Intelligent design

[JetLeg]

Are there any claims by the ID movement that should immediately trigger one's ******** detector, even if one doesn't know much about evolution?

Edited for breach of Rule 10.

[drkitten]

Are there any claims by the ID movement that should immediately trigger one's ******** detector, even if one doesn't know much about evolution?

Failure to state a positive claim.

I don't become a meteorologist merely by decrying how inaccurate the bubblehead on channel 6 is.

[JetLeg]

Failure to state a positive claim.

I don't become a meteorologist merely by decrying how inaccurate the bubblehead on channel 6 is.

Irreducible complexity is a positive claim.

[Marduk]

Are there any claims by the ID movement that should immediately trigger one's ******** detector, even if one doesn't know much about evolution?

the claim that things don't just pop into existence but are designed which is applied to everything but the creator who apparently just popped into existence and wasn't designed

;)

[Pink Booties]

ID obviously uses science to its own ends and discards the science that shows its failings. At best ID comes across as a massive argument from attack and speculation.

[ddt]

Irreducible complexity is a positive claim.

How then?

Every example of "irreducible complexity" the ID-crowd has drawn up has been shredded to pieces.

BTW, the label "ID" is disingenuous. It's old-fashioned Creationism. Look up "cdesign proponentsists".

[shadron]

How then?

Every example of "irreducible complexity" the ID-crowd has drawn up has been shredded to pieces.

BTW, the label "ID" is disingenuous. It's old-fashioned Creationism. Look up "cdesign proponentsists".

Ummmm, while it may have the same goals and philosophical views, it is obviously a different approach - one designed to pierce the wall of resistance to "that old time religion" that many thoughtful people have erected in their minds. No mistake about it, if they ever win a major victory in the US, to the point that they don't need teh facade anymore, they'll toss it aside without regret.

However, trying to equate the two in a thread where the difference are part of the OP is not a good idea. Even if JetLag is being disingenuous in asking, by way of attacking the results, it is best to not muddle the water with nothing that helps the OP's question.

I would modify DrKitten's response to say that ID never has any scientific research to bring to its arguments, and it is very careful never to say anything that may falsify ID, definitely including any predictions based on it's "science". It is, of course, hard to concieve of a definitive prediction it might make.

[JetLeg]

Has anyone heard ID proponents explain _when_ life was designed? I think that if one makes the case that life was designed, he should explain that.

[Bob Klase]

Has anyone heard ID proponents explain _when_ life was designed? I think that if one makes the case that life was designed, he should explain that.

That's a bit like IDer's or creationists demanding "well, if evolution is really a scientific fact then you should be able to explain how life started". Or creationists saying "well, if the big bang really happened then you should explain what caused it?".

The fact that you can't answer one question does not automatically mean your answers to other questions are wrong.

[JetLeg]

That's a bit like IDer's or creationists demanding "well, if evolution is really a scientific fact then you should be able to explain how life started". Or creationists saying "well, if the big bang really happened then you should explain what caused it?".

The fact that you can't answer one question does not automatically mean your answers to other questions are wrong.

Eh, you are right.
They should not have the answer.

But they should generate meaningful hypothesis.

[aggle-rithm]

Are there any claims by the ID movement that should immediately trigger one's ******** detector, even if one doesn't know much about evolution?
Moderated content removed.


If one doesn't know much about theism, then one would wonder why the ID movement is necessary. It doesn't explain anything, make predictions, or help us understand the world around us.

[Raze]

Are there any claims by the ID movement that should immediately trigger one's ******** detector, even if one doesn't know much about evolution?
Moderated content removed.


Yes. When Michael Behe was forced to admit on the witness stand under oath that ID is as scientific as astrology .

ETA-

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html

Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.

[Bob Klase]

Eh, you are right.
They should not have the answer.

But they should generate meaningful hypothesis.

Perhaps they should try, but I imagine that would be pretty far down their list of priorities if they decide actually start using the scientific method.

And again, their hypothesis could be "we just have no way of knowing". That's the current hypothesis of what caused the big bang and it's an acceptable answer.

