ARCHIVE - The Science Behind Intelligent Design Theory-by Casey Luskin

[Warren]

Stratnerd>> But I assume that something brought you to this conclusion:

"designer/ designers need only possess human-like intelligence and human-like motivations"

Why does the designer(s) need human-like motivation and what was the logic for coming up with this idea? <<

I was responding to your assertion that ID had something to do with the supernatural. I was merely pointing out that human-like intelligence and human-like motivations are sufficient to account for the bioengineering found in nature. We don't need to invoke miraculous, magical, incomprehensible processes to account for it.

 

[Stratnerd]

But you are talking about bioengineering before there were humans. Like I've said previously, you need to account for who the designer(s) is (are), at least it begs an explanation, no?

 

[Warren]

Stratnerd>>But you are talking about bioengineering before there were humans. Like I've said previously, you need to account for who the designer(s) is (are), at least it begs an explanation, no?<<

My approach is to ask the simple question, "If life was designed by a human-like intelligence over 3.5 billion years ago, what type of data might we expect to reflect this event?"

If we could see the designer(s) in action we wouldn't need any data from which to draw conclusions about ID as we would essentially have proof of ID. You seem to be taking the position that there is no middle ground between no evidence of ID and absolute proof of ID.

Tell me, what type of data would cause you to merely suspect ID was behind the origin of life?

 

[Stratnerd]

>> You seem to be taking the position that there is no middle ground between no evidence of ID and absolute proof of ID. <<

Not at all.

>>> Tell me, what type of data would cause you to merely suspect ID was behind the origin of life? <<<

A non-universal genetic code.

 

[Warren]

Warren>>> Tell me, what type of data would cause you to merely suspect ID was behind the origin of life? <<<

Stratnerd>> A non-universal genetic code.<<

Warren>> Some quick points.

1. I do not envision ID behind every species.

2. Why in the world would a designer create a different code for every designed organism?

3. Are you under the impression that the designers would design so that much later on, others would not mistake their work for evolution?

4. I do not think a universal genetic code implies common ancestry for all life on earth. Since the code is optimized to buffer against deleterious mutations, why would a designer employ an inferior code?

I would think a teleologist focused on the origin of life would be far more worried if the code was not universal.

Also, to non-teleologists, different genetic codes would never be considered evidence against common descent - they'd just be a problem needing an explanation by common descent.

 

[Stratnerd]

>>> Why in the world would a designer create a different code for every designed organism? <<<

Ecology. I'm thinking along the lines of organisms such as thermophiles, halophiles, and thermohaliphiles and other organisms that live in extreme conditions have the same DNA and must have a bunch of extras to surive. But the question is, what are the alternative and how do we know it's optimal? I get this from the cyt c thread on the evo-cre board. If cyt c was designed why does phylogenetic analysis of sequences agree with morphological and other molecular work. Since cyt c is involved in redox reactions in respiration is would be logical that sequences should fall out more with ecology (aquatic vs. terrestrial groups) than with any alternatives.

>> 3. Are you under the impression that the designers would design so that much later on, others would not mistake their work for evolution? <<<

Who knows how the aliens/god(s) work?

>>> Since the code is optimized to buffer against deleterious mutations, why would a designer employ an inferior code? <<<

How do you know it is optimized? What alternatives have been tested? Deleterious mutations still occur resulting in deaths (how many humans are naturally aborted?). Is it optimized for individual survival or for the species or the ecology of the planet? Since adaptation allows organisms to persist how well is it designed since out planet has sufferent as many (if not more) extinction events (is it optimized for adventageous mutations?).

>>> I would think a teleologist focused on the origin of life would be far more worried if the code was not universal. <<<

How so? The probability of the formation of life must be extremely small and multiple genetic codes would suggest several independent events where life began which would "compound" probabilities.

 

[Warren]

Stratnerd>> The probability of the formation of life must be extremely small and multiple genetic codes would suggest several independent events where life began which would "compound" probabilities.<<

Small probabilities have never been a problem for non-teleologists. Let's say that human beings turned out to have a completely different genetic code and that none of their proteins showed any similarity to any other creature on this planet. Again and again, non-teleologists have demanded that we find something like this before inferring ID. But lookie what happens if we did. We could always invoke the Multiple Worlds Hypothesis and argue that in an infinite number of Universes, by chance, one with humans like this was bound to pop into existence. And ours just happened to be the one. Highly improbable? Yes, but not if we factor all those multiple universes into the equation. Thus, we could easily explain such humans as something that fell together by chance.

But it gets even more interesting. In the Multiple Worlds Hypothesis, by chance, a Universe was bound to pop into existence where it looked like things evolved, but they did not. And that Universe just happens to be ours. Thus, all of the evidence for evolution has now been explained away as one big coincidence. That our universe came into existence with all these amazing coincidences that look like evolution doesn't mean it had to come into existence like this. Thus, just as one can use the Multiple Worlds Hypothesis to attribute the data associated with the concept of ID to chance, we can likewise use the same basic logic to attribute the data associated with the concept of evolution to chance.

