Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design

Let's talk about various types of religion.
Dob
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 2:14 pm
Location: Detroit

Postby Dob » Thu Jan 20, 2005 2:12 pm

Rspaight wrote:You're still taking as a given that there *is* a "design."...there's no real evidence that the natural world is pre-meditated.

I'm assuming by "pre-meditated" you mean "intelligent."

As I understand it, science states that all design on earth is either a product of evolution (non-intelligent design of living things) or man (intelligent design of non-living things). Fair enough. But science goes a step further and states that all design by living things is also non-intelligent, except for the things designed by man. What is the justification for this reasoning? Is the thinking that all living things are guided by instinct but man is not? If that is the case, how is this distinction explained by evolution?

Consider the sod house (or most any house). Is it "intelligently" designed simply because it is the obvious work of man? Man often designs shelters with flat surfaces and right angles, unlike any other creature (that I know of), and the reason is because it's easier, not because it's stronger or more space efficient. So, in essence, science has taken a design drawback and twisted it into an attribute by labeling it "intelligent." Does that make sense?
We can speculate on the intelligence of unearthed human civilizations because humans are living things with measurable and assessable intelligence.

Measurable and assessable? In what way? Give me a list of criteria (or even one) that are/is shared by all things designed by man AND which are/is unique to the things designed by man (besides, of course, "it was designed by man" or some variation thereof).
Intelligence is useful only as an attribute assigned to organic, observable life, not to theoretical supernatural constructs...We have no frame of reference to assess the intelligence of beings which cannot be shown to exist.

I'm trying to steer the discussion away from the supernatural because it just confuses the issue. In order to come up with a reasonable definition for "intelligent design," don't we need to focus on the object without speculating on the maker? If an object is intelligently designed, that quality should be inherent in the object and independent of the question of who made it or why.

As a (very) hypothetical example, think of the monolith in 2001. It was found buried on the moon, so man could not have put it there. It was built in a specific proportion (1 X 3 X 9, IIRC) that was accurate to the best of our measuring capabilities. It possessed an extremely strong magnetic field that was far in excess of any natural formation. The scientists concluded that it was, at the very least, the product of intelligence and most likely a far superior intelligence -- without understanding its origin or purpose. Would you have concluded differently?
Either way, the question is irrelevant to studying the natural world...scientifically it's a non-starter.

That's the reason I'm focusing on the scientific "how" question, not the religious "why" question.
Finally, "evolution" is not a living thing with higher brain functions, it is a process governed by natural laws...anthropomorphizing it is not helpful.

I agree. Scientists shouldn't refer to evolution as a "designer" or refer to things "designed" by evolution.
Last edited by Dob on Thu Jan 20, 2005 2:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Dob
-------------------
"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance" -- HL Mencken

Dob
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 2:14 pm
Location: Detroit

Postby Dob » Thu Jan 20, 2005 2:13 pm

Ess Ay Cee Dee wrote:I'm not saying that Dob is being arrogant in any way....

The night is still young.
Dob

-------------------

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance" -- HL Mencken

User avatar
Rspaight
Posts: 4386
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
Location: The Reality-Based Community
Contact:

Postby Rspaight » Thu Jan 20, 2005 2:57 pm

Dob wrote:I'm assuming by "pre-meditated" you mean "intelligent."


I mean pre-meditated, as in "done on purpose," as opposed to "just is."

As I understand it, science states that all design on earth is either a product of evolution (non-intelligent design of living things) or man (intelligent design of non-living things).


Again, you're calling evolution a "design." Evolution doesn't require a designer, and science has not indicated the existence of one. One may certainly assume a designer to be "self-evident" given the complexity and elegance of the natural world, but assumption is not the same as verification.

But science goes a step further and states that all design by living things is also non-intelligent, except for the things designed by man. What is the justification for this reasoning?


I don't know that such a distinction is fundamental in biology. Man has certainly demonstrated the ability to construct more advanced tools and structures than any other animal, but I'm not aware that science has deemed all non-human animals to be unintelligent. It sounds like you're reaching for a definition of sentience rather intelligence.

Consider the sod house (or most any house). Is it "intelligently" designed simply because it is the obvious work of man? Man often designs shelters with flat surfaces and right angles, unlike any other creature (that I know of), and the reason is because it's easier, not because it's stronger or more space efficient. So, in essence, science has taken a design drawback and twisted it into an attribute by labeling it "intelligent." Does that make sense?


