it. ID is a kind of forensic science that seeks to define and analyze that which is designed, and it is a work in progress.

Lee Bowman

Romulan----Klingon----just who did do (is doing) the designing? Maybe it was (is) will be the 'crawling' macaroni thingie (sorry). Are we done laughing yet? Do you think Mickey D can sell dino-nuggets now? Damn! Maybe it was, is, will be a CLOWN that did, does, will do the designing. That finally makes sense!

The appearance of design in biology is uncontroversial within science and such terminology is used publicly

I am not here to argue conjectural 'philosophic' scenarios

ID is a kind of forensic science that seeks to define and analyze that which is designed

evolving as science [...] a work in progress

"it isn't expected and observed to go nowhere" - it isn't expected and observed to go anywhere.

postdictively described

— Torbjorn

:-)

It's not just that we're curious and would like to know who the designer is; we need to know the designer's characteristics in order to develop useful hypotheses based on ID (as Larsson pointed out). But even more to the matter of "But ID isn't religion" are the words of the founders of (modern-day) Intelligent Design themselves--they are the ones who spoke of culture wars, of replacing materialistic science with theocratic science, of ID being the Logos.

Lee Bowman -

Let me begin by clarifying that I am addressing your claims about ID as science, not the spiritual conjectures of your message.

As I see it, the pseudoscience of ID boils down to two flawed lines of reasoning, one of which you employ outright, and the other of which you seem to imply.

Flawed line of reasoning number one, the one you overtly employ, is essentially this - "If a sand castle, bird's nest, or the like can be recognized as a 'product of design', than it makes sense to recognize living cells as 'products of design'". The flaw here has already been pointed out - forensics, archaelogy, and zoology can recognize the designs of known, natural designers.

Of course, a supernatural or super-powered "designer" with no known characteristics of motivation could design anything, or not design anything. When there is a natural explanation for something, it is instinctively preferred by rational people. Of course every grain of sand on a beach could have been individually crafted by a magical designer, but the natural explanation for sand's existence is better.

Flawed line of reasoning number two, which you imply, is essentially this - "Certain elements of living organisms, such as the bacterial flagellum or the clotting cascade of vertebrates, cannot have evolved because they are 'irreducibly complex', so they must have been designed".

This is wrong on two counts. On a direct level, all systems claimed to be 'irreducibly complex' by Behe have been shown not to be. On a deeper level, it represents a false dichotomy and fortune-telling. Even if there is some aspect of life that currently defies explanation by the theory of evolution (and no such thing has been put forth by ID creationists so far), that doesn't mean design by a magical designer wins by default, nor that an explanation can't emerge.

That's really all there is to ID. Not only that, but ID owes its existence entirely to YEC creationism. ID is a political creation, designed solely to "court proof" creationism in public schools. You are correct that in theory ID could exist (and be wrong) if YEC didn't exist, but in practice, ID was created to pander to YEC supporters in exchange for political support.

"So, in teaching students about evolutionary biology, why not let them in on what is taking place at the cutting edge of research in the biological sciences and how those discoveries fit within an evolutionary understanding of the history and diversity of life?"

Fine. Let that debate take place in college. High school and grade school students do not need to be involved in the cutting edge of debate in any scientific community. They need basic facts and principles and a firm education in the known and accepted sciences.

Comment #169605 Posted by leebowman on April 13, 2007 3:44 AM (e) But I am not here to argue conjectural 'philosophic' scenarios, but rather to correct your misunderstanding of ID's central hypothesis. Interesting that while some coreligionists use the term, most fundamentalists detest the concept that their canonical God would have to stoop to 'genetic engineering' over eons. So get used to it. ID is a kind of forensic science that seeks to define and analyze that which is designed, and it is a work in progress. Lee Bowman

Posted by Moses: "The general purpose of ID is to break down the Church/State separation. The specific purpose is to confuse people with bullcrap arguments in order to inject creationism into the curriculum once again while playing the victim to win martyr points, like you're trying right now."

I had stated: "... while some coreligionists use the term, most fundamentalists detest the concept that their canonical God would have to stoop to 'genetic engineering' over eons."

"So while politically, ID has some grounding in current religious movements, by definition it is (or will be) an accepted (by science) hypothesis for studying evidence of design in biologic systems."

By definition??? Are you asserting that if someone uses the term "design", that means it is designed by an intelligent agency? With all due respect, try looking up the fallacy of circular reasoning.

Just because some biological feature appears to be designed, does not mean that it is/was designed by an intelligent agency. Unfortunately, English does not have a word for design without insinuating intelligent causation.