[rjh01]

How to detect basic <rule 10 in OP>
1. Anything that finds fault with competing ideas as its main or major arguments.
2. When you look at what it claims they cannot be verified as true.
3. Claims there is a major conspiracy to silence it.
4. Goes completely against what you already know. When you look into it further you will have to throw away a lot of what you know.
5. Not published in reputable places.
6. Uses outdated sources.

The more this is true the more <rule 10 in OP> it is likely to be.

[DC]

Are there any claims by the ID movement that should immediately trigger one's ******** detector, even if one doesn't know much about evolution?

Edited for breach of Rule 10.

yes the "God did it" claim.

[ddt]

Ummmm, while it may have the same goals and philosophical views, it is obviously a different approach - one designed to pierce the wall of resistance to "that old time religion" that many thoughtful people have erected in their minds. No mistake about it, if they ever win a major victory in the US, to the point that they don't need teh facade anymore, they'll toss it aside without regret.

However, trying to equate the two in a thread where the difference are part of the OP is not a good idea. Even if JetLag is being disingenuous in asking, by way of attacking the results, it is best to not muddle the water with nothing that helps the OP's question.

I didn't see any mention of creationism in the OP, so I thought it might be useful to point out to JetLeg that ID has, in fact, already been uncovered as thinly veiled creationism - see Dover trial, see Wedge strategy. I didn't mean to imply that JetLeg was disingenuous in asking, btw, but that the main ID proponents were disingenuous with their relabelling.

As to the main point of my post, the notion of "irreducible complexity" has not been adequately defined by the ID crowd, AFAIK, much less that they have drawn up one single example of it.

[Raze]

How to detect basic <rule 10 in OP>
1. Anything that finds fault with competing ideas as its main or major arguments.
2. When you look at what it claims they cannot be verified as true.
3. Claims there is a major conspiracy to silence it.
4. Goes completely against what you already know. When you look into it further you will have to throw away a lot of what you know.
5. Not published in reputable places.
6. Uses outdated sources.

The more this is true the more <rule 10 in OP> it is likely to be.

When I signed up here, rule 10 was this:

You will not swear in your posts. This includes using swear words in a disguised form, for example, by replacing certain letters in the word with another letter, character, or image.

Is there some other set of rules that I missed?

[rjh01]

When I signed up here, rule 10 was this:



Is there some other set of rules that I missed?

No you got the right rule. If you look at the OP there is a word there that has been removed due to rule 10. Easy to work out what that word was. Put that word in my post and you know what I wanted to say, but cannot because of rule 10. Hope that clears that up.

[Raze]

No you got the right rule. If you look at the OP there is a word there that has been removed due to rule 10. Easy to work out what that word was. Put that word in my post and you know what I wanted to say, but cannot because of rule 10. Hope that clears that up.

Wow... I feel so naive...

[Robster, FCD]

Irreducible complexity falls apart as a proof of design very quickly. It actually is a better proof of evolution.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Jetlag,

Irreducible complexity is a positive claim.
Aside from the fact that the claims Creationists have made about irreducible complexity are complete bunk, a more relevant point is that irreducible complexity is not a prediction of ID.

Absolutely nothing about ID allows us to predict that any organic structure should be irreducibly complex. The claims of irreducible complexity are arguments against evolution, not supporting evidence for ID.

Remember that even if evolution were incontrovertably proven wrong, that would still not mean that ID is correct.

So indeed this sort of thing is a perfect example of what should set off peoples BS detectors. Anytime an ID proponent attempts to use arguments againt evolution as though they were arguments for ID, they are clearly making some major logical mistakes.


Dr. Stupid

[DC]

here some funny ID claims.

BS5vid4GkEY

there are many many parts on YT:

[Mojo]

Irreducible complexity is a positive claim.


Nope - it's essentially a false dilemma, with a side order of appeal to incredulity. It defines itself entirely in terms of things that natural selection allegedly can't explain.

