Examples of How Intelligent Design Helps Science Generate New Knowledge!!

[Wowbagger]

Randman provided this link. I have not looked at all the examples, yet.

But, since this is the "best" answer I have seen for the question "How does Intelligent Design help science gain new knowledge?" I figured it deserves its own thread:

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1505

What does everyone else think? Do any of these examples actually invoke a designer?

[Aepervius]

I see dembski cited, so I am not 100% sure I would consider the list valid :D.

A good argument could be made *IF* they were digging concept which were not mentionned in biology *before* ID mentionend them. but from the list and the dates (2000-2004) I do not see anything which is not mentionned elsewhere or which are not sdimply concept that only ID hold for relevant (like irreducible complexity, fine tuning).

[Wowbagger]

One way I would respond to this would be to replace "ID" with "DB", in most of the examples. DB, in this case, stands for Dust Bin Theory.

Dust Bin Theory does not imply that there was any design effort taken in life forms on Earth. We could have emerged from the bottom God's garbage can.

I can do this, with confidence, because it does not look like any of the works cited in the paper actually describe a case of Design, nor the Designer itself. It looks, to me like the bulk of the papers actually support Dust Bin Theory quite well!

For example, this item:

ID has inspired scientists to do research which has detected high levels of complex and specified information in biology in the form of fine-tuning of protein sequences. This has practical implications not just for explaining biological origins but also for engineering enzymes and anticipating / fighting the future evolution of diseases.

Becomes the following:

DB has inspired scientists to do research which has detected high levels of complex and specified information in biology in the form of fine-tuning of protein sequences.

I left out the second part, about practical applications, because it is not true. Not for DB, and not for ID. If I am wrong, I would like to see some examples.

DB theory does not imply that practical applications are necessary for complexity. Though, it might be practical to know we are the products of an accident.

Also consider this:

DB has inspired scientists to seek and find instances of fine-tuning of the laws and constants of physics to allow for life, leading to a variety of fine-tuning arguments including the Galactic Habitable Zone.

DB Theory states that the fine-tuning was put in place for other life forms on other planets. The Universe was not fine-tuned for us, because most of it is not inhabitable for us. Not even most of this planet, without specialized equipment.

If fine-tuning has any practical applications, I would like to know what they are.

ETA: Also: Science has expanded the Goldilocks zone, over the years, not thinned it. So, the "fine-tuning" becomes less "fine" over time.

The next example, I admit, would not be implied by Dust Bin:

ID has inspired scientists to understand intelligence as a scientifically studyable cause of biological complexity, and to understand the types of information it generates.

However, this statement is deceptive. Yes, intelligence can be scientifically studied as a cause of biological complexity. Even Evolutionists could do that. But, as a practical matter, this has had no impact on biology.

The types of information generated by biological complexity are well understood in terms of evolutionary theory. ID adds nothing to the argument.

I will get to the other examples, later.

[Wowbagger]

I accidentally left the word "How" out of the thread's title. Can anyone fix that?

The thread is supposed to say:

Examples of How Intelligent Design Helps Science Generate New Knowledge!!

Thank you.

[ApolloGnomon]

Are you saying your title wasn't intelligently designed and needs to evolve?

[John Albert]

What proof do they offer that the scientists in question were indeed "inspired" by ID? They might have been inspired by something altogether different.

It might be fun to look up the names of the leading biologists who worked on all those projects, send them an email with a link to that list, and get their opinion on the matter.

[mrgrouch]

Randman provided this link. I have not looked at all the examples, yet.

But, since this is the "best" answer I have seen for the question "How does Intelligent Design help science gain new knowledge?" I figured it deserves its own thread:

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1505

What does everyone else think? Do any of these examples actually invoke a designer?

well that's absolute evidence, no doubt about that.

now we can be certain a theory can inspire some research, but that's about it.

i think it's funny they call it "intelligent" design. the number of species gone extinct if far greater than the number of species alive today, so "trial and error design" would be a more appropriate name, but that would imply the designer made mistakes. and then why did it take so long to come up with a design he's satisfied with? talk about a slow learner.

cheers

[randman]

Just watched a movie called Swing Kids.....some of the posts and ways of thinking here remind me of the folks that didn't like them.

No appeal to logic and reason; no looking at the specific arguments in the papers; just blanket prejudice. It's ID so must be wrong.

70 years ago, you could just have called it Jewish logic and been about on the same level of rational logic.

[CapelDodger]

Einstein was famously unhappy with quantum theory and put his formidable intellect into raising questions about it. This was of enormous benefit to quantum theorists.

ID'ers attempts to find "irreducible complexity" in living creatures has served a similar function, albeit that their far less formidable intellects won't acknowledge the answers provided. Einstein, of course, always did.

[CapelDodger]

Also consider this:
DB has inspired scientists to seek and find instances of fine-tuning of the laws and constants of physics to allow for life, leading to a variety of fine-tuning arguments including the Galactic Habitable Zone.


Of course scientists discovered these laws and constants during the pursuit of their particular interests (varying in scale from sub-atomic to cosmic) and were the ones who pointed out how fine-tuned they are. Hence the Anthropic Principle. ID'ers only glommed onto any of it during their search for something to say that didn't involve a particular religion.

