Intelligent Design

The only agents that can carry out artificial selection, i.e. intelligent design are human or humanoid to the extent that they will have left evidence of other artefacts such as tools, scraped or cut animal bones, burials, statues, cave paintings,storage pits, traces of shelters, standing stones,platforms or stakes for lake dwellings,hollowed out logs, potsherds, metal harness rings, metal weapons, etc. There may also be bog or ice preserved humanoid bodies.

This creature that you describe, Meleagar, given that there is evidence that it has long ancestry* and reproductive organs for transmitting information across generations, and in the absence of any evidence of agents with artefact capability as described above, will therefore probably have evolved by means of natural selection and will not have been artifically designed.

*Such as fossil record, or other similar 'life' forms within geographical striking distance.

You are not keeping up Alun . Material evolutionists have long ago agreed that evolution appears designed but contend that the appearance of design is illusory. "A magician’s trick, slight of hand, MYSTICISM!"

Design-Is a plan with a definitive purpose. The "Design Inference" takes the chance out of creation by calculating mathematical probabilities to events. The more complex a structure or event the less chance there is that it came about by chance. Intelligent Design merely studies signs of intelligence not the intelligence itself.

In order to understand how this pertains to material evolution one must understand the history of discovering cellular and sub cellular properties, from Oparin's "Protoplasmic Theory of Life" to protein transcription. This is where neo-Darwinism and material evolutionist show their unwillingness to step into the 21st century and remain stuck in the protoplasmic quagmire of technological naivety.

Like SETI sifting through the noise of the cosmos for any signal indicative of an intelligent origin so to does earthbound life sciences sift through the mire of history searching for intelligence and the progression of civilization there from which we know was not gotten by any natural progresses.

Science has done itself a disservice by redefining itself as the search for natural causes, a defensive response, protecting materialism, from the magic of 1953 and the "Big Bang"?

One of the properties of design is "regularity". Even if one considers a material process for natural selection one must consider the regularity which the reactions to stresses occur. If undirected then the integrity of the process is constantly at risk. Considering infinite variables to any process is statistically impossible, the reality of the open ended system of natural selection. Design is identifiable. What identifies randomness?

Considering "supernatural" issues to the origin of life may very well be the nature of a "miracle" except with intelligent design which fits the "Doctrine of Compatibility" a mathematical probability and not the illusory random design descriptions of material creation.

This is why "Origin of Life" issues should be discussed by philosophers who have taken the time to incorporate all of the available and pertinent science into the discussion. From Plato' Phusis, Descartes "I am, I think" to Kant's Qalia, Newton, Einstein and Bohr and importantly John 1:1-5. The answer is that, observation is subjective, defining is subjective, but information is objective. Reality cannot exist without information, intrinsic, inherent, unquestioning information in every bit of the creation. Hardly, though, is the reality that it needed to be put there. Creation, design, being, existence and humanity depends on it. Go ahead and define reality with a blindfold on.

You are not keeping up Alun . Material evolutionists have long ago agreed that evolution appears designed but contend that the appearance of design is illusory. "A magician’s trick, slight of hand, MYSTICISM!"

No, you're not getting it. "Appearing designed" is an intuitive response--and every formulation that is scientifically feasible (as described in sociology/psychology) that I've seen does not imply an actual designer. So in order to get a formulation that does what you want, you need to talk about something other than this.

Design-Is a plan with a definitive purpose. The "Design Inference" takes the chance out of creation by calculating mathematical probabilities to events. The more complex a structure or event the less chance there is that it came about by chance. Intelligent Design merely studies signs of intelligence not the intelligence itself.

This is invalid. As I've said, complexity is not a sign of design. Snowflakes are complex. Stonehenge is simple. Fractals are complex. Murder is simple. Etc. Sure, you can study complexity--in fact this is done heavily, e.g. in mathematics--but doing so will just turn up more evidence that complexity is not correlated to a plan to be complex. Most of the complexity we observe in the world emerges from extremely simple rules.

One of the properties of design is "regularity". Even if one considers a material process for natural selection one must consider the regularity which the reactions to stresses occur.