Again, I'm not aware of these rather semantic distinctions. Calling a beehive unintelligent and a mud hut intelligent doesn't seem very useful. Again, I think we're talking about sentience here, not intelligence.

I'd imagine man tends to create flat-sided structures because that's what human construction techniques are most efficient at producing. (Have you ever tried to build a curved wooden wall?) And given a certain "footprint," a rectilinear certainly gives you the most interior volume.

Ants aren't concerned with nailing boards together -- a rounded mound is probably the most efficient outcome of their construction techniques.

None of this has anything to do with the presence or absence of an intelligent designer, though. Ants could still build anthills whether they were guided or they learned it on their own.

It sounds like those arguing for intelligent design are searching for reasons for there to be intelligent design -- that's not how science works. Science tries to explain observed phenomena by positing theories, not explain a theory by positing phenomena.

We can speculate on the intelligence of unearthed human civilizations because humans are living things with measurable and assessable intelligence.

Measurable and assessable? In what way? Give me a list of criteria (or even one) that are/is shared by all things designed by man AND which are/is unique to the things designed by man (besides, of course, "it was designed by man" or some variation thereof).


That's not what I said. I was referring to the fact that men are observable, omnipotent creator-beings are not.

I'm not following your fixation on distinguishing between man-made and natural objects. Are you suggesting that "nature" is capable of creating objects of equal complexity as men? That seems clear -- man has yet to construct a machine as complex as a poodle (though my answering machine comes close). However, that still doesn't demonstrate a creator. Intelligence is not a prerequisite for complexity.

Intelligence is useful only as an attribute assigned to organic, observable life, not to theoretical supernatural constructs...We have no frame of reference to assess the intelligence of beings which cannot be shown to exist.

I'm trying to steer the discussion away from the supernatural because it just confuses the issue. In order to come up with a reasonable definition for "intelligent design," don't we need to focus on the object without speculating on the maker? If an object is intelligently designed, that quality should be inherent in the object and independent of the question of who made it or why.


This is where you're losing me. Doesn't the very term "intelligent design" posit a maker? Intelligent design *by its very existence* speculates on a creator. You can't separate the two. It's like trying to talk about cars without acknowledging the existence of the internal combustion engine.

As a (very) hypothetical example, think of the monolith in 2001. It was found buried on the moon, so man could not have put it there. It was built in a specific proportion (1 X 3 X 9, IIRC) that was accurate to the best of our measuring capabilities. It possessed an extremely strong magnetic field that was far in excess of any natural formation. The scientists concluded that it was, at the very least, the product of intelligence and most likely a far superior intelligence -- without understanding its origin or purpose. Would you have concluded differently?


That would certainly be a compelling theory, though one with only circumstantial evidence. It would be compelling because there no observable processes in nature that would produce a 1x3x9 black monolith with those properties, therefore supporting the theory that the monolith was artificial.

If we were to discover an object in real life that was similarly inexplicable, then science would naturally seek to come up with theories as to its origin. (Alien races are completely compatible with science, though they don't represent a particularly verifiable explanation for anything.) I'm not aware that we've come across any such thing.

Either way, the question is irrelevant to studying the natural world...scientifically it's a non-starter.

That's the reason I'm focusing on the scientific "how" question, not the religious "why" question.


But the minute your "how" involves supernatural processes, it becomes supernatural. Ascribing intelligence to the natural world is supernatural.

Finally, "evolution" is not a living thing with higher brain functions, it is a process governed by natural laws...anthropomorphizing it is not helpful.

I agree. Scientists shouldn't refer to evolution as a "designer" or refer to things "designed" by evolution.


They're speaking metaphorically, not literally. Taking things literally that should be taken metaphorically is the entire issue with creationism, it seems.

Ryan
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney

User avatar
krabapple
Posts: 1615
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 4:19 pm

Postby krabapple » Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:48 pm

Dob wrote:
krabapple wrote:There is no agreed upon criterion; some consider dolphins and apes to have intelligence of a sort. In any case, 'intelligence', as far as we know, is a characteristic of real organisms, not speculative, supernatural entities....The question of whether a specualtive nonphysical supernatural 'intelligence' exists is much less amenable to scientific discussion...

When archeologists uncover ancient remains, don't they make assessments about the intelligence of the people that lived there? And aren't these assessments based solely on the artifacts that are found?