Ooops, yes it does. That word is Evolution.

So here are the two basic reasons why ID is not Creationism: (1) It contradicts a fundamental Creationist belief in creation by divine fiat (or Dave's 'poof' scenario), and (2) There is much evidence that the term has been 'borrowed' by religionists, actually used in the place of the term 'Creationism', an example being the edited version of "Of Pandas and People".

— Lee Bowman

"(1) It contradicts a fundamental Creationist belief in creation by divine fiat (or Dave's 'poof' scenario), and "

ID says nothing about when God "poofed" everything into existence. In fact, ID was specifically created to be the Big Tent that would allow room for both YEC's and OEC's.

"(2) There is much evidence that the term has been 'borrowed' by religionists, actually used in the place of the term 'Creationism', an example being the edited version of "Of Pandas and People"."

Actually, there is overwhelming evidence that was presented in a US Federal Court that shows ID was specifically and intentionally created by creationists (Kitzmiller). It has no basis outside of a religious agenda.

Designs, such as a blueprint for Thoreau's Walden Pond cabin, are simply idle curiosities until they are used to build something. The Embodiments of Design are Creations, like the actual Walden Pond cabin. We're talking about real hardware, like the bacterial flagellum. It's a misrepresentation to say that "design" isn't really about "creation."

"(1) It [ID] contradicts a fundamental Creationist belief in creation by divine fiat (or Dave's 'poof' scenario)"

Where did you get this from? The 'definitions' of ID that I have seen have all been along the lines of 'evolution is not adequate to explain the features seen in living organisms therefore some intelligence is required at some stage in the process'. Please produce a definition of ID written by any ID-promoting organization that specifically excludes creation by divine fiat as I think this claim is a figment of your imagination.

Posted by Shenda on April 13, 2007 3:06 PM (e) (1) "So while politically, ID has some grounding in current religious movements, by definition it is (or will be) an accepted (by science) hypothesis for studying evidence of design in biologic systems." (2) By definition??? Are you asserting that if someone uses the term "design", that means it is designed by an intelligent agency? With all due respect, try looking up the fallacy of circular reasoning. (3) Just because some biological feature appears to be designed, does not mean that it is/was designed by an intelligent agency. Unfortunately, English does not have a word for design without insinuating intelligent causation. (4) Ooops, yes it does. That word is Evolution.

Darwinian Evolution can account for adaptive changes to improve survivability or the ability to reproduce, but not to facilitate speciation, or innovation beyond a point.

I think Lee Bowman thinks of evolution as a process that takes existing genetic variation, and breeds concentrations of existing genes to better suit environmental survival. But he can't seem to get his mind around the notion that brand new, never seen before variations constantly enter the genome, permitting endless creativity to enter the process.

I think he also has some difficultly understanding that a process that makes decisions on a consistent and rational basis IS an intelligent process, very much like an economy is an intelligent process, even though nobody is directing either one and nobody needs to. Evolution can usefully be viewed as the slow "thoughts" of a highly decentralized brain. Both are entirely natural feedback processes in action.

Lee Bowman wrote:

"Darwinian Evolution can account for adaptive changes to improve survivability or the ability to reproduce, but not to facilitate speciation, or innovation beyond a point."

And what would that point be? How can you claim that "adaptive changes to improve survivability" can occur but could not ever lead to reproductive isolation and speciation? What could possibly prevent this from ever happening? What "innovation" could not even theoretically be produced by random mutation and natural selection? Why do you think that there is any barrier to "macroevolution" if adaptive changes can occur? Do you have any evidence for any of these claims, or are they just your opinions?

"Designs, such as a blueprint for Thoreau's Walden Pond cabin, are simply idle curiosities until they are used to build something. The Embodiments of Design are Creations, like the actual Walden Pond cabin. We're talking about real hardware, like the bacterial flagellum. It's a misrepresentation to say that "design" isn't really about "creation.""

Evolution was the tool, embryology the process, and intervention(when called for) the director of the process. Is this so hard to envision? We use a similar process to make microprocessors and multilayer circuit boards. No human mind could handle the design process at today's level of complexity, so software is used, with human input regarding the pathways, components, operational parameters, etc. After hours of computational gyrations, a result is produced.

— Lee Bowman

So on your web page you conclude, "It's a misrepresentation to say that "design" isn't really about "creation." That it is, but alas, it is NOT about 'Creationism.' So please, don't use semantics to produce a false dichotomy.

