# Who created the Intelligent Designer? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 22, 2005, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-created-the-intelligent-designer/327457 "2005-10-22T21:51:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-created-the-intelligent-designer/327457/41 "2005-10-23T19:57:16Z")
> [@JustAnotherGeek](#): > > So, his only problem was that he made a specific prediction that turned out false? :dubious: He’s never predicted a damn thing on the subject. Not one. He simply looks at the flagellum, uses a rehashed, and disingenuous, and now thoroughly debunked argument about its mere existence, and claims Neo-Darwinian Evolution to be seriously wanting. The problem is he’s latched onto a non-issue, said nothing useful about it, and goes around claiming scienific investigation, as carried out currently, is broken. He also wants to play the public martyr now, spurned by the Academy and its fundamentalist Materialism, when in fact he’s degenerated into a noisy charlitan who’s been called on his mistakes so often his own institution feels the need to put up a [disclaimer](http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/news/evolution.htm) about him to shield their Bio department from further embarassment. ---
**Author:** ![JustAnotherGeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/58f4c7/32.png) [@JustAnotherGeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JustAnotherGeek)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-created-the-intelligent-designer/327457/42 "2005-10-23T20:34:06Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > He’s never predicted a damn thing on the subject \ disclaimer \ Ok, I think we have the same opinion of the man (especially since I posted the same link over in [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=340784&page=2)). I misread the meaning of your post. To be honest, the first and second sentences threw me a bit. I didn’t understand your definition of “veritably designed.” ---
**Author:** ![TimeWinder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bcef8e/32.png) [@TimeWinder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TimeWinder)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-created-the-intelligent-designer/327457/43 "2005-10-23T21:07:34Z")
I think the position of those philosophically (as opposed to scientifically) opposed to the ID idea can be best summed up as: _Something_ has to get us out of the recursive “intelligence requires intelligence” chain (if the Designer created us, something had to create the Designer). Possibility A: The ID idea is wrong, and intelligence can form or evolve from purely physical processes (doesn’t require intelligent creation). Possibility B: The ID idea is right, except that the original “founding” intelligence could have formed or evolved from purely physical processes (doesn’t require intelligent creation). Possibility A is simpler. Possibility B appears to postulate an uncreated “Designer” _simply to get around the universe itself being uncreated._ Therefore, ID (and Creationism) is, in fact, the MORE complex explanation. The added step doesn’t seem to have any other benefit. While it’s not always the case that the more complex explanation is the wrong one, certainly betting odds lean that way. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-created-the-intelligent-designer/327457/44 "2005-10-23T22:55:20Z")
> [@JustAnotherGeek](#): > > My point earlier, as to why this “theory” is disingenuous. Ask any ID propoenent in private, and they will tell you it is their god that is the IDer. They are simply trying to word it such that they do not say “my god” and are attempting to pass it off as science. Just because you claim it is disengenuous doesn’t make it so. You’re whole argument seems to revolve around what the motives of IDers, and that has nothing—absolutely nothing—to do with the validity of their theory. You repeatedly attempt to ascribe motives to IDers—why? It seems that you are intent on conflating two issues: 1) the validity of ID theory and 2) whether what you consider psuedo science should be taught in classrooms. SOME IDers no doubt view ID theory as a means (ID is science) to an end (we can talk about a deity in the classroom). But as I pointed out in post #30, that is not necessarily the case. If I tell you that I am going to build a machine that will allow me to visit God face-to-face and I produce a rocket ship in order to do it, my means (rocket ship) may be valid while my ultimate goal might never be reached. The question that hits me in reading your (and others’) responses is why such a strong desire to circle the wagons and keep out stuff that may, in fact, be true. It’s not as if science has all the answers, or even claiims to. > [@JustAnotherGeek](#): > > The whole quote is another example of ID proponents disingenuity; Natural Selection is not an undirected process. It is environmentally directed. Again, the only way to have their claim make sense is that “intelligent influence” is somehow above or separate from the influence by the environment. And there _is_ a design to living systems (there is no illusion). The design comes from what works in the environment. I think you’re confusing the two componernts of Darwinism, which are: natural selection and random