[CapelDodger]

Just watched a movie called Swing Kids.....some of the posts and ways of thinking here remind me of the folks that didn't like them.

No appeal to logic and reason; no looking at the specific arguments in the papers; just blanket prejudice. It's ID so must be wrong.

70 years ago, you could just have called it Jewish logic and been about on the same level of rational logic.

That's a very early Godwin.

Can you actually argue, using rational logic, against anything in Wowbaggers DustBin post? Or point to anything irrational in it?

[Wowbagger]

Randman, most of those examples do NOT invoke the need for a Designer, nor is a Designer necessary for explaining their findings. (That is why the Dust Bin theory can take its place in most of them.)

The two of them sorta do. But, are weak:
* Yes, we can "study intelligence as a source of biological complexity", but the paper has no bearing on actual, useful research. Can you provide some?
* One implies that some biological features were intelligently designed for their function. But, this has not actually been demonstrated. Evolution has been better able to describe the origins of those functions.

None of them cite any specific examples of how ID can be applied to gaining knowledge or solving problems. They all follow a pattern of "Well, this idea we have sorta sounds like it might apply here".

This link was good try, though! I rank it as the best thing you've given us so far! (Though, that doesn't say very much.)

[CapelDodger]

ID has inspired theoretical research into the information-generative powers of Darwinian searches, leading to the finding that the search abilities of Darwinian processes are limited, which has practical implications for the viability of using genetic algorithms to solve problems.

That one I have direct experience of, and ID had nothing to do with it. The mathematical theory of information was already established when the idea of programming by means of iteration with variation came up. Dembski's work subsequently was crap. It ignores iteration, fails to grasp what information actually is, and assumes that life is equivalent to a Turing Machine. Which it isn't, by the way.

This is another example of ID'ers glomming onto something in their search for something sciencey-sounding to say about evolution in defence of their entrenched beliefs (which, in Dembski's case, is Biblical certainty).

randman, can you pick out one of the bullet-points that you think is actually relevant to the case being made by the IDEA? (Can't fault that acronym, by the way. It's inspired.)

[Wowbagger]

I gave this link of yours its own thread, because I felt it deserved special attention, because I like pragmatic things. I was disappointed with its veneer thin results, though.

(And, I also figured someone else would help me unravel the examples, but I think most of us are fatigued with this debate, by now, so I will assume I have to do it myself. Oh well.)

Continuing with the other examples cited:

(Remember: DB = Dust Bin Theory. See my previous posts on this point.)

DB has inspired both experimental and theoretical research into how limitations on the ability of Darwinian evolution to evolve traits that require multiple mutations to function.

That's right: Dust Bin Theory covers the same ground, no intelligence required!

If this has any real, practical, implications for fighting any problems, (such as antibiotic resistance?), please provide some examples. The paper does not give any.

DB and Evo Theorists have inspired theoretical research into the information-generative powers of Darwinian searches, leading to the finding that the search abilities of Darwinian processes are limited, which has practical implications for the viability of using genetic algorithms to solve problems.

It is worth noting that all three contenders can agree with this one: I.D., Dust Bin, and Evolutionary theory: They all seek to understand the powers and limits of Darwinian searches, etc.

In fact, Intelligent Design does not add anything to this endeavor, that I can see. Though, ID is prone to assume there are more limits to the algorithm than there really are.

DB has inspired scientists to study proper measures of biological information, leading to concepts like complex and specified information or functional sequence complexity. This allows us to better quantify complexity and understand what features are, or are not, within the reach of Darwinian evolution.

As a practical matter, ID is wrong in this regard. The "reach" of Darwinian evolution goes farther than what its competitors are trying to imply.

But, at least DB agrees that it is worth a try!

DB has inspired scientists to investigate computer-like properties of DNA and the genome in the hopes of better understanding genetics and the origin of biological systems.

Actually, ID has no hope of unraveling the origins of DNA with this approach. If I am wrong on this manner, please show me how.

Evolution by Natural Selection might not provide a complete answer to DNA's origins, either; which is why abiogenesis studies, such as RNA-World, are working with other natural processes, such as auto-catalytic and self-replicating systems, etc. to do it.

Evolution, and its kin, provides the best chance of discovering DNA's origins.

DB has no problem with DNA being "computer like". DNA could simply have been garbage computer code.

DB has inspired scientists to reverse engineer molecular machines like the bacterial flagellum to understand their function like machines, and to understand how the machine-like properties of life allow biological systems to function.
Since ID offers no actual alternative to how those molecular machines could have come about, DB is free to assert itself into the fray.

Evolution does have explanations for how those machine-like parts came about, that ID was unable to anticipate. And they are still largely ignored or dismissed by the IDers.

ID has not really been able to add anything to these studies, in spite of the claims of this article.



This next one needs more work. The original text:

ID has inspired scientists to view cellular components as "designed structures rather than accidental by-products of neo-Darwinian evolution," allowing scientists to propose testable hypotheses about causes of cancer.

The Dust Bin Compatible version:

DB has inspired scientists to view cellular components as "accidental structures rather than products of neo-Darwinian evolution,"

Neo-Darwinian evolution does NOT imply that cellular components are "accidental by-products", but rather they are systems selected for by natural selection.