— Lee Bowman

Lee Bowman -

I notice that you cherry pick the points you respond to.

It's been shown that both your understanding of evolution, and your understanding of intelligent design, are somewhat wrong.

Speciation is an observed phenomenon. The precise definition of "species" is controversia, but the theory of evolution can easily account for the divergence of a single species into two or more undeniably distinct species (with or without extinction of the original parent species).

In fairness, your wrong versions seem to be a lot closer to the truth than actual Discovery Institute-endorsed ID, or the misrepresentations of evolution by the likes of Dembski, Behe, Wells, and other actual ID-promoting figures.

Nevertheless, the bottom line is, you seem to think that you accept "intelligent design" because you have an exaggerated view of the limitations of the theory of evolution, and an exaggerated view of the reasonableness of ID.

"(1) Not just by someone making that assertion, but by backing it up with evidence, as outlined in the classic 'scientific method'."

Ok, where is the evidence?

"(2) I wouldn't call it circular reasoning to assert that a 'designer' would be implicit in a designed outcome."

You are assuming design and therefore a designer. This is a classic circular argument.

"(3) Yes, but the term 'intelligent' is relative. Design does connote 'intelligence', but merely an intervening agency's action to cause change, which could in some cases be referred to as a design."

Again, you assume design. Complexity does not equal design.

"(4) Darwinian Evolution can account for adaptive changes to improve survivability or the ability to reproduce, but not to facilitate speciation, or innovation beyond a point."

What prevents evolutionary change from causing speciation? What is the mechanism for preventing small changes from becoming large changes? Is there an invisible hand that says "this much change, but no more"?

"We hear a lot "God did it, and that settles it!" Also, "Since I can't explain it, it must therefore have been divinely inspired." We hear those by the way, from ID critics, who love to parrot those false attributions. I've never heard an ID advocate make a statement like that, or to infer one (the second statement, specifically)."

These are not false attributions. We hear the first one quite frequently in numerous forms from YEC's. While most ID supporters do not publicly take this position, it is not hard to infer it from their actions and evasive (and not so evasive) statements. As for the second one, substitute intelligently for divinely, and you have the basic definition of specified complexity and irreducible complexity which form the basis, if not the entirety if ID.

"From the same critics we also hear, "Charles Darwin stated it, there is reams of evidence supporting it, therefore evolution is a fact." Regarding the 'evidence' statement, millions of man-hours and dollars invested do not automatically establish macroevolution as a valid mechanism, either gradual or punctuated. Out of that research, much benefit to humanity has come, but its central hypotheses remains just that."

Macroevolution is a result, not a mechanism. I have never heard or seen any scientist use "Charles Darwin stated it..." as evidence for evolution. The "millions of man-hours" do not *automatically* establish anything. It is the results generated by those man hours that have moved evolution from a hypothesis to a scientific theory.

Lee, please do a little more research. All of your statements have been addressed and refuted numerous times. If you actually have actual evidence as insinuated in point #1, please provide it. Otherwise you are wasting your time and ours.

Shenda

P.S. Opinion and philosophical possibilities are not evidence in this context.

To make ID a little more palatable, picture the cosmos more as a workshop for entities, likely spirit based (as are you guys, like it or not)...

"I don't regard it as a false dichotomy, but rather a Euphemism. Using the word "Design" lets ID supporters attempt to make the same point as creationists, but without having to use the word "creation" itself, as that's just too hard to divorce from "creationism.""

Cherry picking is exactly correct. I note that Lee Bowman ignores EVERY substantive rebuttal to his claims, selecting only those points that provide him a springboard to preach his religious views. No discussion is going on here.

ID is just creationism disguised and not very well. The central point is identical, a supernatural being poofed the world into existence just the way we see it.

It is also the old argument from incredulity fallacy disguised with a few shovelfuls of bafflegab. "I don't see how my foot evolved so this proves god did it." Pretty stupid when you reduce it to essentials.

The main weak point in ID is that it starts out by postulating an Intelligent supernatural Designer. Which has never been proven or disproven. They try to hide the Designer behind a curtain without much success. Don't let them get away with that nonsense.

Who is the Designer and how many are there? Anyone who reads comic books knows it is cthulhu (all hail, might cthulhu). Greeks and Norse know it Zeus or Odin and entourages. Some biologists believe it is the flying spaghetti monster. The cultists say Jehova of course. Until they confront the central point of the theory and the central questions, it is just creo bafflegab.