I cant' recall any archaeologists ever speculating about the *intelligence* of people who made the artifacts -- only that the *cutlure* was 'advanced', by some *human* criterion -- taht is, comparison to other human cultures.

Anyway, what is your point vis a vis 'intelligent design' here? That archaeologists shoudl consider the possibility that a clay pot was part of God's plan?

The actions of an intelligent entity leaves behind artifacts that show evidence of its intelligence (if they haven't been destroyed). How is speculating on the intelligence of an ancient race of people, based on artifacts, any more scientific than using the artifacts of life to speculate on the intelligence of its design? Whatever label you attach to this design/designer (be it evolution or God) is immaterial to assessing the intelligence of the design.


Evolution isn't a 'person' or a 'being' or a 'designer' in teh sense you seem to be insisting upon. It's a natural process, like erosion. Is erosion a 'designer' of mountain ranges?

Yet you insist on attaching the label "nonphysical supernatural intelligence" to this designer, and then you use that label to dismiss the whole discussion as non-scientific.


And still do. I think your premises are faulty. I think your ideas of what scientists do and think, are too. So I've suggested you read Dawkins on 'design', since he's both a well-known evolutionary biologist and someone who can write well. OF course, not every scientist agrees with everything he says, but I think they agree that positing 'intelligent design' without some sort of testable hypotheses to go with it, is a non-starter.


Furthermore, you imply that I am the one insisting on that label. At this stage of discussion, it's putting the cart before the horse, as I see it.


You are the one trying to work out 'intelligent design' -- *that's* putting the cart before the horse!. I'm telling you that scientists have to see more than *order* and *complexity* to consider a human-style *intelligence* to be at work. And,. too, 'intelligent design', in *practice*, is simply a cover for Christian fundamenalism (e.g. the Discovery Institute).

talk.origins, the website, and talk.origins, the newsgroup, are two different things...You'd be taken seriously unless you came in quoting Bible text; sarcasm willbe returned in kind. So, what's holding you back? Are you interseted in having your questions debated, or not?


The reason I started this thread on FLO is because this topic seems to come up, or gets referred to, rather often here. I thought that perhaps some folks here might be curious to discuss this with a creationist (me) who isn't going to start quoting Bible text or raving about eternal damnation.


Hmm..remember, that 'God created the universe as we see it' *isn't* what creationism is.
While such a model is unverifiable, much less even testable, it has no effect on science;
it's like saying that God created the world ten minutes ago and MADE IT ALL LOOK LIKE it has existed for 14 billion years. *shrug* So what? A god who sets it all in motion and then sits back and lets it all play out is not incompatible with 'natural' evolution (or any other natural processes).

But that's not what 'creaationists' tend to believe. They posit a much more active and personal and human-like god.

Nor is it *necessary* for a Goddy model to be true. Other models with no god...such as infinite universes models...are equally as untestable and equally valid. Scientists tend to prefer the most parsimonious models. They dont' invoke god to explain snowflakes...unless they invoke god to explain *everything*. And answer like that, that explains everything, doesnt' really *explain* anything.


My comment about "rigorous and brilliant minds" wasn't sarcasm in the sense that I meant the opposite. I have no doubt that there are plenty of smart, well informed people on talkorigins. The problem is that they damn well know it and don't hesitate to flaunt their "superior" knowledge and thought processes.


Good for them. The world could use more people flaunting scientific knowledge, and less people flaunting ignorance of science.

Isn't the following an example of the kind of condescending attitude that I would find at talkorigins?

People who find evolution...to be 'outrageously bogus', tend to understand it poorly if at all. Meanwhile, people who do know a lot about evolution tend to find creationism 'outrageously bogus'.

Is there any way to read that statement other than "evolutionists find creationism not only unscientific, but patently ridiculous, and they also question the ability of creationists to think clearly."


Since *I* wrote that, and you clearly aren't 'afraid' to deal with me, what , again , holds you back from asking your questions on the talk.origins newsgroup? There are people there who are MUCH NICER than I am, smarter and more knowledgable than I am... as well as some people even LESS PATIENT than I am. I think from the way you handle yourself on this forum, you're *quite* capable of surviving talk.origins.

There are probably also *moderated* lists out there with real scientists on them, for discussing evolution, but I dont' have any to point you to offhand (at leas,t not from this browser).


Have you actually *read* the thousands of words rebutting Behe and Dembski, or not?