??? pH buffer solutions, planetary orbit, and breathing are regular. How does regularity imply design?

Once again we see the fallacy of materialism which discounts the reality of ancillary principles that make life=life and further what separates a man from the rest of what is defined as life.

The goal is not to argue on the basis of linguistics nor on the subjective fallacies of psychology and/or sociology but on the mystery surrounding the origin of biological information to which any description alluding to design is apparently designed by the use of four letter sequencing analogous to any computational order used to formulate patterned responses.

A snowflake is not sentient and neither is Stonehenge, unless one is willing to proclaim them able to speak.

A snowflake is a complex crystal whose formation is dependent on very specific atmospheric conditions, and not a specified complex information processing system such as DNA and protein macromolecules are. The analogy proves just how difficult it is to produce functional specified information complexity. Also, consider that the snowflake analogy proves how randomness does not provide the necessary ordered structures observed in functional transcriptional coding, the double helix.

Such a linear spatial pattern makes the case in a very simple, effective and relevant way, as DNA and proteins as initially formed are precisely such linear discrete-state chains of information-bearing elements, typically 300 monomers long -- requiring 900 DNA base pairs, which can store 1,800 bits of information. And, we observe that sufficiently long class-three strings of letters are invariably the product of intelligent agents. (Thus, we see again the point that the inference to design on observing such a pattern is based on a great deal of empirically based knowledge about the sources of such phenomena.)

Also, consider that the protein must be specifically folded and strongly dependent on specified spatial ordering.

A snowflake may be complex but it is neither specified nor coded.

A chimpanzee's DNA is 95% similar to a mans but what a difference that 5% makes. The chimp breaths and has a regular heartbeat but can it count its breaths or heartbeat let alone calculate a planets orbit?

For any mutation which aspires to higher order complexity and remain useful within defined environmental influences as supposed by Darwinism then those changes must be directed and regular to be successful. A fish who finds itself with the need to survive in air does not have long to wait for the irregularities of random chance mutations.

You are not keeping up Alun . Material evolutionists have long ago agreed that evolution appears designed but contend that the appearance of design is illusory. "A magician’s trick, slight of hand, MYSTICISM!"

Design-Is a plan with a definitive purpose. The "Design Inference" takes the chance out of creation by calculating mathematical probabilities to events. The more complex a structure or event the less chance there is that it came about by chance. Intelligent Design merely studies signs of intelligence not the intelligence itself

. (Juice)

Okay, evolution appears designed. It is designed, but not by a designer rather by its own internal laws of evolution, whether the evolution is the evolution of life forms or plate tectonics there is no hidden hand of God in all this.

Design is not necessarilya plan with a purpose. An artist may design an artefact with a purpose in view. Not always though. Sometimes a work of art evolves from one stage of its making to the next stage because of the results of the earlier stage.Same with a scientific discovery. The scientist comes up with theories because of research and development, not because of her vision of a completed artefact.

Likewise the medical doctor, who does not have some idea of the perfect patient before he starts the cure or the preventative treatment.
The doctor has to be more flexible than this.

The engineer does usually complete the blueprint before the work is started, unlike the research scientist, the medical doctor, and the artist.

The only agents that can carry out artificial selection, i.e. intelligent design are human or humanoid to the extent that they will have left evidence of other artefacts such as tools, scraped or cut animal bones, burials, statues, cave paintings,storage pits, traces of shelters, standing stones,platforms or stakes for lake dwellings,hollowed out logs, potsherds, metal harness rings, metal weapons, etc. There may also be bog or ice preserved humanoid bodies.

This creature that you describe, Meleagar, given that there is evidence that it has long ancestry* and reproductive organs for transmitting information across generations, and in the absence of any evidence of agents with artefact capability as described above, will therefore probably have evolved by means of natural selection and will not have been artifically designed.

The fundamental flaw in your reasoning here is that in order to identify any item X as artificial, your model requires that there be artificial evidences of intelligent agents present, but none of those things, which are also classified as X upon discovery, can be identified as artificial (tools, shelters, etc.) in your model without first identifying other X's as artificial.