variation. You are right that environmental factors dictate natural selection. But Darwinism says that random variation is just that, random, NOT directed. This means that there is no specific end that the variation is aiming for. If there was, then these changes that allow for great leaps that create new species wouldn’t be random at all, and you’d be talking about an intelligent designer within Darwinism. > [@JustAnotherGeek](#): > > I’m not even going to step in that one. Evolutionary theory has made predictions that have been verified, ID “theory” has not. Observations have been made that show _how_ natural selection works; no such observations have been made that show _how_ ID “theory” works. Evolutionary theory is a better explanation for the complexities of life than ID “theory” is. End of story. Not quite. First, you again make the mistake of equating Evolutionary Theory with natural selection. They are not synonymous. As I pointed out, there are two components to Darwinism or Evolutionary Theory as we’ve been discussing it: natural selection and random variation, which accurs through mutation. As far as I know there has yet to be found an example of random variation that proves the entire theory is correct. No one, even IDers deny that natural selection is a force that alters species. > [@JustAnotherGeek](#): > > It is a non-physical explanation, because there is no prediction you can make about the IDer that can be experimentally verified. This requires that the IDer could not be explained by the physical world. If it can’t be explained by the physical world, it’s not natural - it is supernatural. You are right. Strict Darwinists would insist on a purely materistic view of the world. IDers believe that materialism does not accoount for all the occurs, or has occured, in our cosmos. > [@JustAnotherGeek](#): > > If you can’t (even eventually) answer these questions, the prime mover must be supernatural. Again, you are correct. Proponents of ID would hold that the Prime Mover is just that. It was never created, it always was. This attribute of infinity should not be one for Darwinists to get hung up on, as their theory has to embrace the concept, or equally strange ones, as well. The contention is over the idea of willfulness or intention, which is inherent in intelligent design. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-created-the-intelligent-designer/327457/45 "2005-10-23T22:57:15Z")
:smack: Oops. Should have hit preview. :smack: Can a Mod fix my very obvious mistakes. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-created-the-intelligent-designer/327457/46 "2005-10-23T23:12:58Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > I think Behe would distinguish between designoid and veritably designed. The former is sufficiently statistically probable to have arisen naturally, the latter too wildly improbable to exist without ID. In reality, there is such a distinction. Behe’s problem is he’s identified things like the bacterial flagella as designed, and proposed an absurd set of conditions (roughly equivalent to putting a bunch of metal and wood in a blender and expecting a mouse trap to pop out) as the basis for his argument. Behe seems too smart to even use the evolution is random argument. I haven’t noticed him use statistics like Dembski. From what I’ve gotten, he claims that there is no evolutionary pathway to an irreducibly complex structure. That’s still different from the generic design argument, which covers just about everything. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-created-the-intelligent-designer/327457/47 "2005-10-23T23:21:01Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Just because you claim it is disengenuous doesn’t make it so. You’re whole argument seems to revolve around what the motives of IDers, and that has nothing—absolutely nothing—to do with the validity of their theory. You repeatedly attempt to ascribe motives to IDers—why? It seems that you are intent on conflating two issues: 1) the validity of ID theory and 2) whether what you consider psuedo science should be taught in classrooms. I think you’re being a bit naive. There are tens of thousands of minority hypotheses, some of which will become successful. But in no case but ID is anyone trying to get it taught as equal to the commonly accepted one. We would not even be discussing this except for the religious motivations of the IDers. No one is attempting to shut down ID research (if there is such a thing.) We just want it treated as the evidence for it directs - which is a way out, unproven and unevidenced hypothesis. If not for the religious support, Behe would either have given it up a long time ago, or be considered just another scientist hung up on a hypothesis without support. He would not be given OpEd space in the NY Times. So it doesn’t even matter if it is a pseudo-science. Even as real science it is not ready to be taught yet. ---
**Author:** ![Ca3799](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9f8e36/32.png) [@Ca3799](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ca3799)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2005, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-created-the-intelligent-designer/327457/48 "2005-10-24T00:53:48Z")
I believe that argument is formally called "The Argument of the First Cause’ or something like that. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2005, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-created-the-intelligent-designer/327457/49 "2005-10-24T01:23:17Z")