I didn't read the rebuttals of "specified complexity" because I find that concept weak to begin with. But I did read the rebuttals on "irreducible complexity." I found the "irreducible complexity of the mousetrap" discussion particularly interesting, if only for the reason that it's a simple enough concept for me to understand.

I was incredulous at some of the convoluted, oh-so-clever arguments showing that a mousetrap, missing one piece, was not useless at all. Keith Robison wrote that you didn't need the base, you could simply nail the mousetrap to the floor. Then he recalled his discussion with Behe in an attempt to show how confused Behe's thinking is ("you're just substituting a different base") and how clear his own is ("no, it works without a base").

And he goes on: "Each time we show that a supposedly "irreducibly complex" system is not, by removing one part, a supporter can claim that our new system is now 'irreducibly complex.' Any similarity to Zeno's Paradox is surely accidental" (I seem to have missed the sarcasm that prompted this response "in kind").

So, Mr. Robison, I guess if you were only given one part -- the metal hammer -- you could still claim it functions as mousetrap, because you could throw it at the mouse?

Another fellow argues that, even if we accept that the incomplete parts can't function as a mousetrap, the individual parts still have useful functions. For example, (I'm not making this up) the base can be used as a paperweight.

In fairness, I should add that I didn't find that rebuttal at talkorigins.


Oh. So, shoudl I find some particularly, convoluted, poorly argued creationist site to counter it?

Anyway, examples of functional biological 'parts' of supposedly 'irreducibly complex' systems a la Behe *have* been identified and are offered again and again to creationists. You can find all that on the talk.origins website. Behe and Dembski have been *repeatedl;y* refuted,a s have all other creationists 'arguments' (they have no *data*, and certainly nothing resembling *science*, only arguments). That's one of the most tiresome things about these debates, is the sheer redundancy of it all.
"I recommend that you delete the Rancid Snakepit" - Grant

Dob
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 2:14 pm
Location: Detroit

Postby Dob » Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:57 pm

Rspaight wrote:Again, you're calling evolution a "design."

I'm just repeating what is written at talkorigins:
"Evolution is a designer."
"The Darwinian mechanism of natural selection is part of the normal design process."
"The process of evolution can be considered a design process."

If you're asking my opinion, though, I think that design (especially systems design) is impossible without the predictive abilities of an intelligent designer.
I'm not aware that science has deemed all non-human animals to be unintelligent.

Their designs are unintelligent. According to talkorigins: "Considering intelligent design besides human design, though, is ruled out by the fact that proponents say nothing positive about what such "intelligent design" implies."

Hmmm...perhaps I shouldn't be quoting talkorigins.
...given a certain "footprint," a rectilinear certainly gives you the most interior volume.

I would argue that a hexagon gives you more useful interior volume, due to the corners being less "pinched." Round is best, but wastes space in an interlocking configuration. Hey, bees aren't stupid, ya know.
...a rounded mound is probably the most efficient outcome of their construction techniques.

The word "efficient" doesn't come to mind when I see this structure, as a lot of it is "empty space." But the engineering behind it is phenomenal.
None of this has anything to do with the presence or absence of an intelligent designer, though. Ants could still build anthills whether they were guided or they learned it on their own.

How did some ants "learn on their own" to become farmers? Their brains are awfully small.
That's not what I said. I was referring to the fact that men are observable, omnipotent creator-beings are not.

OK. But you did say that "humans are living things with measurable and assessable intelligence." So, is the "intelligence of unearthed human civilizations" measurable or not?
I'm not following your fixation on distinguishing between man-made and natural objects...

In talking about intelligent design, science (at least according to talkorigins) makes a crucial distinction between the intelligent design of man and all other (unintelligent) design. I think this distinction has no scientific merit, and that's the point I'm trying to make.
Doesn't the very term "intelligent design" posit a maker?

All these arguments and examples I'm offering are NOT primarily intended to make a case for "intelligent design." They're intended to help search for a proper scientific definition of the term -- which, by necessity, would exclude any references to any supernatural causes. If we don't have that definition as a starting point, there is no basis for further discussion, right?
Dob

-------------------

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance" -- HL Mencken

User avatar
Rspaight
Posts: 4386
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
Location: The Reality-Based Community
Contact:

Postby Rspaight » Thu Jan 20, 2005 9:28 pm



Ah, I get it. I can agree that evolution can be thought of as a design process in the abstract, in that through it things are refined and optimized, but "design" seems like a loaded word to use because it strongly implies pre-meditation.