I have maintained that sooner or later, all disputes about these issues will boil down to a judgment call: "Thinkest thou that this world is governed by haphazard and chance? Or rather doest thou believe that it is ruled by reason?" - Boethius (470-525). 1500 years of knowledge have brought no real change.

More later.

 

[Stratnerd]

Warren,

>>> We could always invoke the Multiple Worlds Hypothesis and argue that in an infinite number of Universes, by chance, one with humans like this was bound to pop into existence. <<<

If humans had a different genetic "format" this would certainly falisify common descent. That's the important part and we could entertain ID. However, I don't even know how one can invoke ID out of induction and inference since alians and gods are beyond our experience. How do you?

 

[bob b]

>>If cyt c was designed why does phylogenetic analysis of sequences agree with morphological and other molecular work. <<

It is a common misconception arising out of a "ballpark" estimate from a handful of organisms that cyto c sequences agree with either morphological or molecular work.

For a more complete viewing of cyto c sequences see the following diagram where it is obvious that there are at least three distinct "mammal groupings:

http://members.aol.com/Bobsbend/cytoca2.htm

 

[bob b]

Warren,

Are you aware that it has been discovered that the genetic code is not universal?

 

[Warren]

Bob b>> Warren, Are you aware that it has been discovered that the genetic code is not universal?<<

Yes. But as I understand it there are not that many exceptions. If someone wants to infer common descent from the near universality of the genetic code I'm not prepared to challenge that inference. At the present time I'm content to point out that the near universality of the genetic code is also compatible with an ID inference.

 

[Warren]

Stratnerd>> If humans had a different genetic "format" this would certainly falisify common descent. That's the important part and we could entertain ID. However, I don't even know how one can invoke ID out of induction and inference since alians and gods are beyond our experience. How do you?<<

Sounds to me like you are saying that falsifying common descent wouldn't cause you to suspect ID. Falsifying common descent doesn't falsify blind watchmaking. Blind watchmaking is still an option. I said previously that you don't seem to have a middle ground between no evidence of ID and absolute proof of ID. You disputed this. However, your insistance on seeing the designer(s) is the same as demanding absolute proof. Is there anything less than seeing the designer(s) that would cause you to suspect ID or doubt blind watchmaking?

When I asked you what evidence would cause you to merely suspect ID, I had in mind something yet to be discovered. What you did was take a known fact and say that if this known fact was not true then you would suspect ID. Since then you seem to have backed away from this very safe position and are now telling us that even if common descent were falsified, ID shouldn't be inferred because we have no experience with non-human intelligent agents. So let me re-phrase my question to: what yet to be discovered evidence would cause you to suspect ID was behind some aspect of biotic reality?

 

[Stratnerd]

Warren,

This is a difficult question because to make a predicition about a future discovery I would need to know something about mechanisms. I don't know how a superbeing, alien or diety, would opperate. Do you?

Ooops, gotta go teach. Sorry but I'll be back....

 

[Warren]

Warren>> what yet to be discovered evidence would cause you to suspect ID was behind some aspect of biotic reality?<<

Stratnerd>> This is a difficult question because to make a predicition about a future discovery I would need to know something about mechanisms. I don't know how a superbeing, alien or diety, would opperate. Do you? <<

Warren>>I assume they possess human-like intelligence which is the same assumption made by scientists involved with SETI. From your perspective, we can never ever hope to detect the existence of ETI through anything less than direct experience with them. It means that if there are millions of alien artifacts found throughout the universe, each and every time we stumble upon them, we'll never even suspect they are an alien artifact. Now, doesn't that sound silly to you?

And remember, the question I'm exploring is whether a human-like intelligence is behind the origin of some aspects of biotic reality. That a non-human-like intelligence may exist is irrelevant.<<

 

[Stratnerd]

>>> I assume they possess human-like intelligence <<<

why?

>>> It means that if there are millions of alien artifacts found throughout the universe, each and every time we stumble upon them, we'll never
even suspect they are an alien artifact. Now, doesn't that sound silly to you? <<<

It does. But here's the difference between artifacts, mousetraps, watches and living organisms: the latter have a history that is geneological and what you see now is the result of that history and not the present. If you saw reproducing things on some planet would you infer that they were constructed by alians or dieties? What would be your level of complexity that would preclude an evolutionary history?

What examples can you think of that eliminate a non-ID hypothesis?

 

[bob b]

>>What would be your level of complexity that would preclude an evolutionary history? <<

A cell. If people had known back in Civil War days what we know today about it, this absurd idea of evolution would never have gotten off the ground. But propaganda is an amazing thing to behold, as the Nazis, Stalin, Tojo, and the terrorists have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

 

[Valmoon]

"A cell. If people had known back in Civil War days what we know today about it, this absurd idea of evolution would never have gotten off the ground. But propaganda is an amazing thing to behold, as the Nazis, Stalin, Tojo, and the terrorists have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt."