> [@Ca3799](#): > > I believe that argument is formally called "The Argument of the First Cause’ or something like that. It’s called the [Cosmological Argument](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/). You can also find it [here.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument) ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2005, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-created-the-intelligent-designer/327457/50 "2005-10-24T03:39:07Z")
> [@JustAnotherGeek](#): > > Ok, I think we have the same opinion of the man (especially since I posted the same link over in [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=340784&page=2)). > > I misread the meaning of your post. To be honest, the first and second sentences threw me a bit. I didn’t understand your definition of “veritably designed.” Interesting. Well, we’re reading some of the same stuff, obviously. When I mean veritably designed, I mean veritably designed. A mousetrap is veritably designed. The bacterial flagellum is designoid. One can certainly understand it being mistaken for the product of design, but it simply isn’t. Behe’s been flogging this flagellum horse for what must be a decade now. I really don’t understand what he’s on about anymore. Initially, I suppose one could just chalk it up to a reasonable mistake. But if the claims of the IC of the flagellum were dubious to start with, they’ve been quite plausibly refuted in the mean time, and he still won’t stop using that example. He trotted it out again as an expert witness in the PA “monkey-trial-redux” case. My guess is, unlike the system of clotting, for which the IC claims have been thoroughly demolished, the full lineage of the bacterial flagellum has yet to be assembled, so there are still many gaps where he can drive the wedge of doubt, as his Discovery Institute sponsors like to put it. Related structures were discovered as early as 1998, and shown to be injection systems allowing the bacterium to introduce toxins into eukaryotic adversaries, where the “tail” has evolved into something more like a needle for piercing. Both the flagellum and such homologous filamentous secretory structures display obvious common lineage, and several proposed evolutionary pathways, all testable, involving a secretory pore coopting a filamament (namely the common ancestor of the Class IV pilins, used to construct pili for the bacterial version of “sexual” recombination), have been proposed. There’s been considerable progress on the subject since “Darwin’s Black Box” was published, yet Behe apparently ignores all of it. But now he can’t hide behind ignorance or mistaken judgement. Serious challenges have been raised to all his supposed examples of IC, in fact, casting rather overwhelming doubt on his entire body of purported evidence for ID, yet he has not answered with any illuminating counter-arguments. All he does is repeat his tired talking points on the moustetrap vs. the flagellum to any who will listen. What is motivating him at this point I simply cannot fathom. The debate has degenerated to farce, and any opportunity he may have had in the past to explain his behavior as a result of misguided ignorance has been forfeited. It’s very difficult to regard him presently as anything more than just another creationist huckster. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2005, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-created-the-intelligent-designer/327457/51 "2005-10-24T04:00:54Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Behe seems too smart to even use the evolution is random argument. I haven’t noticed him use statistics like Dembski. From what I’ve gotten, he claims that there is no evolutionary pathway to an irreducibly complex structure. That’s still different from the generic design argument, which covers just about everything. Too smart or not, the entire “mousetrap” analogy requires the components of the flagellum to assemble spontaneously into a working structure good for the purpose of motility, as if from out of nowhere. That such a structure could have assembled piecemeal, over vast stretches of time, from components that had even completely different functions, is a notion he simply won’t allow, it would seem. As this is the obvious paradigm for just about every other structure found in living creatures that has more than one part, it’s baffling that, to Behe, the flagellum must somehow be different. He seems to be most impressed by the fact it has 30+ parts. Except he ignores that analogous structures with no homology exist in archaebacteria and have far fewer parts. And that some parts of the eubacterial flagellum can be removed (sometime they just fall out) and it still works. Or they do other things in other species. He claims he’d concede the argument about, say, blood clotting (thought that’s been debunked on purely evidential grounds) if the evolution of the flagellum was convincingly traced, as the clotting cascade has fewer parts. Why this matters, I don’t know, as the mousetrap has fewer parts than either. Really, the guy makes no sense, whether