It is the Dust Bin Theory that would imply that accidents happened. If one is to understand cancer, this makes more sense, in that context.

I changed more of the text because Dust Bin does not imply "designed structures", as ID does.

Unfortunately for ID, it does not really have anything to say on the subject of cancer research. Especially since the disease, itself, has been known to act as a microcosm of natural selection. (Cancer cells compete with each other, and other cells, for resources, in a manner similar to Darwinism.)

If I am wrong about that, please show me how ID can be applied to the causes cancer.



DB has inspired scientists to see life as being front-loaded with information such that it is designed to evolve, expecting (and now finding!) previously unanticipated "out of place" genes in various taxa.
Front-loading is a response made by evolutionary (more specifically: evo/devo) discoveries. Front-loading does not, itself, make any novel predictions about unanticipated genes in various taxa, that were not already put out by the evo/devos.

(In fact, until evo/devo discovered those things, ID was content with Special Creation, and that would imply we would NOT find such things. But that is just a minor historic point.)

DB has no problem with front-loading, because the concept does not really have to imply intention, at its heart. There is no reason to assume all that loading could not have happened by happenstance.

DB and Evo Theory helps scientists explain the cause of the widespread feature of "convergent evolution," including convergent genetic evolution.
Here is another thing that applies to all three competing theories.

Evolution, of course, covers convergent evolution quite well.

If ID agrees with the notion, that is all well and good. But, I fail to see what new knowledge it can bring to the table. Can anyone help me with that?

DB's opinion of convergence: Why not? Whatever...

DB and Evo Theory helps scientists understand causes of explosions of biodiversity (as well as mass extinction) in the history of life.
A third one for all three!

The study of destruction and re-filling of niches is a story rich with Natural Selection doing its thing.

I suspect ID is lying when it claims it helps scientists understand these things. But, if they are not, perhaps someone can give me a good example?

DB states that we can expect lots of species to go extinct by accident, then reproduce wildly, in different ways, when it is time to recover.

DB has inspired scientists to do various types of research seeking function for non-coding "junk"-DNA, allowing us to understand development and cellular biology.
The examination of "junk" DNA is one that does not imply a designer. In Dust Bin theory we would expect some junk to show up, and perhaps it would even get used by something else: One genome's junk is another genome's treasure!

Of course, I am using the term "junk" very literally in the above text. I recognize that the so-called "junk-DNA" segments serve regulatory and other purposes. But, Evolutionary theory recognizes this as well. That is why the word is in scare-quotes all the time. ID is merely exaggerating the situation to make themselves look good.

If ID really has anything to add on the subject of non-coding DNA, that is not understood by the evos, I would like to know what that is.

In almost every example, we have seen that I.D. is not really as productive to science as this article makes it out to be. (Unless there are any examples that anyone cares to offer.) If anything, Dust Bin Theory is more adept at being productive than ID.

Though, of course, Evo Theory still beats DB on every level. That's because DB Theory is, in fact, a can of rubbish.

[CapelDodger]

What proof do they offer that the scientists in question were indeed "inspired" by ID? They might have been inspired by something altogether different.

The evidence he presents is that their papers are cited on the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Centre's FAQ page. To randman's shallow thinking that must mean they're relevant to the Centre's mission :

"To promote, as a scientific theory, the idea that life was designed by an intelligence;"

No surprises there. Nor in their falure to do so.

"To educate people about scientific problems with purely natural explanations for the origins and evolution of life; "


Which, of course, brings us to the oft-made point (which randman is trying to refute) that ID only presents arguments against evolution by natural selection. It proposes nothing.

At least creationists proposed the King James Version as an alternative, but that didn't play against the First Amendment in the US. Neither has ID, but then most judges aren't idiots. (Don't ask me to defend that last claim with evidence, I just hope it's so ...)

[Wowbagger]

Dembski's work subsequently was crap. It ignores iteration, That doesn't make much sense. Is Dembski really so misguided that he doesn't realize computer algorithms can run in loops?




ETA: And thanks, mods, for changing the title! (reporting my own post did the trick.)

[CapelDodger]

ID has inspired both experimental and theoretical research into how limitations on the ability of Darwinian evolution to evolve traits that require multiple mutations to function. This of course has practical implications for fighting problems like antibiotic resistance or engineering bacteria.

This cites Behe, another refugee from the creationism shipwreck. Of course, research into antibiotic resistance was inspired by antibiotic resistance, and the engineering of bacteria is by definition intelligently designed.

Antibiotic resistance is a big problem for ID'ers, and so far demonstrates none of the limits that Behe et al have so desperately sought.

(Notie how woefully formed the first sentence of that bullet-point is. The "how" is not followed by anything. "[H]ow limitations ... to evolve traits ... that require multiple mutations to function" ... and then we're left hanging. How they what? Perhaps randman has some conjecture.)

[Maurice Ledifficile]

I've never heard of a science project that was designed in response to an ID argument. There is no evidence that any science was "inspired" by ID. I consider this article absolute nonsense. Aepervius had it right early on.