If you're asking my opinion, though, I think that design (especially systems design) is impossible without the predictive abilities of an intelligent designer.


That's why I don't like the word in connection to evolution. As I said before, it anthropomorphizes things. That can be useful pedagogically, I suppose, but it isn't exactly precise.



I'd have to say that if apes can learn sign language, then they are capable of intelligent design (designing communication through learned words).

I would argue that a hexagon gives you more useful interior volume, due to the corners being less "pinched." Round is best, but wastes space in an interlocking configuration. Hey, bees aren't stupid, ya know.


Yeah, you're probably right. But you don't have to sell houses based on square footage stats.

How did some ants "learn on their own" to become farmers? Their brains are awfully small.


Yes, but they're *very* good at repeating behaviors that have proven effective.

OK. But you did say that "humans are living things with measurable and assessable intelligence." So, is the "intelligence of unearthed human civilizations" measurable or not?


In terms of determining how advanced the civilization was by the complexity of the artifacts, I'd say yes.

In talking about intelligent design, science (at least according to talkorigins) makes a crucial distinction between the intelligent design of man and all other (unintelligent) design. I think this distinction has no scientific merit, and that's the point I'm trying to make.


I'm not a scientist, so I'm not sure where the talkorigins guys are going with that. As Krab suggests, maybe you need to ask them. It does seem to be a fairly arbitrary distinction, even if humans are capable of technical feats unique in the animal kingdom.

All these arguments and examples I'm offering are NOT primarily intended to make a case for "intelligent design." They're intended to help search for a proper scientific definition of the term -- which, by necessity, would exclude any references to any supernatural causes. If we don't have that definition as a starting point, there is no basis for further discussion, right?


That's the rub. I don't think you CAN scientifically define "intelligent design" as applied to the cosmos without invoking the supernatural, since there are no known natural processes that can create a cosmos *intentionally*. We may someday discover and understand such a process, but that hasn't happened. At the moment, such questions are in the realm of philosophy and theology, not science.

That said, my personal layman's definition of "intelligent design" in a non-cosmological context (as above with the sign-language-speaking apes) isn't exclusively human. The talkorigins crew may have a good reason to draw that bright line, but I can't speak to that.

Ryan
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney

User avatar
krabapple
Posts: 1615
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 4:19 pm

Postby krabapple » Thu Jan 20, 2005 9:31 pm

Dob wrote:
Rspaight wrote:You're still taking as a given that there *is* a "design."...there's no real evidence that the natural world is pre-meditated.

I'm assuming by "pre-meditated" you mean "intelligent."

As I understand it, science states that all design on earth is either a product of evolution (non-intelligent design of living things) or man (intelligent design of non-living things).
Fair enough.


WRONG.

Science states that all *living* things share lineage through evoluition. As for 'design', you need to define what you mean, and find a scientific definition for it as well, and see if they mean the same thing. A snowflake or a planet or a carbon crystal obviously arenm't thought to be 'designed' by a living thing in any sense of the word.


But science goes a step further and states that all design by living things is also non-intelligent, except for the things designed by man.


No, it doesn't. As I've said, the precise definition of 'intelligence' is not agreed upon, except in that is is a characteristic only of living things.

What is the justification for this reasoning? Is the thinking that all living things are guided by instinct but man is not? If that is the case, how is this distinction explained by evolution?


You're getting way, way, ahead of yourself. Nature ('instinct') versus nuture has been topic of discussion in science for *decades* if not centuries.


Consider the sod house (or most any house). Is it "intelligently" designed simply because it is the obvious work of man? Man often designs shelters with flat surfaces and right angles, unlike any other creature (that I know of), and the reason is because it's easier, not because it's stronger or more space efficient. So, in essence, science has taken a design drawback and twisted it into an attribute by labeling it "intelligent." Does that make sense?


(sigh) You are confusing several meanings of the word 'intelligent'. And your ideas about what 'science' does and doesn't do, has and hasn't done, seem utterly foreign to me.


We can speculate on the intelligence of unearthed human civilizations because humans are living things with measurable and assessable intelligence.

Measurable and assessable? In what way? Give me a list of criteria (or even one) that are/is shared by all things designed by man AND which are/is unique to the things designed by man (besides, of course, "it was designed by man" or some variation thereof).[/QUOTE]


Pretty much every bastion of 'uniqueness' or 'exceptionalism' claimed for Homo sap -- language, culture, ability ot manipulate the environment, to practice forethought, to feel amusement, etc, -- has fallen by the wayside or at least been rendered reasonably questionable, as far as scientists are concerned, becasue examples of other organisms with such abilities have been found or reasonably posited -- so what's your point? It's the *creationists* who claim that man is special, created specially apart from other organisms.