PS Anyone who calls ID cutting edge science is delusional and doesn't know what science is or does. Most scientists haven't heard of it and the ones that have are either amused, or appalled at this attempt to launch the USA back to the dark ages.

(4) Darwinian Evolution can account for adaptive changes to improve survivability or the ability to reproduce, but not to facilitate speciation, or innovation beyond a point.

— Lee Bowman

By analogy, the biologic phylogeny appears to have evolved in a similar manner. Evolution was the tool, embryology the process, and intervention (when called for) the director of the process.

— Lee Bowman

(1) It [ID] contradicts a fundamental Creationist belief in creation by divine fiat (or Dave's 'poof' scenario)

"Poof" as an explanation comes from Behe.

— Mark Duigon

Well, Dembski and Behe ought to be irrelevant...

:-)

"William Dembski said: "Thus, in its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration." - Intelligent Design's Contribution To The Debate Over Evolution: A Reply To Henry Morris, 2005. Phillip Johnson said: "This isn't really, and never has been, a debate about science, it's about religion and philosophy." - World Magazine, November 30, 1996.

Dr. Dembski is a Christian. He sees that evidence of Intelligent Design, if it's there, to be tacit evidence of a Creator.

Lee Bowman wrote:

"...the biologic phylogeny appears to have evolved in a similar manner. Evolution was the tool, embryology the process, and intervention (when called for) the director of the process."

OK, so speciation cannot happen but "phylogeny appears to have evolved". Would that be a species phylogeny? Would that require "intervention" at every speciation event? Maybe as many as 20 million "interventions". Got any evidence for any of these "interventions"?

You have been repeatedly asked for evidence to support your assertations about what evolution supposedly can or can not do. Why not provide the evidence? Why can't speciation occur? Why can't "macroevolution" occur? Inquiring minds want to know.

By the way, my response to the argument from incredulity is always the same. You can't possibly imagine how this or that could ever happen, therefore it didn't. Well I can't possibly imagine how someone could willfully ignore all the evidence that it did in fact happen, therefore no one could possibly think it didn't.

The Renick piece you mention is not an editorial; it is Renick's personal opinion, published as commentary. Calling it an editorial implies that the views it expresses are those of the newspaper as an institution (which is possible but very unlikely). Most papers publish a variety of opinion pieces, often in conflict with the newspaper's editorials.

Lee Bowman said: ID doesn't necessarily point toward a personal, intervening God, but may in fact remove existing obstacles that some might have which would keep them in the Skeptic's camp.

Intelligent Design may not "point to a personal, intervening god" as Lee Bowman said; but ID does point to some sort of Supernatural Entity that acts outside of known laws of nature. The unanswerable question remains--how did Design get put into Production? Likewise, if speciation occurred with the intervention of that Supernatural Entity (which may or may not be God) then what were the physical characteristics of that intervention? From the point of view of Pope Benedict, we really need to bring Intelligent Design into the laboratory and witness the creation of new species using techniques the Supernatural Entity may have used.

Lee writes...

Design can come first, then creation, or you could use the term 'creation' to include design.

Again, and it warrants hammering on this point again, and again. The ID folks always argue methodology. "It could be this", "It could be that", "Is this so unreasonable".

What I'm still waiting for is for one to offer the first tiny, itty-bitty piece of actual, verifiable, evidence.,

"It's a misrepresentation to say that "design" isn't really about "creation." That it is, but alas, it is NOT about 'Creationism.'

Re "That is a category mistake. Being creationist, ID is either tantamount to YEC or OEC. Pick one."

What if you get somebody who claims the Earth is between 10 and 20 million years old? What do you call him/her? :)

Henry

I get 45,800,000 "hits" when I google "systems biology design",

"What if you get somebody who claims the Earth is between 10 and 20 million years old? What do you call him/her?"

Egyptian. They are in de Nile.

Re "Egyptian. They are in de Nile."

Egyptian? Nah, I think she said she's Alaskan.

Henry

Henry,

You're right again. But she's in de Fairbanks just doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

Though, "she's in de-Anchorage" might suggest that she's unmoored.

"unmoored" - Yeah, that might fit.

What if you get somebody who claims the Earth is between 10 and 20 million years old? What do you call him/her? :)

Maybe Middle Earthers?

With Aluvatar--or maybe JRRT--in the role of Omnipotent Designist Dude?

Re "Maybe Middle Earthers?"

Let's not make a hobbit out of it! :)

was that your "tolkien" contribution for the day?

:p

Sheesh!

You give'm an ent and they take a mile.

Exactly!