he has a high IQ or not. Dembski just posits some ridiculous initial conditions (his stuff on the evolution of complex proteins have some true howlers), and then spews a lot of math at you (this is called “dazzling them with bullshit” in educated circles) to demonstrate the tenability of his argument, as if the false premises can some how be redeemed by abstruse statistical analysis. Behe at least talks about something real, even though he misuses his examples. Dembski deals in total fantasy, like a primordial soup that has all twenty amino acids (many of them biogenic, which makes the argument truly bizarre), from which a specifically-functional polypeptide hundreds of residues in length must somehow magically appear in some searchable probability space. Well _of course_ nothing like that ever actually happened (or could), but realistic arguments don’t seem to hold Dembski’s interest. You can basically ignore every equation he writes. He concocts mathematical proofs to demonstrate the impossible is impossible, as if that was some kind of insight. Meanwhile, he ignores real biological problems. It’s all a big joke, basically. ---
**Author:** ![JustAnotherGeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/58f4c7/32.png) [@JustAnotherGeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JustAnotherGeek)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2005, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-created-the-intelligent-designer/327457/52 "2005-10-24T04:06:03Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I think you’re confusing the two componernts of Darwinism, which are: natural selection and random variation. You are right that environmental factors dictate natural selection. But Darwinism says that random variation is just that, random, NOT directed Yup, random variation is, as you say, random. Random variation can be observed in the random crossovers that occur in chromosome during meiosis. Random variation explains very little. Natural selection is the force that selects which random variation will go on to the next generation. The discrepency here is in your definitions of random and directed. I think you are confusing “random”, meaning “chaotic,” (or so complex as to be unable to completely describe it through simple equations) and “without cause.” In Darwinian Evolution (or material, if you like), the “random processes” occur, not for no reason, but for physical reasons so complicated that they cannot be easily described. ID adds the notion that there is a directed cause that is intelligent. What they don’t state is that this directed cause, in order to be different from the “random” processes, must be supernatural. > [@](#): > > Not quite. First, you again make the mistake of equating Evolutionary Theory with natural selection. They are not synonymous. As I pointed out, there are two components to Darwinism or Evolutionary Theory as we’ve been discussing it: natural selection and random variation, which accurs through mutation. As far as I know there has yet to be found an example of random variation that proves the entire theory is correct. No one, even IDers deny that natural selection is a force that alters species. There is no piece of evidence anywhere that can ever prove any theory entirely correct. However, as I’ve mentioned, there are numerous examples of random processes. I have been using the term “evolutionary science” to mean “material evolution.” Granted, this may be causing some confusion, but, since science must be limited to the material or physical world, I figured it wouldn’t be. > [@](#): > > It’s not as if science has all the answers, or even claiims to. …which is exactly why scientists are innately concerned about a theory that claims to have all the answers. When, for instance, Michael Behe stated that the was irreducible complexity in a bacterial flagellum, he was, in effect, claiming to have found the ultimate answer as to how that structure was created. The people who have refuted his work have not proven all of the steps required to create such a structure; they have simply shown how it can be reduced. They have not found the ultimate answer, they have found the next layer of answers. > [@](#): > > IDers believe that materialism does not accoount for all the occurs, or has occured, in our cosmos. You hit the nail on the head with your second word, “believe.” Science is by its very definition, material. You CANNOT test something that is outside of the natural world. Lemme try it this way: suppose there is a supernatural force. If it is not bound by the same physical laws that we are, how will we test for it? If it can be tested, observed, and predicted, then, logically, there must be a physical reason for it to be. Now, here is the interesting point: To be totally intellectually honest, I have to admit that since I cannot prove all explanations of life to be material, I cannot disprove the existance of supernatural entities. However, I cannot prove their existance either. All I can do is show evidence, through the use of scientific inquiry, of the physical processes that affect life. A philosophy that comes along and claims to show evidence of a non physical process by using science (which can only be material), is suspect. > [@](#): > > Just because you claim it is disengenuous doesn’t make it