Intelligence is useful only as an attribute assigned to organic, observable life, not to theoretical supernatural constructs...We have no frame of reference to assess the intelligence of beings which cannot be shown to exist.

I'm trying to steer the discussion away from the supernatural because it just confuses the issue.[/QUOTe]

It *is* the issue, as far as the debate going on in schools is concerned. It's about whether there is an 'intelligent designer' that's *nonbiological*. *Your* concerns seem to amount to indignation about what the word 'intelligence' means, and waht defintiion *you* think science attaches to it.


In order to come up with a reasonable definition for "intelligent design," don't we need to focus on the object without speculating on the maker? If an object is intelligently designed, that quality should be inherent in the object and independent of the question of who made it or why.



It's incumbent upon those positing the existence of and explanatory need for 'intelligent design' -- as I've said , it's *not* a term scientists use -- to come up with the definition.
And we've seen why creationists want to label stuff 'intelligently designed' -- it's certainly *not* out of some dissatisfaction with lack of a perfect scientic definition of 'intelligence'.


As a (very) hypothetical example, think of the monolith in 2001. It was found buried on the moon, so man could not have put it there. It was built in a specific proportion (1 X 3 X 9, IIRC) that was accurate to the best of our measuring capabilities. It possessed an extremely strong magnetic field that was far in excess of any natural formation. The scientists concluded that it was, at the very least, the product of intelligence and most likely a far superior intelligence -- without understanding its origin or purpose. Would you have concluded differently?
Either way, the question is irrelevant to studying the natural world...scientifically it's a non-starter.

That's the reason I'm focusing on the scientific "how" question, not the religious "why" question.


Have you actually gone and *DONE SOME READING* about scientific definitions of intelligence? Or of what 'design' might mean in science? or how archaeologists work? It might be more enlightening than a science fiction movie.


Finally, "evolution" is not a living thing with higher brain functions, it is a process governed by natural laws...anthropomorphizing it is not helpful.

I agree. Scientists shouldn't refer to evolution as a "designer" or refer to things "designed" by evolution.


So, do you imagine that scientists do this often? And in such a way as to give the impression that the resulting 'design' was purposive rather than contingent on natural forces? If an evolutionist speaks of something being 'shaped by evolution', how does that sit with you?
"I recommend that you delete the Rancid Snakepit" - Grant

Dob
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 2:14 pm
Location: Detroit

Postby Dob » Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:36 pm

krabapple wrote:Anyway, what is your point vis a vis 'intelligent design' here? That archaeologists should consider the possibility that a clay pot was part of God's plan?

I'm trying to find the answer to two things. One -- does science accept the existence of examples of "intelligent design" (human or otherwise)? Two -- what then are the scientific criteria for determining what "intelligent design" is?
I think your premises are faulty. I think your ideas of what scientists do and think, are too. So I've suggested you read Dawkins on 'design', since he's both a well-known evolutionary biologist and someone who can write well.

I'll get to it. Right now I'm busy with other things. Like writing posts.

...remember, that 'God created the universe as we see it' *isn't* what creationism is.

It isn't?

Sounds like you're referrring to "young earth" creationism...which isn't what I believe in, FWIW.

Scientists tend to prefer the most parsimonious models. They dont' invoke god to explain snowflakes...unless they invoke god to explain *everything*. An answer like that, that explains everything, doesnt' really *explain* anything.

I don't invoke God to explain snowflakes either. I thought we already covered this...
The world could use more people flaunting scientific knowledge, and less people flaunting ignorance of science.

OK...but history is filled with examples of people who "flaunted scientific knowledge" and were later proven wrong. Remember the joke about "waiting for all the old scientists to die?"
what , again , holds you back from asking your questions on the talk.origins newsgroup?

Let me portray a (slightly whimsical) example of the exchange that might take place.