Your model contains a catch-22; no X (questionable item) can be identified as artificial until some or many such X items on that planet have been identified as artificial (tools, shelters, etc. for intelligent agents). This means that no X can ever be identified as artificial.

Okay, evolution appears designed. It is designed, but not by a designer rather by its own internal laws of evolution, whether the evolution is the evolution of life forms or plate tectonics there is no hidden hand of God in all this.

The problem is, all you have is materialist faith to support this belief, because it's never been demonstrated that unintelligent forces can do what they are claimed to do in the cased of certain biological features.

Design is not necessarily a plan with a purpose.

Generaly, highly complex, interdependent, functional machinery with instructional coding and regulatory meta-code doesn't come into existence via artistic free-wheeling; it must be deliberately planned for in advance by a highly skilled engineer. The engineer might be artistic too, and might use creativity to overcome unforseen challenges, but without a planned design goal any engineer and software programmer will tell you that a functioning computer just cannot be built.

And what we have in life is far more of a software and engineering marvel than any computer humans have built thus far.

Come on Belinda the product of an artists endeavors are from an intelligence whether the result of random musings or deliberate thoughtfulness.

A Doctor also utilizes the products of his/her intelligence to do their job.

Don't make the mistake of defining function with reality, like asking, "what is the purpose of the blue sky?" Don't miss the point that reality appears designed because it is designed.

Define "evolution" not as an unbroken law of material dogma but as a paradigm of being, of existing, of far reaching abilities. How is it that man flew to the moon when apples fall to the earth? The failure of materialism is the expectations of natural laws and that the human being is specifically designed to contradict those. For what? So he can depend on natural metaphysics to explain his existence and reach behind an ear to produce a coin, or to challenge himself beyond what the senses dictate he should be.

A snowflake is not sentient and neither is Stonehenge, unless one is willing to proclaim them able to speak.

Uh huh. The point is that Stonehenge is designed, and yet not complex. A snowflake is complex, but not designed. So complexity is not evidence of design.

a specified complex information processing system such as DNA and protein macromolecules are.

So now you're arguing that anything which operates as "a specified complex information processing system" must be designed? And where's your evidence for this assertion?

Also, consider that the protein must be specifically folded and strongly dependent on specified spatial ordering.

... This is totally irrelevant. Do not throw scientific facts into the mix and proclaim that they support your position when they have no relation to it whatsoever. Proteins fold as a matter of aqueous chemistry. I.e. they do it spontaneously in water. That is just like how water spontaneously freezes in a specific crystalline structure when exposed to certain atmospheric conditions.

The chimp breaths and has a regular heartbeat but can it count its breaths or heartbeat let alone calculate a planets orbit?

Actually chimps can count, but again you're citing irrelevant facts.

A fish who finds itself with the need to survive in air does not have long to wait for the irregularities of random chance mutations.

Please stop scaring me. It's like you don't even know what the theory you're arguing against is talking about. Fish are theorized to have evolved into amphibians when fish who developed the capacity to breathe oxygen from the air had an advantage over fish who could only get nutrients while in the water. The theory does not claim that fish who are tossed onto the boat will spontaneously evolve to breathe the air.

Let's try to reach an understanding of concepts from an intellectually sophisticated point of view instead of inundating the discussion with straw filled revolving door of materialist reason.

The reason why material evolutionist argue complexity using the complexity of the "snowflake" analogy is because they don't want to use the more apt and congruent analogy with geologic crystals which form under the same theory of geologic gradualism as material evolution supposes for "biologic life", but with far less geometric complexity than a dainty, short lived, little snowflake. And since we have a very good understanding of how both snowflakes and natural crystals form and can pretty much simulate those construction, just like artificial selective animal husbandry, while still having no idea how sentient biologic life came to be let alone self replicating molecular structures, then we can see how Darwinian evolutionist create the incredulity of an analogy which only makes sense by negating some very important considerations, like transcription and macromolecular coding able to support life function far more advanced than freezing H2O and passing it through a small electric charge (static), or putting some rocks in a circle same thing my nephew does with blocks with the same function towards meaning if not longevity.