[CapelDodger]

That doesn't make much sense. Is Dembski really so misguided that he doesn't realize computer algorithms can run in loops?

(I should have stipulated iteration, variation and selection.)

The way Dembski treats information he ignores the history of any physical gene. It's as if he's arguing that an individual doesn't evolve - which nobody would argue against.

ID'ers commonly argue that information cannot be created, which is in some senses true but not when it applies to gene-lines. Gene-lines accumulate the information that the variations in their history have not been selected out. Yet.

[Shalamar]

Just watched a movie called Swing Kids.....some of the posts and ways of thinking here remind me of the folks that didn't like them.

No appeal to logic and reason; no looking at the specific arguments in the papers; just blanket prejudice. It's ID so must be wrong.

70 years ago, you could just have called it Jewish logic and been about on the same level of rational logic.

No appeal to logic and reason; no looking at the specific arguments in the papers; just blanket prejudice. It's evolution so must be wrong.

[Dinwar]

ID has inspired scientists to do research which has detected high levels of complex and specified information in biology in the form of fine-tuning of protein sequences. My dog eating chicken-on-a-stick at a local chinese place got me thinking about predation in Tyranosaurids. Doesn't mean that the cook contributed to paleontology.

ID has inspired scientists to seek and find instances of fine-tuning of the laws and constants of physics to allow for life, leading to a variety of fine-tuning arguments including the Galactic Habitable Zone. My dog eating chicken-on-a-stick at a local chinese place got me thinking about predation in Tyranosaurids. Doesn't mean that the cook contributed to paleontology. Also, ID did NOT teach scientists to look outside of Earth-like environments for life (took a paleontologist and some biochemists to do that), so this is actually a fail.

ID has inspired scientists to understand intelligence as a scientifically studyable cause of biological complexity, and to understand the types of information it generates.My dog eating chicken-on-a-stick at a local chinese place got me thinking about predation in Tyranosaurids. Doesn't mean that the cook contributed to paleontology.
Also, not really, for the reasons that have been described to you before (no Designer is postulated, no mechanism is ever proposed, and we were DISproving ID, not proving it, so you're still wrong even if this quote is right, which I doubt).

ID has inspired both experimental and theoretical research into how limitations on the ability of Darwinian evolution to evolve traits that require multiple mutations to function. No. This is not true. Evolution still states that if a trait exists, it evolved--we may have adjusted our concept of how it evolved, but I've yet to meet a real researcher into evolutionary biology that's ever said "That trait can't evolve, because it's too useful".

ID has inspired theoretical research into the information-generative powers of Darwinian searches, leading to the finding that the search abilities of Darwinian processes are limited, which has practical implications for the viability of using genetic algorithms to solve problems. No kidding. Evolution is NOT a search function, it's an optimization function, so the original application was flawed. Also, my dog eating chicken-on-a-stick at a local chinese place got me thinking about predation in Tyranosaurids. Doesn't mean that the cook contributed to paleontology.

D has inspired scientists to study proper measures of biological information, leading to concepts like complex and specified information or functional sequence complexity. This allows us to better quantify complexity and understand what features are, or are not, within the reach of Darwinian evolution.No. This is not true. Evolution still states that if a trait exists, it evolved--we may have adjusted our concept of how it evolved, but I've yet to meet a real researcher into evolutionary biology that's ever said "That's complex, therefore it can't have evolved".

ID has inspired scientists to investigate computer-like properties of DNA and the genome in the hopes of better understanding genetics and the origin of biological systems.This is a lie. Scientists have been looking at the comparison between computers and DNA for a while, and while ID advocates may have contributed they DID NOT drive it. Besides, where are the ID advocates who are arguing that DNA isn't a computer code (because, well, it ISN'T, it's a substrate for various chemical reactions)? Again, this one's a fail on your part.

ID has inspired scientists to reverse engineer molecular machines like the bacterial flagellum to understand their function like machines, and to understand how the machine-like properties of life allow biological systems to function.I'll give you this one. The ID crowd was so obnoxious and belligerent that we had to discover the exact evolutionary pathway of the flagella. Odd, though, how disproving one of their "predictions" (flagella are irreducibly complex) is counted as a win. Seems....dishonest.

ID has inspired scientists to view cellular components as "designed structures rather than accidental by-products of neo-Darwinian evolution," allowing scientists to propose testable hypotheses about causes of cancer. No. No serious researcher views cellular components as "designed structures". Only ID advocates do. So this is also dishonest.

D has inspired scientists to see life as being front-loaded with information such that it is designed to evolve, expecting (and now finding!) previously unanticipated "out of place" genes in various taxa. We've discussed front-loading before. No.

I'm done. This is rank with dishonesty ("ID inspired..." seems to be code for "We found these words that sound the same!" and now we're at outright lies and quote-mining). If this is the best you have to offer, your theory is dead.

ETA:

Oh, and the journals!

International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamic
The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities
Bio-Complexity
Darwinism Design and Public Education
And then a whole bunch of COMPUTER journals. Sorry, randman, but computer scientists--even the good ones--aren't biologists and you can't assume they know evolutionary theory. The journals themselves reek of bias.

[Wowbagger]

I'm wondering if we could take this opportunity to describe how ID would have to change, in order to truly inspire the types of knowledge claimed in the article.