"Don't you think the answer to this question was thoroughly covered in book A by professor X?
"I haven't read that book."
"Really? Well you should. Of course, this was also covered in B book by Y."
"I haven't read that book either."
"Hmmm...I'm almost afraid to ask this next question. Have you read "Origin Of Species?"
"No."
"Oh my Darwin! You haven't read Origin Of Species???? Tell you what. Read that book. Study that book. While you're at it, read books A,B and C by X,Y and Z. You should be able to get through them in about 6 months. Then, when you know what the f*ck you're talking about, you can come back here. Of course, by then you won't need to, because you won't be a creationist any more."
Oh. So, should I find some particularly, convoluted, poorly argued creationist site to counter it?

Touche, Krab, touche. Although I should point out that the "paperweight" fellow isn't some silly, dumbass chat board creationist, he's Kenneth R. Miller, Professor of Biology, who has "written a series of high school and college textbooks." Perhaps I should go read some of them.
...one of the most tiresome things about these debates, is the sheer redundancy of it all.

Part of the problem is the lack of a proper scientific definition for "intelligent design."
Last edited by Dob on Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Dob

-------------------

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance" -- HL Mencken

Dob
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 2:14 pm
Location: Detroit

Postby Dob » Thu Jan 20, 2005 11:20 pm

krabapple wrote:As I've said, the precise definition of 'intelligence' is not agreed upon... 'intelligent design' -- as I've said , it's *not* a term scientists use -- As for 'design', you need to define what you mean, and find a scientific definition for it as well...

So let me get this straight, because I don't like being WRONG.

Science can't define "design," can't define "intelligence," and certainly can't define "intelligent design." Does that sum it up?

Talkorigins, and a bunch of other scientists, sure seem to know an awful lot about what "intelligent design" isn't, though.
*Your* concerns seem to amount to indignation about what the word 'intelligence' means, and what defintiion *you* think science attaches to it.

That's pretty much it. But please -- stop teasing me and tell me what definition *you* think science attaches to it.
Have you actually gone and *DONE SOME READING* about scientific definitions of intelligence? Or of what 'design' might mean in science? or how archaeologists work?

C'mon, give me a break. What, Dembski and Behe haven't done all that reading? Does that impress you? Obviously not...so why are you throwing that at me? Anyway, I already have a very extensive "required reading" list. And I can't wait to dig into it and become really smart evolutionist instead of a really dumb creationist.
It might be more enlightening than a science fiction movie.

My references were from 2001 THE BOOK. The movie didn't mention the proportions of the monolith. Don't you like science fiction? If you don't, why do you recommend talkorigins? Ha ha, just kidding.

If an evolutionist speaks of something being 'shaped by evolution', how does that sit with you?

I guess that depends on the scientific definition of "shaped."
Dob

-------------------

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance" -- HL Mencken

User avatar
Rspaight
Posts: 4386
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
Location: The Reality-Based Community
Contact:

Postby Rspaight » Fri Jan 21, 2005 9:04 am

The concept of "Intelligent Design" didn't originate scientifically, so why are scientists obligated to define it?

Ryan
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney

User avatar
krabapple
Posts: 1615
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 4:19 pm

Postby krabapple » Fri Jan 21, 2005 12:06 pm

Dob wrote:
krabapple wrote:As I've said, the precise definition of 'intelligence' is not agreed upon... 'intelligent design' -- as I've said , it's *not* a term scientists use -- As for 'design', you need to define what you mean, and find a scientific definition for it as well...

So let me get this straight, because I don't like being WRONG.

Science can't define "design," can't define "intelligence," and certainly can't define "intelligent design." Does that sum it up?


No, no no. I didn't say science *can't* define design. But science doesn't assume *design*
in hte sense you speak of it -- planned creation. *You* -- and creationists generally -- are the ones hung up on the idea of 'design'. Scientists wouldn't tend to use the term, for the very reasons you cite -- it confuses the issue, because it has vernacular meanings that imply *planning* by an intelligent agent.
.

Talkorigins, and a bunch of other scientists, sure seem to know an awful lot about what "intelligent design" isn't, though.


This is disingenuous. The folk there are critiquing to a concept named *intelligent design* (of *biological systems*) put forth by *creationists*. What they 'know' an awful lot about is biology.

*Your* concerns seem to amount to indignation about what the word 'intelligence' means, and what defintiion *you* think science attaches to it.

That's pretty much it. But please -- stop teasing me and tell me what definition *you* think science attaches to it.


As I said , there doesnt' seem to be *one* such definition. I'm not teasing you -- go look it up.
And it's not science that is positing 'intelligent design' *AT ALL*.

Have you actually gone and *DONE SOME READING* about scientific definitions of intelligence? Or of what 'design' might mean in science? or how archaeologists work?