After re-reading "Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth Miller I certainly disagree. It's easy to pawn off anothers belief to propaganda but not the best way to attack the credibility of their reasoning.

 

[Stratnerd]

>> But propaganda is an amazing thing to behold, <<

Christainity is probably the greatest example!

 

[Valmoon]

Responding to Warren's post on 5/18 10:12am.

Warren: "Your questions are based on a couple of incorrect assumptions. First of all, ID is an empirical theory and doesn't invoke the supernatural. ID posits that certain aspects of biotic reality are best explained by reference to an advanced form of bioengineering and nanotechnology that is not beyond the grasp of human reasoning. Thus, a designer/ designers need only possess human-like intelligence and human-like motivations."

The way you speak of ID makes it seem like it would be consistent with theistic-evolution. Is this the case?

Do you think some positive proof is needed for a belief? I'm just wondering how you came to believe what best explained biotic reality.

Certainly if man landed on a distant planet and found watches and other mechanical devices that don't naturally exist in nature he would take this as evidence of higher intelligence existing on this planet. But if all he found was grass and trees and rocks etc. would he also take this as evidence of higher intelligence existing on that planet?

What leads you to make the ID inference?

Daniel Dennet's claim in Darwin's Dangerous Idea concerns the inversion of reasoning Darwin used to overthrow the "cosmic pyramid" that existed prior to his theory that had God at the top of the pyramid. Darwin showed or attempted to show, depending on your outlook, how intelligence could arise from mere order. There was no need to subscribe to an intelligence first approach.
Grant Darwin order (which no one can deny) and he shows how that leads to the formation of minds.

This is why I respect but also disagree with advocates of evolution such as Kenneth Miller. Darwin undercuts any reason why one would look at evolution as being directed by an intelligent source.

Warren: "Secondly, ID is not anti-evolution. ID is an alternative theory of evolution that is in opposition to the theory that all aspects of biotic reality are the result non-intelligent processes."

Darwin takes away any argument for choosing to look at evolution as being intelligently guided in my opinion.

 

[Warren]

Warren>>Your questions are based on a couple of incorrect assumptions. First of all, ID is an empirical theory and doesn't invoke the supernatural. ID posits that certain aspects of biotic reality are best explained by reference to an advanced form of bioengineering and nanotechnology that is not beyond the grasp of human reasoning. Thus, a designer/ designers need only possess human-like intelligence and human-like motivations.<<

Valmoon>>The way you speak of ID makes it seem like it would be consistent with theistic-evolution. Is this the case?

Warren>> I think theistic evolution posits that ID is undetectable.<<

Valmoon>> Do you think some positive proof is needed for a belief? I'm just wondering how you came to believe what best explained biotic reality. <<

Warren>>This is an inherently ambiguous topic so I think the best we can do is make an inference to the best explanation based on the available evidence.<<

Valmoon>>Certainly if man landed on a distant planet and found watches and other mechanical devices that don't naturally exist in nature he would take this as evidence of higher intelligence existing on this planet. But if all he found was grass and trees and rocks etc. would he also take this as evidence of higher intelligence existing on that planet?

What leads you to make the ID inference?<<

Warren>> Richard Dawkins doesn't say that biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having evolved. Instead he says, "biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." If nature looks this way to a materialist like Dawkins then what's wrong with a non-materialist having a suspicion that biological things look designed because they are designed? In particular those things for which there is no evidence they evolved solely through non-intelligent processes. I reject the assumption that in the absence of absolute proof for ID the default position is blind watchmaking. This assumption is nothing more than a deduction from materialism. If a critic finds the current blind watchmaker hypothesis inadequate to explain everything that's occurred in natural history, his only permissible move within science is to suggest a better blind watchmaker. That a competent blind watchmaker may not exist at all and that certain aspects of biotic reality may be better explained by a seeing watchmaker is not a logical possibility. Thus, most scientists don't investigate to determine IF life evolved, they only search for ways life DID evolve.<<

Valmoon>>Daniel Dennet's claim in Darwin's Dangerous Idea concerns the inversion of reasoning Darwin used to overthrow the "cosmic pyramid" that existed prior to his theory that had God at the top of the pyramid. Darwin showed or attempted to show, depending on your outlook, how intelligence could arise from mere order. There was no need to subscribe to an intelligence first approach. Grant Darwin order (which no one can deny) and he shows how that leads to the formation of minds.<<

Warren>> I'm skeptical. Show me how minds are produced by mindless processes.<<

Valmoon>>This is why I respect but also disagree with advocates of evolution such as Kenneth Miller. Darwin undercuts any reason why one would look at evolution as being directed by an intelligent source.<<

Warren>> Please provide evidence.<<


Warren: "Secondly, ID is not anti-evolution. ID is an alternative theory of evolution that is in opposition to the theory that all aspects of biotic reality are the result non-intelligent processes."

Volmoon>>Darwin takes away any argument for choosing to look at evolution as being intelligently guided in my opinion.<<

Warren>> Explain how Darwin does this.