so. And your point here is…? Do you care to show refutation of my statement? Do you claim that the loudest proponents of ID are not trying to force religion into the science classroom? > [@](#): > > keep out stuff that may, in fact, be true Because its predictions have, in fact, been shown to be wrong. post 30… ok > [@](#): > > Well, if the laws of science are taught and there is one single event that seems to violate one of those laws (causality), it seems irresponsible to not mention an intelligent designer as a one of the two or three possible explanations that have been proposed. So, as long as we can’t explain absolutely everything, we have to include the supernatural in our possible explanations? I lead you again to the earlier question. How do you test the supernatural? (And this is the same argument that ID takes - if you can’t explain it with science, it must be ID. This is, no matter how hard they deny it, the same “— of the gaps” argument that has been put forth for ages. > [@](#): > > You’re whole argument seems to revolve around what the motives of IDers If that’s all you’ve gotten out of my posts, I will ask you to please read them again, in their entirety. I have argued against ID theory from its philosophical downfalls, including, but not limited to, the motives of the people presenting it. Why would I argue against someone’s motives? Am I afraid that their theory is valid, and I can only use ad hominem attacks to take them down? No, I am arguing the same points that are being presented in the court of law in Dover. ID has been scientifically refuted ([see Kenneth Miller’s explanation of the “irreducible complexity” argument](http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design1/article.html)), it has been philosophically proven to be non-science ([see Wikipedia’s summary article](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design), and all that is left is to explain why the ID proponents continue to try to explain their religion as science ([see mission of law group defending the Dover schools](http://www.thomasmore.org/mission-defending.html) In fact, in all of the rest of my quotes in your post, attack the thought behind ID, not the motives of the ID proponents. When come back, bring pie. ---
**Author:** ![JustAnotherGeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/58f4c7/32.png) [@JustAnotherGeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JustAnotherGeek)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2005, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-created-the-intelligent-designer/327457/53 "2005-10-24T04:12:00Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > A mousetrap is veritably designed. The bacterial flagellum is designoid. Sorry, I had forgotten the meanings. (Haven’t heard them used in a while, and it’s been an even longer time since I’ve read Dawkins.) Now that my memory is refreshed, I understand. My bad. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2005, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-created-the-intelligent-designer/327457/54 "2005-10-24T06:11:56Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > Too smart or not, the entire “mousetrap” analogy requires the components of the flagellum to assemble spontaneously into a working structure good for the purpose of motility, as if from out of nowhere. Let me make myself clear. All ID is bullshit - it seems to me there are different levels of stink. Behe claims that some structures must be designed, but as we all know none of his examples have panned out. His argument in the Times that ID is falsifiable is weak at best. The best I can say for him is that he actually appreciates that falsifiablity is required, which is better than the other loons. That he is playing with the creationist IDers makes him more unethical in my book than someone like Dembski whom, as far as I can tell, doesn’t have the intellectual capacity to know better. So I like Behe even less than you. JAG, I think you are mistaking two types of random variations. Yes, mutations are somewhat random, but surviving creatures do not exhibit random characteristics due to filtering of deleterious mutations even before birth, and natural selection. I think the randomness of mutations is damn clear, I can’t conceive of how anyone can dispute it. The randomness of Darwinian evolution is lack of a goal. There is a big space of successful species (and a bigger one of unsuccessful ones) and which within that space shows up is random. Nothing in evolution (secular evolution) says that humans had to evolve, which is an anathema to theists who believe God created us in our own image. That is the randomness they object to. **magellan01** , do you accept the cosmological argument? I haven’t seen it brought up in a long time. It can support deism but nothing more - I can explain further if you wish. ---
**Author:** ![JustAnotherGeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/58f4c7/32.png) [@JustAnotherGeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JustAnotherGeek)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2005, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-created-the-intelligent-designer/327457/55 "2005-10-24T13:42:14Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Yes, mutations are somewhat random, but surviving