I'll let Michael Behe (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/sep/12/religion.news) explain (my emphasis): Well, yeah, sure. But the question is: exactly how did life get here? Was it by natural selection and random mutation or was it by something else? Everybody - even Richard Dawkins - sees design in biology. You see this design when you see co-ordinated parts coming together to perform a function - like in a hand. And so it's the appearance of design that everybody's trying to explain. So that if Darwin's theory doesn't explain it we're left with no other explanation than maybe it really was designed. That's essentially the design argument.

[Belz...]

Jetlag,

A much better alias for him, I say.

[JetLeg]

A much better alias for him, I say.

Thanks for the non-intelligent insult.

[JetLeg]

Jetlag,


Aside from the fact that the claims Creationists have made about irreducible complexity are complete bunk, a more relevant point is that irreducible complexity is not a prediction of ID.

Absolutely nothing about ID allows us to predict that any organic structure should be irreducibly complex. The claims of irreducible complexity are arguments against evolution, not supporting evidence for ID.

Remember that even if evolution were incontrovertably proven wrong, that would still not mean that ID is correct.

So indeed this sort of thing is a perfect example of what should set off peoples BS detectors. Anytime an ID proponent attempts to use arguments againt evolution as though they were arguments for ID, they are clearly making some major logical mistakes.


Dr. Stupid


I think that if something is not evolved, then it is designed. So their dillemma is not false, but valid. What other options do you see, rather than intelligent and designed?

[drkitten]

I think that if something is not evolved, then it is designed. So their dillemma is not false, but valid. What other options do you see, rather than intelligent and designed?

So now you add argument from ignorance to the false dilemma. Not a good start.

A third option, of course, is random chance. A fourth, fifth, sixth, and so on option are any of the myriad of non-Darwinian versions of development (of which Lamarkian evolution is probably the best known). If I take a job involving heavy physical labor and get really ripped as a result, is that by design, or by evolution. Answer: "neither."

Which points up the falsity of your dilemma quite nicely. As well as getting me really ripped.

[JetLeg]

So now you add argument from ignorance to the false dilemma. Not a good start.

A third option, of course, is random chance. A fourth, fifth, sixth, and so on option are any of the myriad of non-Darwinian versions of development (of which Lamarkian evolution is probably the best known). If I take a job involving heavy physical labor and get really ripped as a result, is that by design, or by evolution. Answer: "neither."

Which points up the falsity of your dilemma quite nicely. As well as getting me really ripped.


It isn't an argument from ignorance. With any dillema you will present the two horns and say "I don't see a reason why there should be another one".

[drkitten]

It isn't an argument from ignorance.

No, it's a false dilemma.

With any dillema you will present the two horns and say "I don't see a reason why there should be another one".

That's where it becomes an argument from ignorance. "I don't see a reason why there should be another one, therefore there isn't another one?" That's a classic argument from ignorance.

To be able to validly use an argument by case analysis, you need to be able to demonstrate that the set of cases you have chosen exhaust the possibilities. For example, in math, either x> y, x<y, or x=y (that's called the tripartite principle, among other things). The law of the excluded middle (in logic) states that either X or not-X is true. If you're looking at a physical object, you may be able to count the number of relevant properties (i.e. this room only has two doors).

You have not made the necessary demonstration -- and in fact, I was able to demonstrate a third horn. Therefore, your dilemma is a false one.

[JetLeg]

No, it's a false dilemma.



That's where it becomes an argument from ignorance. "I don't see a reason why there should be another one, therefore there isn't another one?" That's a classic argument from ignorance.

To be able to validly use an argument by case analysis, you need to be able to demonstrate that the set of cases you have chosen exhaust the possibilities. For example, in math, either x> y, x<y, or x=y (that's called the tripartite principle, among other things). The law of the excluded middle (in logic) states that either X or not-X is true. If you're looking at a physical object, you may be able to count the number of relevant properties (i.e. this room only has two doors).

You have not made the necessary demonstration -- and in fact, I was able to demonstrate a third horn. Therefore, your dilemma is a false one.


First, blind chance is really a bad third horn.
Lamarckism is ok, more or less.

Second, I don't think
"I don't see a reason why there should be another one, therefore there isn't another one" is fallacious. It is inductive logic that we are talking about.