I might have a few ideas in this direction. Though, I don't think most ID proponents are going to like them: These are the sorts of ideas that will force them to get up off their lazy chairs, and actually do some real, intense research. But, they are ideas none-the-less.

I do not have time to fully describe them, yet. But, here is one in summary:

Intelligent Design proponents could develop something like a product design strategy, that a theoretical Designer might use. This is slightly different from an engineering strategy, which would focus on overcoming trade-offs (and would imply that the Designer had limits). The product design strategy could incorporate limits and weaknesses as part of an overall grand plan for life form (implying self-imposed limits, which I think Creationists would find easier to swallow).

I hope to illustrate how this could be useful in unraveling the examples shown on the IDEA page, at some point.

If such a document could out-perform Evolutionary theory in anticipating the nature of disease, or predicting certain patterns in life forms, it could give Intelligent Design some really serious notice!

But, such an effort will not be easy. Especially if this strategy is going to have a unified algorithm, or set of algorithms, associated with it, that cannot be accounted for naturally. I am also willing to bet that a large part of it will need to be based on evolutionary systems, for it to be successful. Though, the focus of the report will be where those evo systems would prove to be inadequate.

And also, I remind you that such a report would not serve as conclusive evidence of design, either. It would still, ultimately, be a form of design inference. Though, a much more sophisticated one than they are currently using (which relies on personal incredulity, in the form of irreducible complexity).

But, as I said, at least it would make real scientists sit up and take notice, if it is successful.

Intelligent Design is NOT a real science, yet. But, with a little imagination, and a TON of hard work, maybe it could transform itself into one.

What does everyone else think, so far?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Randman provided this link. I have not looked at all the examples, yet.

But, since this is the "best" answer I have seen for the question "How does Intelligent Design help science gain new knowledge?" I figured it deserves its own thread:

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1505

What does everyone else think? Do any of these examples actually invoke a designer?My comment is along the lines of how the vaccine-autism fallacy generated a lot of research. It did, research that for the most part was wasteful of scarce resources.

Research that is generated to address false claims is typically wasteful and inefficient.

Efficient use of research resources would be more likely to result from following the evidence, not wasting time refuting non-evidence supported conclusions.

[Mr. Scott]

It's been my understanding that Behe's claims that flagella and blood clotting could not have evolved inspired work that resulted in excellent hypotheses for how flagella and blood clotting evolved.

[Lowpro]

It's been my understanding that Behe's claims that flagella and blood clotting could not have evolved inspired work that resulted in excellent hypotheses for how flagella and blood clotting evolved.

Twas a good example of ID thinking "Designed till proven otherwise, and while we're waiting for that let's write books on how evolution is wrong using misdirection"

[Aepervius]

It's been my understanding that Behe's claims that flagella and blood clotting could not have evolved inspired work that resulted in excellent hypotheses for how flagella and blood clotting evolved.

I am not sure of that. Those were studied before ID stated they were irreducible complex, and my feeling is that it was more or less a gathering of previopusly known data which was then presented to show ID was a load of bull. I might have misinterpreted the event though.

[Mojo]

Einstein was famously unhappy with quantum theory and put his formidable intellect into raising questions about it. This was of enormous benefit to quantum theorists.

ID'ers attempts to find "irreducible complexity" in living creatures has served a similar function, albeit that their far less formidable intellects won't acknowledge the answers provided. Einstein, of course, always did.


There's an important difference, though: IDers don't raise questions about their "irreducibly complex" structures. Their argument is "I can't understand how this could have evolved therefore God an unnamed designer must have done it". This approach relies on not raising questions.

[pakeha]

Yes, I think it can all be summed up as
"Designed til proven otherwise"
What I've examined thus far from Het List reads like creepy propaganda from an already mentioned epoch.

....70 years ago, you could just have called it Jewish logic and been about on the same level of rational logic.

That's a very early Godwin.

Can you actually argue, using rational logic, against anything in Wowbaggers DustBin post? Or point to anything irrational in it?

Ninja'd yet again.

[randman]

Antibiotic resistance is a big problem for ID'ers, and so far demonstrates none of the limits that Behe et al have so desperately sought.

How is it a problem? This comment among many others just shows critics of ID have never even bothered to learn what it is. Shallow and absurd comments such as suggesting antibiotic resistance is a problem for ID or even creationism for that matter just speaks to the ignorance of the critics of ID. You guys just make one unsubstantiated claim after another.

[Acleron]

...
ID'ers commonly argue that information cannot be created, which is in some senses true but not when it applies to gene-lines. Gene-lines accumulate the information that the variations in their history have not been selected out. Yet.

Yes, they only examine the lack of change in a closed system. They hope you don't realise that the system is not closed. But their main problem is a complete inability to define 'information'.

For the OP, creationists/IDers do not inspire new areas of research or thinking. How can it? It derives from an unshakeable belief which is the antithesis of the progression of science. What they do is cause an irritation that stalwarts like Wowbagger et al assuage by explaining reality.

[randman]

Yes, they only examine the lack of change in a closed system. They hope you don't realise that the system is not closed. But their main problem is a complete inability to define 'information'.