C'mon, give me a break. What, Dembski and Behe haven't done all that reading?


Apprentl;y not, or apparently they haven't understood it, if you've read Demski and Behe (and the critiques of same). If Dembski and Behe are *all* that you've read, then perhaps much is explained as to the bizarre focus of your questions.

*I've* read Behe at least. So give *me* a break and go read some *real* authorities on evolution.


Does that impress you? Obviously not...so why are you throwing that at me?


Because you claim to want to understand what *scientists* think, but seem resistant to actually doing the work!

It's typical, and tirelsome, creationist stance, to stand with hands on hips and triumphantly shout, 'Yeah, well what about [ ]"! In literal ignorance of the fact that [ ] is not new, and has already been addressed a few dozen times. Dembski and Behe have been addressed more than a few times by evolutionists, for example.


Anyway, I already have a very extensive "required reading" list. And I can't wait to dig into it and become really smart evolutionist instead of a really dumb creationist.


Hallelujah.


It might be more enlightening than a science fiction movie.

My references were from 2001 THE BOOK. The movie didn't mention the proportions of the monolith.



:roll:

Don't you like science fiction? If you don't, why do you recommend talkorigins? Ha ha, just kidding.



:roll:

If an evolutionist speaks of something being 'shaped by evolution', how does that sit with you?

I guess that depends on the scientific definition of "shaped."


Suppose it means 'shaped' in the same way that a mountain range is 'shaped' by the weather and tectonic action?
"I recommend that you delete the Rancid Snakepit" - Grant

User avatar
krabapple
Posts: 1615
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 4:19 pm

Postby krabapple » Fri Jan 21, 2005 12:11 pm

Rspaight wrote:The concept of "Intelligent Design" didn't originate scientifically, so why are scientists obligated to define it?

Ryan


(/me sheds a tear of joy)
"I recommend that you delete the Rancid Snakepit" - Grant

User avatar
Patrick M
Posts: 1714
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2003 6:33 pm
Location: LukPac Land

Postby Patrick M » Fri Jan 21, 2005 1:55 pm

Chuck thinks that I look to good to be a computer geek. I think that I know too much about interface design, css, xhtml, php, asp, perl, and ia (too name a few things) to not be one.

User avatar
krabapple
Posts: 1615
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 4:19 pm

Postby krabapple » Fri Jan 21, 2005 7:00 pm

Not having visited there in a while, I didn't realize that the talk.origins *website* now has a entire subsection devoted to discussion of the new creationism's' 'intelligent design' tactic.


http://www.talkdesign.org/

And that there's eeven of *forum* associated with it

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ik ... nboard.cgi

doesnt' appear to be nearly as active as Usenet's talk.origins group, but it does sidestep the need to access Usenet.
"I recommend that you delete the Rancid Snakepit" - Grant

Dob
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 2:14 pm
Location: Detroit

Postby Dob » Fri Jan 21, 2005 8:35 pm

Question: Does science accept the existence of examples of "intelligent design" (human or otherwise)?
Answer: No. "Intelligent design" has no scientific defintion and is not a scientific concept.

Question: What then are the scientific criteria for determining what "intelligent design" is?
Answer: There are no such criteria.

Am I on the right track so far?

Is this a correct statement: "Considering intelligent design besides human design, though, is ruled out by the fact that proponents say nothing positive about what such 'intelligent design' implies." If it is, explain to me how the reference to "intelligent human design" does not contradict the above statements.

krabapple wrote:As I said , there doesnt' seem to be *one* such definition. I'm not teasing you -- go look it up.

"Science can't define intelligence" is a true statement, then?
I didn't say science *can't* define design...

Are any of these definitions close?
(verbs)
To conceive or fashion in the mind; invent
To formulate a plan for; devise
To plan out in systematic form
To create or contrive for a particular purpose or effect
To have as a goal or purpose; intend
To create or execute in an artistic or highly skilled manner.
(nouns)
The purposeful or inventive arrangement of parts or details
An ornamental pattern.
A basic scheme or pattern that affects and controls function or development.
Suppose it means 'shaped' in the same way that a mountain range is 'shaped' by the weather and tectonic action?

Since life is shaped by DNA, am I correct in assuming that your analogy refers to the "shaping" of DNA by evolution? If so, what is the "weather and tectonic action" that shapes DNA?
Last edited by Dob on Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Dob

-------------------

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance" -- HL Mencken