And what are your thoughts on it?
ID is essentially the idea that life was designed by a designer, based on “irreducible complexity” (ie, that certain biological structures cannot be reduced to a simpler form without ceasing to function.)
Its chief proponent is a fellow named Behe, who wrote (IIRC) “Darwin’s Black Box.”
There are already several good threads here, mostly in Great Debates.
-David
It’s the same as creationism without using the word God in any of their claims.
ID is putting the volume control on the RIGHT-hand side of the car stereo for right-hand drive cars!!!
And here I was ready to answer “IKEA”.
Well, just goes to show - you learn something everyday…
A good site for the evolutionist critique of “intelligent design” is TalkOrigins. The link above is to the search engine. Just type in “intelligent design” and go on from there.
Here is one of the critiques by Victor Stenger who is a physics professor. It is a little complex but with a little effort lay readers can get a lot out of it.
This link provides examples ofpoor adaption (design) in creatures. It demonstrates that if their is conscious “design” it isn’t very “intelligent” in a number of instances.
This one providesa review of Behe’s book in the form of several articles about varous aspects of it.
Come on back if you have further questions.
“… if their is conscious ‘design’ …” Sometimes people mistake “their” for “there.”
An evil genie got into the keyboard and I refuse to take the blame for the activity of an evil genie.
I’m certainly not going to defend ID or creationism, but I feel that this bit:
from that link is perhaps not one of the better examples; the deformability of the human skull at birth could possibly be interpreted as a quite elegant way of allowing a large enough brain case to pass down a passage that cannot practically be made much bigger without tradeoffs in other areas.
For an actual answer to your question, see The International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design.
Why does an “omnipotent and omniscient designer” need to make tradeoffs at all? The whole “birth of new creatures” thing gives the appearance of being cobbled together. Having the head very nearly too big for the passageway through which it must pass is like the well known blunder of building a boat in the basement.
ID is BS, and those are also my thoughts.
I’m not familiar enough with ID to know whether the intelligent force posited is omniscient and omnipotent - I suppose it would be logically possible to have Intelligent Design by a fallible, designer of limited intelligence.
Anyway, as I said, I’m not going to try to defend it; to take your point further we could ask why an intelligent designer didn’t see fit to make many organisms out of something a little more durable than protoplasm.
Of course such a designer is possible, but I think this would require a new theology. It seems to me that Intelligent Design is tied directly to the Designer being Javeh as envisaged in Judaism and Christianity. Assuming of course that those visions of Javeh are compatible
Quite so. The whole point of the link that started this particular train of discussion is that the “design” of living creatures is far from optimum. It seems instead to be only good enough in most cases to ensure survival long enough to reproduce.
That sounds optimal to me.
And from an evolutionary (according to Darwin) point of view it is, but is that good enough to have been “made in His image?”
In many ways, Intelligent Design theory is a restatement of William Paley’s “Natural Theology”. Unfortunately, by making simultaneous claims that a) materialism / naturalism are false, and b) the exact nature of the “designer” need not be specified for the theory to be valid, ID proponents place the theory in a sort of intellectual limbo.
Paley’s work was not just founded on the idea that one could divine (so to speak) the existence of God, but one could also intuit His character, by examining the works of nature - the full title of Paley’s 1802 work was Natural Theology; or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity.
By distancing itself from the nature of “designer”, then, ID fails as theology, since its primary goal seems to amount to little more than extracting a confession that God exists, but strives to tell us nothing about Him.
From a philosophical standpoint, ID suffers under the a priori assumption that nature itself cannot produce the complexity we find therein. And, it fails as a science for much the same reason: science ought not concern itself with metaphysics, as such are beyond the purview of scientific inquiriy.
Yet, it is insisted, ID is “scientific”. This creates something of a logical inconsistency, to my mind: ontological naturalism is denied outright, yet methodolgical naturalism is supposed to provide evidence of the non-involvement of naturalism!
ID further fails as science by being untestable (and thereby unfalsifiable), again by virtue of its specific appeal to non-naturalistic causation. Many claims are made about the evidence for ID being in the form of “complexity” (thus, Dembski’s mention of “specified complexity”, and Behe’s “irreducible complexity”), without any explanation given as to why nature is incapable of producing such complexity. Instead, as has been pointed out in other threads, the “proof” of ID lies in the inability of evolutionary science to provide all the answers, right now. Gaps in evolutionary knowledge are cited as evidence, rather than ID making falsifiable claims on its own. Ultimately, ID proponents create a false dichotomy: if evolution can’t have done it (or, more often, if we haven’t found an evolutionary explanation yet), then ID “wins” by default. It should be obvious, however, that even if the whole of evolutionary theory should be falsified at some point, that says nothing about the veracity of ID.
TalkOrigins is a great site to learn about I.D. You’ll also be able to find good info in the library section of the Internet Infidels, www.infidels.org , and in the resources section of Ohio Citizens for Science, http://ecology.cwru.edu/ohioscience/resources.asp .
-jsh
That is because you crazy.