I don't see a way in which we could a human being could give birth to an elephant. Therefore there isn't a way in which a human being could give birth to an elephant.

[aggle-rithm]

I think that if something is not evolved, then it is designed. So their dillemma is not false, but valid. What other options do you see, rather than intelligent and designed?

You should read Kenneth Miller's "Only a Theory". He is an evolutionary biologist and a Christian. His arguments against intelligent design are pretty persuasive.

Since he is a Christian, he strives to reconcile his theistic beliefs with his scientific knowlege. What he comes up with is the third option of which you speak: That God did not design each individual species, but did create the "adaptive space" which allowed the inevitable evolution of intelligent life of some kind. It could easily been something other than primates, he reasons, but the "goal" of evolution was not the creation of a specific species, just a sentient one.

It's a good read, although many scientists would disagree with some of his conclusions about the inevitability of intelligent life arising from the primordial soup.

[drkitten]

First, blind chance is really a bad third horn.

Then you should be able to deal with it explicitly instead of pretending that it doesn't exist.


Lamarckism is ok, more or less.

So your dilemma is a false one.


Second, I don't think
"I don't see a reason why there should be another one, therefore there isn't another one" is fallacious. It is inductive logic that we are talking about.

Well, then, you are thinking wrongly. You haven't even considered the possibility that other people who know more about the subject than you might be able to think of another one.

What a surprise.

[JetLeg]

So your dilemma is a false one.



Well, then, you are thinking wrongly. You haven't even considered the possibility that other people who know more about the subject than you might be able to think of another one.

What a surprise.

Yes, the dilemma is a false one.

Again,


I don't see a way in which we could a human being could give birth to an elephant. Therefore there isn't a way in which a human being could give birth to an elephant.

I don't see a way how I could fast for 5 years, and stay alive, therefore I couldn't fast 5 years and stay alive.

[drkitten]

I don't see a way how I could fast for 5 years, and stay alive, therefore I couldn't fast 5 years and stay alive.

IV drips. They're used routinely when prisoners go on hunger strikes.

You lose. Again.

[Bob Klase]

I don't see a way how I could fast for 5 years, and stay alive, therefore I couldn't fast 5 years and stay alive.

I don't see any way a human could run a mile in less than 4 minutes, therefore a human could never run a mile in less than 4 minutes.

(Quote from Jetleg's grandfather- circa 1927)- I don't see how a man could ever get to the moon, therefore man will never go to the moon.

[Wowbagger]

I think that if something is not evolved, then it is designed. So their dillemma is not false, but valid. Something could also be eternally consistent. Granted, there might not be anything that really is. But, the fact that there can, at least in theory, be a logically acceptable third option, demonstrates that the dilemma is false. (Even if "evolution" is very loosely defined as any natural process, even beyond Natural Selection.)

Something can also be both: Part of an evolutionary process, and partly designed. Like domesticated animals, for example. It is difficult to trace exactly which traits come from which, sometimes, because they meld with and influence each other. But, that is another option.

If "evolution" was strictly defined as Natural Selection, there certainly are a lot of other alternatives: Lots of other natural, physical processes that can shape objects and life forms over time.

Stars and planets form through forces of gravity, and other things, without "evolving" in the strict biological sense. So, you could say they neither evolved nor were designed. They just sorta comingled.

[Almo]

First, blind chance is really a bad third horn.

No, actually it isn't. It's been shown in computer simulations that blind chance can produce startling complexity in evolutionary systems. Tierra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tierra_%28computer_simulation%29) is a notable example. Tierra is notable in that there isn't a value function. The programs that work are the ones that survive.

[Wowbagger]

No, actually it isn't. It's been shown in computer simulations that blind chance can produce startling complexity in evolutionary systems. Tierra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tierra_%28computer_simulation%29) is a notable example. Tierra is notable in that there isn't a value function. The programs that work are the ones that survive.

Random chance is a possible third horn, though a fairly weak one.

The more we understand about the evolution of life, the less of a roll random chance plays in our understanding of it.

Tierra works. But, gaining knowledge about precise bio-chemical details works even better.