For the OP, creationists/IDers do not inspire new areas of research or thinking. How can it? It derives from an unshakeable belief which is the antithesis of the progression of science. What they do is cause an irritation that stalwarts like Wowbagger et al assuage by explaining reality.


Yawn. You've never read any of their papers on information, specified complexity, etc,.....have you?

You just assume smears that they offer no clear definitions of information are true, but haven't looked into it for yourself.....just repeating dogma you're told, eh?

[Wowbagger]

Yawn. You've never read any of their papers on information, specified complexity, etc,.....have you?

I have read a lot of them. I don't remember any of them addressing the points most of us are making.


"Specified complexity" has no significant bearing on new research. Well, other than research, from the "evos", to show how such complexity can grow and emerge naturally.

[Dinwar]

I'm wondering if we could take this opportunity to describe how ID would have to change, in order to truly inspire the types of knowledge claimed in the article.
It wouldn't. My point is, being obnoxious and wrong can in fact spur research--but to pretend that your inspiration was anything other than the annoying whine of a petulant child is beyond arrogant.

You just assume smears that they offer no clear definitions of information are true, but haven't looked into it for yourselfWell, considering treating DNA as a computer program has deep conceptual flaws, and we already know how mutations, crossovers, and the like can add information to DNA anyway, it'd be a waste of time. It's based on a flawed premise, and therefore is necessarily wrong.

[John Albert]

Which, of course, brings us to the oft-made point (which randman is trying to refute) that ID only presents arguments against evolution by natural selection. It proposes nothing.


The Intelligent Design proponents actually do propose a positive argument, but it is flawed on several levels:

Premise A: Evolution by Natural Selection is a flawed theory. This is mostly based on various misunderstandings and misinterpretations of the Natural Selection theory itself, especially the assumption that natural selection constitutes a condition of "random chance," (which is an incorrect interpretation of the theory), and the assumption of "irreducible complexity" (which is unfalsifiable). This is the part of the ID position that CapelDodger pointed out in his post above.

Premise B: Intelligent Design is an alternative scientific theory to Evolution by Natural Selection. This premise alone is a classic argument from ignorance/incredulity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance), because absolutely no material evidence exists to support the existence of a Universal Creator, therefore the existence of a Universal Creator represents an illogical jump to conclusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_conclusion_from_a_negative_premise).

Conclusion: Any discrepancies in the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection constitute default support for the alternate theory, ie. Intelligent Design. This is an Ignoratio elenchi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi), a formal logical fallacy whereby the refutation of one argument is misconstrued as default support for a competing argument. It basically assumes an "either-or" condition whereby only one or the other must be correct, and ignores the possibility of alternate options or the possibility that both might be wrong.

Added to the above melange of faulty reasoning is a huge number of appeals to misleading authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority), whereby ID proponents with science degrees and/or teaching positions are held up as de facto validation of the generally unaccepted theory.

[Dinwar]

The Intelligent Design proponents actually do propose an argument, but it is flawed on several levels:It presents an argument, but no real mechanism ("design" is NOT a mechanism--it's a class of mechanisms), so it's not testable and therefore not a scientific theory (may be some other kind, but then it still shouldn't be considered scientific).

[John Albert]

It presents an argument, but no real mechanism ("design" is NOT a mechanism--it's a class of mechanisms), so it's not testable and therefore not a scientific theory (may be some other kind, but then it still shouldn't be considered scientific).


Exactly.

In the place of a mechanism or process, it promotes a supernatural assumption (the "Universal Creator") that lies outside the realm of science, and that's why the "ID "Theory" is not scientific at all. I suppose I could have explained that more clearly under the heading of "Premise B" in my post above.

[Dinwar]

In the place of a mechanism or process, it promotes a supernatural assumption (the "Universal Creator") that lies outside the realm of science, and that's why the "ID "Theory" is not scientific at all. I suppose I could have explained that more clearly under the heading of "Premise B" in my post above. No, your description was justified. I mean, there's nothing per say in ID that prevents the Designer from being an alien (Wowbanger parodies this very will with Dist Bin Theory). If ID could propose a mechanism by which the aliens designed life, or pointed to where the aliens came from, or where they landed, or SOMETHING, it'd become a scientific hypothesis. It's just that ID advocates almost universally use "Designer" to mean "God".

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's been my understanding that Behe's claims that flagella and blood clotting could not have evolved inspired work that resulted in excellent hypotheses for how flagella and blood clotting evolved.It did. But then Behe, until he refused to accept work that refuted his findings, actually was studying a reasonable problem. His hypothesis was valid science, even if his conclusions were not. He found a structure that did not have a structure precursor. Prior to that, we had "half of a wing" and current examples of eye precursors in the biological record (current claims by evolution deniers that supposedly did not exist in the evolutionary record). We were looking at structure for precursors that looked like precursors. Behe found a structure where the precursor wasn't apparent on the basis of appearance alone.

