Intelligent Design-Whodunnit?

In My Humble Opinion
161

This is false. While it is correct in saying scientism and metaphysical naturalism do not accept theories that are based on God, and or Intelligent design theory, but science itself has no agenda. It cares nothing of political correctness, or cultural wars and personel bias because it is not a person. It is a tool. More and more people including atheist and agnostics are starting to realize this, and this is why ID theorist are now getting published in respected peer review journals.

This is why universities are now using top down design theory in the field of systems biology to better understand the complexity of the cell, i.e. approaching the cell from a perspective of an intelligently designed engineered system, and while doing so are producing great results. Let me give you an example of the philosophy of scientism in a nut shell which I think illustrates it best, and if you agree with the following, then you are also a disciple of scientism…
Dr. Richard Lewontin…“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”

162

Intelligent design theorist are a part of the scientific community. Did you think that science was a respecter of democracy or majority rule? As for…“make their conclusion coming in, then collect evidence to support their pre-established position”

I think the above statement beter describes evolutionary theory. In fact the foundation of evolutionary theory from the start up until and now has always been based on the principle of lets try to find evidence to support the theory, and yes, it should be the other way around. The reason why the moderns synthesis/neo Darwinian synthesis had to be formulated in the first place was because the observable evidence did not fit the theory. It is no big secret that classical Darwinian theory could not even stand up to 1930’s science. Hence the formation of the neo Darwinian synthesis. And now 80 years latter empirical science itself is now challenging the assumptions of the modern synthesis as we speak. This is in the literature and is no big secret.

Yet even though the foundations of the modern synthesis is crumbling before our eyes, people are again for the third time trying to reformulate the theory to fit the evidence. with the proposed extended synthesis (ala the Altenberg 16 summit) Now these papers below, as far as I know all support evolution conceptually, but admit that evolutionary theory that we know as the modern synthesis/ neo Darwinian synthesis, the same theory we still teach till this day is pretty much done as a theory, and without a cohesive theory all you’re left with is a bunch of educated guesses with no theoretic frame work to support those guesses or hypothesis, and this death of a thousand cuts has been known for decades. You can still believe in prokaryote to man evolution if you wish, but dont call it a scientific theory.

The new biology: beyond the Modern Synthesis
Michael R Rose1* and Todd H Oakley2

The last third of the 20th Century featured an accumulation of research findings that severely challenged the assumptions of the “Modern Synthesis” which provided the foundations for most biological research during that century. The foundations of that “Modernist” biology had thus largely crumbled by the start of the 21st Century. This in turn raises the question of foundations for biology in the 21st Century.

Soft inheritance: challenging the modern synthesis
Eva JablonkaI; Marion J. LambII

This paper concluded …“the data that support soft inheritance, as well as other challenges to the Modern Synthesis, it is concluded that that synthesis no longer offers a satisfactory theoretical framework for evolutionary biology”

Epigenetics: a challenge for genetics, evolution, and development?
Van de Vijver G, Van Speybroeck L, De Waele D.

In this paper, it is argued that differences in how one relates the genome to its surrounding contexts leads to diverse interpretations of the term epigenetics. Three different approaches are considered, ranging from gene-centrism, over gene-regulation, to dynamic systems approaches. Although epigenetics receives its widest interpretation in a systems approach, a paradigmatic shift has taken place in biology from the abandonment of a gene-centric position on to the present. The epistemological and ontological consequences of this shift are made explicit.

163

Less complexity has nothing to do with irreducible complexity, but
I’m glad you at least brought up the mouse trap. Fair enough. Lets break this argument of his down. First off, Miller was wrong when he said that Behe’s argument did not generate not one single peer review article. So lets deal with that first.

Lönnig, W.-E. 2004. Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity. In: V. Parisi, V. de

Hemostasis and irreducible complexity.
Aird WC.
Source
Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. waird@caregroup.harvard.edu

From The Origin of Species to the origin of bacterial flagella
Mark J. Pallen1 & Nicholas J. Matzke2 About the authors

Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2010 Feb;22(1):68-74. Epub 2009 Dec 16.
Reducing irreducible complexity: divergence of quaternary structure and function in macromolecular assemblies.

Secondly, Miller admits from the start that none of the functions he uses as examples of co-option have anything to do with catching mice, which is what a mouse trap is intended for.
He then goes on to show that it doesn’t require all its parts to serve a function. The first example he uses, is as a tie clip. The second is as a paper weight. The third is as a spit ball launcher (which he is wrong, they really dont make very good spit ball launchers) but lets give it to him anyway.

However there is one fatal flaw with this analogy, and that is, Miller misses one very important point. Evolution is supposed happen from a bottom up process. It has no ability for purposeful planning or reasoning, nor can it make intelligent decisions on its own, yet Miller is using his own human intelligence in making purposeful decisions concerning its function and as to how this co-option gets regulated, and this is why he has never used this argument in any peer review publication. If you want to give examples of the other evidence concerning his or anyone else’s argument against IC, then please feel free. All I ask is that you’re able to explain it in detail, and can you please cite the transcript that uses those words you used as well as a ruling on IC specifically.