Another problem for the material evolutionist is that they cannot think or reason beyond the stated goal and that is to match, as much as possible, the observations of evolution, whether real or imagined, into the criteria, whether real or imagined, for random mutation and natural selection. This is a very important rational to either reject Darwinism altogether or incorporate ID into the science so that the science of OOL may progress past the strict confines of material evolution dogma.

How can one move past the intellectual simplicity of Darwinism, snowflakes and Stonehenge and then discuss the nature of complexity outside of physical attributes into functional complexity, specified functional complexity within protein compression, rate specified transcription order and replicating informational polymers, especially when there is little or no understanding of the precise three dimensional folded pattern of life's building blocks not just indicative of design but compelled by design inherent in OOL challenging plausibility, possibility and logical inference. Let's start by comparing Aristotle's "Aether" to quantum energy and the word of God.

Sorry that you can't take a joke!!:wink:

The fundamental flaw in your reasoning here is that in order to identify any item X as artificial, your model requires that there be artificial evidences of intelligent agents present, but none of those things, which are also classified as X upon discovery, can be identified as artificial (tools, shelters, etc.) in your model without first identifying other X's as artificial.

Your model contains a catch-22; no X (questionable item) can be identified as artificial until some or many such X items on that planet have been identified as artificial (tools, shelters, etc. for intelligent agents). This means that no X can ever be identified as artificial.

I believe you are right, Meleagar. The scientific approach is materialistic , or at least monistic. Being monistic it is deterministic. The ultimate view of science must be that scientific truth is a coherent body of knowledge. The ultimate view of science cannot be that scientific truth corresponds to What Is, because it's not within human capability to know tne total of What Is.

Come on Belinda the product of an artists endeavors are from an intelligence whether the result of random musings or deliberate thoughtfulness.

A Doctor also utilizes the products of his/her intelligence to do their job.

I did not say random musings I said that an artist may not work to a blueprint. An artist often uses a happy accident to improve on a work of art, or even to inspire a whole work of art. for instance probably Coleridge's Kubla Khan.

A doctor often has to work with a patient whose systems are closing down, or are at least multiply compromised, and treatment may have to follow from any progress from preceding stages of treatment rather than from a treatment strategy carried through to the letter from start to completion.

In any case and even in the case of random musings, for sure intelligence is much involved , as it is also when an engineer works from a blueprint until completion.

I believe you are right, Meleagar. The scientific approach is materialistic , or at least monistic. Being monistic it is deterministic. The ultimate view of science must be that scientific truth is a coherent body of knowledge. The ultimate view of science cannot be that scientific truth corresponds to What Is, because it's not within human capability to know tne total of What Is.

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything I said, or our debate in general. What has been revealed so far by our debate is only that your explanations of how one would identify "X" as unintelligently or intelligently caused fail.

Thus, the question remains: if we find an X on another planet that seems to many to be an intelligently designed artifact, how does one go about determining if that is indeed the best explanation?

There seems to be a misapprehension here that science has somehow avoided the issue of biological complexity. Nothing could be further from the case- there is a vast literature on the subject much of which is, admittedly, pretty technical.

If anyone is interested, then I'd recommend the following:

Some Introductory Books
- Stuart Kauffman, 'At Home in the Universe' (Oxford UP 1995).
- Ricard Sole and Brian Godwin, 'Signs of Life: How Complexity Pervades Biology' (Basic Books 2000).
- Steven Strogatz, 'Sync: The Emerging Science of Spontaneous Order' (Penguin 2004).

More Advanced:
- Stuart Kauffman, 'The Origins of Order' (Oxford UP 1993). This is a seminal work but very mathematical.
- Ricard Sole and Jordi Bascompte, 'Self-Organization in Complex Ecosystems' (Princeton UP 2006). Again, a lot of maths.
- Mary Jane West-Eberhard, 'Developmental Plasticity and Evolution' (Oxford UP 2003).
- J. Scott Turner, 'The Tinkerer's Apprentice: How Design Emerges from Life Itself' (Harvard UP 2007).