It led to discoveries of genetic precursors. They probably would have been found anyway since genetic evolutionary pathways are now the level of research in biology, but Behe's work was not a dead end like proving no vaccine autism connection for which there was no need to prove that in the first place.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I am not sure of that. Those were studied before ID stated they were irreducible complex, and my feeling is that it was more or less a gathering of previopusly known data which was then presented to show ID was a load of bull. I might have misinterpreted the event though.I don't believe the chemical transport system precursor was found until after Behe's work. But it most likely would have been found without Behe's work at some point.

[Wowbagger]

Behe found a structure where the precursor wasn't apparent on the basis of appearance alone. If I remember correctly, hints about precursors were already being found in mal-formed flagella, even before the genetic precursors were identified. Behe's conclusions were already at a bit of a disadvantage even before he made them.

[John Albert]

About Wowbagger's "Dust Bin Theory," I remember reading a science fiction novel in high school that posited the same basic idea.

The book was by Robert Silverberg. The story was set in the 1990s or 2000s as I remember, though I may be wrong. It involved a man from the far future named Vornan who traveled back in time to the "present" time of the novel. As I recall, the Vornan character had mistakenly time-traveled to the wrong era and ended up stranded.

So as he made friends with the present-day humans, he let slip a few details of things his future society had learned about the Universe through their time explorations. One of the facts Vornan was reluctant to reveal, was that life on Earth had actually evolved out of microbes living within a load of biological waste that had been dumped here by some aliens en route to a more important part of the galaxy. The story went that these extraterrestrials were passing through the Solar System on a long interstellar journey, and they took the opportunity to empty their waste tanks in the atmosphere of the nearest uninhabited planet, which turned out to be Earth.

This news is received with mixed reactions, but eventually a slogan grips the public imagination, "We are all Trash, and the descendants of Trash."

[Acleron]

Yawn. You've never read any of their papers on information, specified complexity, etc,.....have you?

You just assume smears that they offer no clear definitions of information are true, but haven't looked into it for yourself.....just repeating dogma you're told, eh?

You mean this one?
http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_idtheory.htm

In here he mentions open and closed systems and then derives pretty spurious conclusions from closed systems to apply to open systems. This is the exact same error as creationists claiming evolution cannot happen because entropy must increase. In fact, if you distill down his rather confused, and incidentally mostly information free explanations, it becomes a personal argumentum ad ignorantiam.

The innocent explanation for Dembski's confusion is his inability to see that you cannot do science from a fixed belief and then ignore the facts. And I know, you have levelled that accusation at biologists, but as usual, it isn't borne by the facts.

Of course, it must be totally a coincidence that Dembski's papers and ideas were roughly laid out in a document authored by the creationists. I mean the idea that creationists have an agenda to "defeat scientific materialism" is wrong, isn't it Randman?

[CapelDodger]

How is [antibiotic resistance] a problem?

It's a demonstration of evolution by natural selection in real time. That's a problem for ID.

This comment among many others just shows critics of ID have never even bothered to learn what it is.

I, for one, certainly have. There may be some who simply giggle at ID's obvious inanity, but I prefer to get to the details. There is so much more inanity there than is visible on the surface.

Shallow and absurd comments such as suggesting antibiotic resistance is a problem for ID or even creationism for that matter just speaks to the ignorance of the critics of ID.

Have you ever noticed how few ID'ers have ever grasped what evolution by natural selection is? They simply reject any idea which might contradict their rather infantile belief that the Life, the Universe and Everything revolves around them.

You guys just make one unsubstantiated claim after another.

No substantiation will ever persuade a true believer. While many (if not all) of the IDEA screed's bullet-points have been substantially demolished here, you make no attempt to shore them up. Going by this comment, I doubt you've even able to register the criticisms.

[CapelDodger]

About Wowbagger's "Dust Bin Theory," I remember reading a science fiction novel in high school that posited the same basic idea.

The book was by Robert Silverberg.

The Masks of Time. Bob Silverberg has always been one of my favourites :).

[CapelDodger]

Yawn. You've never read any of their papers on information, specified complexity, etc,.....have you?

You clearly didn't look into the IDEA screed before citing it. After all, you've been told that it supports your belief, so why would you?

[quoe]You just assume smears that they offer no clear definitions of information are true ...[/quote]

You're assuming that.

... but haven't looked into it for yourself.....just repeating dogma you're told, eh?

That describes your citing of the IDEA screed.

[Wowbagger]

The Masks of Time. Bob Silverberg has always been one of my favourites :).
Never read that one. But, I am pretty sure Intelligent Design does not provide any manner by which it can demonstrate that its ideas are more accurate than anything in that book. What do you think, since you've read it?

[Minoosh]

I tried clicking on the bold blue type in the "FAQ" thinking it must be a link - a link that would detail exactly how intelligent design contributed to the instigation of said research.

Since the claims were not backed up it seemed to me you could substitute "skepticism about intelligent design" for "intelligent design" and conclude skepticism contributed to these discoveries. Then, in a way, you could say they were inspired by "intelligent design."

It's all a red herring to me. Couldn't you say, "A strong belief in intelligent design inspired Charles Darwin to devote much of his life to the study of the natural world as he sought insight into creation ..."