164

Here, once again, is the OP:

There is no need for you to bring up, let alone disprove evolution in this thread. This thread is for putting forth your best theory or theories as to how Intelligent Design works and who is behind it. This is to be done without mentioning and/or disproving evolution.

165

Discussions about evolution are off the table for the purpose of this thread.
Who or what do you think is behind the Intelligent Design you believe in?

166

Here is the talkorigins page on this subject, showing several ways in which flagellum could evolve. IC systems are clearly a valid claim of ID theory - that is obvious. They also can exist. But you seem to be implying that she says they do exist while also saying that she believes evolutionary mechanisms can explain them - which is self contradictory. I rather more believe the latter than the former.
This is always going to be a matter of explanations not proof, since no one can know for sure how anything in the past evolved. We equally have no sign of a designer. We do of course have experimental evidence of all sorts of stuff evolving, while we have no direct evidence of any unknown entities designing anything.

Thanks for the link. I appear to have pretty much gotten it in my previous post.
As I said, they just look for things they can claim must have been designed, and seem to not have any thought about who designed these things or when. And they are not creationists - except that when they talk about the design of the universe the jig is up, since that is God. But no Adam and Eve in their public face, at least.
I know a lot more about probability and information theory than I do about biology, and their view of information is laughable.

167

Revisions to evolutionary theory to match new evidence in no way supports ID. Give us some evidence for ID besides certain creationists saying they can’t figure out how a structure evolved (a claim I accept!) and we can talk.
As far as evidence to support a theory, every fossil dig is a chance for a discovery that could falsify evolution. Find something badly out of place, and you got it. The DNA record is another example of a totally independent piece of evidence that turned out to support evolution, but did not have to. has ID made any falsifiable predictions?
You seem to have implied that ID predicts no vestigial organs at all. Everything has a purpose. Is that correct?

168

Off-topic.
This is NOT an “evolution vs. ID” debate.
This is a “What if evolution was off the table-Which ID theory best suits the facts, and who or what might be behind it all” discussion.
Please stop this hijack, or take it elsewhere.

169

All right, the OP has made it clear this isn’t a debate about evolution,…if anyone would like to debate it, feel free to open up a thread about it in Great Debates.

Let’s end the hijack about it, please.

170

THEMAYAN, how powerful does an entity have to be to be behind ID as you understand it to be? Does it require a being to be on the level of, say, the Christian god, or could more mortal aliens pull it off?

171

I know the question was addressed to THEMAYAN, but doesn’t this just kick the rock down the road, so to speak? How could beings sophisticated enough to manage ID not be Irreducibly Complex themselves.

172

That’s why I’m asking how powerful a being it would take to do this.

173

Where are you getting this stuff from? Please tell me. I have never heard this said anywhere. I know that Darwins proposed his theory of Pangenesis which he felt would provide a more empirical and biological aspect of his previous work failed miserably.

Darwin never got it right. Gregory Mendel is the one who laid down the foundation of modern genetics and is referred to as the father of modern genetics and Mendel did not agree with Darwin, and in fact, he was ignored for fifty years. Nobody wanted to listen to some Christian monk who was refuting the new and up and coming superstar of the day. As even Richard Dawkins admitted, Darwin made it intellectually fulfilling to be an atheist. There were people who wrote Darwin and told him even if his theory were not true, they would still support it.
Everyone knows that Darwin’s theory could not even pass the standards of 1930’s science and had it to be reformulated, which means they had to discard all the junk and were basically left with the assumption of common ancestry, natural selection etc. and the rest can be attributed to them piggy backing Mendelian genetics on to the synthesis, and many years later adding random mutation from Crick and Watson work, and from other certain subsequent principles that stemmed from Mendel’s work onto what we now refer to as the “neo Darwinian synthesis” or “the modern synthesis” (and doing so long after Mendel was dead and had no say so in the matter. Again I’m not sure who told you that Darwin ever found the correct mechanism of inheritance, (and you had to have been told by someone or read it somewhere other than an academic book) In fact can you please cite evidence for that statement? I think that when you speak on a public forum your information should be correct.

174

Showing how evolutionary theorist have made failed predictions while ID theorist have made accurat predictions is a part of that process, and I went into great detail explaining them. If you have a specific reasonable challenge, then you are more than welcome to do so. My initial post concerned the topic, and were never refuted intelligently, and again I only followed the questions that were asked of me.

175

Could you please take your off-topic discussion elsewhere, perhaps in another thread?

176

If you define Intelligent design as an immortal, first cause that creates heaven and earth, there might be two possibilities. According to some speculators, there are tightly drawen, invisible strings that, while invisible, vibrate, and push out the laws of nature, which then go on to become universes. Another theory is that the totality of the quantum world, like the interconnections of ther human brain, can concieve and create heaven and earth. They base this on the fact that quantum particles appear to know what each other are doing.