Re: Intelligent Design. It isn't science, and there simply isn't any science behind it. Its religion dressed up as pseudo-science. For a point-by-point refutation of Dembski try:
- Sahotra Sarkar, 'Doubting Darwin?' (Blackwell 2007).

There seems to be a misapprehension here that science has somehow avoided the issue of biological complexity. Nothing could be further from the case- there is a vast literature on the subject much of which is, admittedly, pretty technical.

To my knowledge, nobody has ever claimed that science has avoided the issue of biological complexity. Straw man.

Re: Intelligent Design. It isn't science, and there simply isn't any science behind it. Its religion dressed up as pseudo-science. For a point-by-point refutation of Dembski try:
- Sahotra Sarkar, 'Doubting Darwin?' (Blackwell 2007

Well, if you and Sarkar say so, it must be true. Perhaps you'd like to take a shot at answering the question I pose in #56 above?

The Origins of Order most scientific considerations to a RNA or DNA world have been discounted due to the improbability of such specified complexity arising by random chance, not withstanding the pure physicality of specified order necessary for information products and processes. I particularly like the inferences to "internal logic cycles". Still no way to produce "new" information.

Signs of Life-We have graduated from physical complexity to information complexity in the "Origin of Life" and not within existing populations and economic strategies.

Sync: The Emerging Science of Spontaneous Order Chaos Theory reverb. Firefly synchronicity seems pretty intelligently designed to me.

Self-Organization in Complex Ecosystems - once again only discusses existing systems and not Origin of Life or transcription complexity.

Developmental Plasticity and Evolution-This is much more interesting so I will have to review it in depth, but it seems to be a lot of conjecture and very "Lamarckian".

The Tinkerer's Apprentice: How Design Emerges from Life Itself-The problem here is once again a question of how material evolution accounts for the appearance of new "information" in the cell, particularly in regards to thermodynamics and reductionist evolution theories. It seems to me to be repackaging by accounting for exterior sourcing by naming the source, allegorically hypothetical fitness.

Generaly, highly complex, interdependent, functional machinery with instructional coding and regulatory meta-code doesn't come into existence via artistic free-wheeling; it must be deliberately planned for in advance by a highly skilled engineer. The engineer might be artistic too, and might use creativity to overcome unforseen challenges, but without a planned design goal any engineer and software programmer will tell you that a functioning computer just cannot be built.

Its this kind of statement that led my comment on biological complexity. There is, I repeat, a vast literature that deals with the issue of how highly interdependent functional biological systems come into existence without being designed. It all makes perfect sense without the need for a supernatural designer.


The Post # 56 Challenge

As I understand it, the question is this:

I arrive on an alien planet and discover an artifact. I want to know how the artifact originated, and there are 2 possible explanations: either it evolved, or it is the product of conscious design. How can I determine which hypothesis is correct?

Well, my first step is to closely examine how the artifact works. Is it an organism? In other words, is the artifact:
a) homeostatic
b) able to physiologically adapt to perturbation
c) able to recursively re-create a boundary around itself (some sort of membrane)
and
d) able to reproduce, either by itself or in conjunction with another, similar artifact? Note that this condition implies some sort of mechanism for ensuring accurate replication, analogous to our DNA.

If not, then there would be a very strong implication that the artifact was designed- simply because there wouldn't be any apparent way that it could have evolved.

If the artifact was an organism, then my next step would be to examine the environment. Are there any other organisms with the same biochemistry extant? Are there any fossils?

If not, then I would remain unsure about the artifact/ organism. It might have evolved elsewhere, and ended up where I found it. Or it might be a product of bioengineering. I simply wouldn't know, and I'd have to reserve judgement.

On the other hand, if the environment did have lots of orther organisms with similar biochemistry, and there were also lots of fossil organisms, many of which appeared to be related to the organisms that were around me, I would conclude that the best explanation for the artifact/ organism was evolution.

And thats all science is, really- inference to the best explanation.


[/i]