I'm not a biologist or cosmologist and propose no "theory of everything" but ID vs. evolution seems like - a false dichotomy? The Big Bang theory can't explain what happened before the Big Bang; the theory of evolution does not pretend to explain why any kind of life existed to begin with. These mysteries - how a tiny dot expanded to encompass all matter in the universe, how a complex molecule was transformed into a living system - these mysteries leave me in awe, wondering if there is a designer, but the awe does not proscribe investigation into determining what mechanisms are at work.

Which is I think compares somewhat to Darwin's lifelong investigations and his eventual recognition of the limits of literalism.

[Dinwar]

I'm not a biologist or cosmologist and propose no "theory of everything" but ID vs. evolution seems like - a false dichotomy? Well, that's part of the problem. ID can only poke holes in evolutionary theory--until they propose a mechanism (a Designer, how that Designer designed life, where it happened, etc) they have no theory, and therefore are left with poking holes in the dominant paradigm. ID and Creationism treat this debate as a case of "To prove me right, I just have to prove you wrong".

Second, it's not a matter of ID vs. Evos. It's more fundamental than that--it's an issue of what science IS. Evolution presents a testable hypothesis, a precise mechanism, and a great deal of evidence. ID has, and can, provide none of that. It's a question of whether we can accept as a scientific theory a concept that violates all of the rules of science.

[I Ratant]

A lot of the progress in civilization is some thinker responding to an absolute statement such as "You can't get there from here"... and by thought, and then action, gets there.
The ID'ers just look for places you can't get to... and lo and behold, we find we've been there, or can finger how to get there in a couple of fell swoops or so.

[CapelDodger]

Never read that one. But, I am pretty sure Intelligent Design does not provide any manner by which it can demonstrate that its ideas are more accurate than anything in that book. What do you think, since you've read it?

I'm not sure the Trash theory is particularly relevant, since it merely displaces the hypothesised design to the aliens who left the trash.

(If this is exactly the book I recall, Bob Silverberg was being deliberately iconoclastic in a US American sense. This would be from the late 60's, when SF was quite "alternative" when it wasn't actually drug-inspired ...

Vornan-19's sexual mores, for instance, were similar to Torchwood's Jack Hargreaves's, as I recall. I may have a copy kicking around, I'll see if I can look it out.)

[CapelDodger]

It's all a red herring to me. Couldn't you say, "A strong belief in intelligent design inspired Charles Darwin to devote much of his life to the study of the natural world as he sought insight into creation ..."

Not really. Darwin (like most scientists) was searching for an explanation of an observed reality. He wasn't at all religious. He (and Wallace, who was engaged in the same pursuit) arrived at the same explanation, which has, of course, stood the test of time very well.

ID already existed, in the Watchmaker theory - if you find something as complicated as a watch you infer design and a maker, and ditto for life. Darwin was certainly unimpressed by that idea.

[Pixel42]

Torchwood's Jack Hargreaves
Harkness. Captain Jack Harkness.

According to his creator Steven Moffat, 82% of the sentient lifeforms in this galaxy have got Captain Jack's phone number.

[Dinwar]

ID already existed, in the Watchmaker theoryMinor quibble: This was a Creationist theory, NOT an Intelligent Design theory. At best, ID is a more generalized theory, in that it doesn't specify the Designer. When the Watchmaker theory was first proposed, it was assumed that the Designer was the Christian God. I mean, the ID advocates use the same (flawed) arguments, but historically the Watchmaker Argument was pure Creationism.

[CapelDodger]

Harkness. Captain Jack Harkness.

Oops :o.

[CapelDodger]

Minor quibble: This was a Creationist theory, NOT an Intelligent Design theory. At best, ID is a more generalized theory, in that it doesn't specify the Designer. When the Watchmaker theory was first proposed, it was assumed that the Designer was the Christian God. I mean, the ID advocates use the same (flawed) arguments, but historically the Watchmaker Argument was pure Creationism.

As I see it, the essence of the argument is that there was an Intelligent Designer : that this was the Christian God was taken to be implied, but isn't actually part of the argument. Not worth arguing about, though :). The "ID isn't creationism" line itself is only worth a "Puhleeease :rolleyes:!"

[welshdean]

Randman provided this link. I have not looked at all the examples, yet.

But, since this is the "best" answer I have seen for the question "How does Intelligent Design help science gain new knowledge?" I figured it deserves its own thread:

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1505

What does everyone else think? Do any of these examples actually invoke a designer?

The 'Articles' (http://www.ideacenter.org/resources/articles.php) page at that site is infested by the inane ramblings of Casy Luskin.
It's a waste of 1's and 0's if you ask me.

[Minoosh]

Not really. Darwin (like most scientists) was searching for an explanation of an observed reality. He wasn't at all religious.
I thought he leaned toward the idea of a Creator as a young'un, if only by default

[Bram Kaandorp]

I thought he leaned toward the idea of a Creator as a young'un, if only by default

By default? Do you mean "because he was taught that as a kid", or something different?

Either way, it's irrelevant, because he didn't publish The Origin of Species when he was young.

[Dinwar]

By default? Do you mean "because he was taught that as a kid", or something different?
More, there was no other option in the culture. Linaeus had some doubts, and a few ideas on how organisms change through time were floating around, but nothing had any real traction in the culture. They were esoteric academic arguments, or personal concerns in the case of Linaeus.