creatures do not exhibit random characteristics due to filtering of deleterious mutations even before birth, and natural selection. > [@Me](#): > > Natural selection is the force that selects which random variation will go on to the next generation. If a deleterious mutation is offed before birth, it has been naturally selected against. The filtering is another example of natural selection (it is simply not the selection due to the environment outside of the organism; Dawkins, I believe.) And aren’t chromosomal cross-overs an example of random variations that do pass through the filtering process? Wouldn’t it be more correct to say that not _all_ random variations are exhibited in organisms? > [@](#): > > That is the randomness they object to. Understood, but their arguments still require a non-natural (supernatural, what have you) intelligence to guide the “random” processes. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2005, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-created-the-intelligent-designer/327457/56 "2005-10-24T17:09:25Z")
> [@JustAnotherGeek](#): > > Natural selection is the force that selects which random variation will go on to the next generation. The discrepency here is in your definitions of random and directed. I think you are confusing “random”, meaning “chaotic,” (or so complex as to be unable to completely describe it through simple equations) and “without cause.” In Darwinian Evolution (or material, if you like), the “random processes” occur, not for no reason, but for physical reasons so complicated that they cannot be easily described. The random variation of Darwinism is not related to natural selection. Natural selection chooses those traits that make an organism more successful in it’s environment. The concept of random variation that makes up the other prong of Darwinism is purely accidental. Without this component of Darwinism there has not been near enough time on earth for a single-celled organism to “evolve” into anyhting remotely mammalian. > [@JustAnotherGeek](#): > > However, as I’ve mentioned, there are numerous examples of random processes. I have been using the term “evolutionary science” to mean “material evolution.” Granted, this may be causing some confusion, but, since science must be limited to the material or physical world, I figured it wouldn’t be. I’m not sure what you mean by this paragraph, but if you’re claiming that we do have proof of the successful random variation that Darwinism says must exist, what is it? Have you found a missing link? > [@JustAnotherGeek](#): > > …which is exactly why scientists are innately concerned about a theory that claims to have all the answers. When, for instance, Michael Behe stated that the was irreducible complexity in a bacterial flagellum, he was, in effect, claiming to have found the ultimate answer as to how that structure was created. The people who have refuted his work have not proven all of the steps required to create such a structure; they have simply shown how it can be reduced. They have not found the ultimate answer, they have found the next layer of answers. People who believe that intelligence played a role in our creation (small “c”) do not think they have all the answers. Thay think that the Creator does. If your fear in thiat scientific inquiry would stop, I think that fear is unfounded. If I thought it would stop, I’d be on the opposite side of the issue. > [@JustAnotherGeek](#): > > You hit the nail on the head with your second word, “believe.” Yes, just as Darwinists believe man evolved from a single-celled organism. > [@JustAnotherGeek](#): > > Science is by its very definition, material. You CANNOT test something that is outside of the natural world. > > Lemme try it this way: suppose there is a supernatural force. If it is not bound by the same physical laws that we are, how will we test for it? If it can be tested, observed, and predicted, then, logically, there must be a physical reason for it to be. SO, you’re saying that if something cannot be tested for it is not science? Well, let’s say you are correct (although the early days of Relativity, for example, might suggest otherwise) how do you know that it is not the case that we are simply unable to test for it yet? Maybe in a year or two or a hundred science will have advanced to such a degree to be able to test for it. > [@JustAnotherGeek](#): > > Now, here is the interesting point: To be totally intellectually honest, I have to admit that since I cannot prove all explanations of life to be material, I cannot disprove the existance of supernatural entities. However, I cannot prove their existance either. All I can do is show evidence, through the use of scientific inquiry, of the physical processes that affect life. A philosophy that comes along and claims to show evidence of a non physical process by using science (which can only be material), is suspect. I agree. It is suspect, and should be scrutinized. > [@JustAnotherGeek](#): > > And your point here is…? Do you care to show refutation of my statement? Do you claim that the loudest proponents of ID are not trying to force religion into the science classroom? You just refuted it your self. Your original statement said: “Ask any ID propoenent in private, and they will tell you it is their god that is the IDer. They are simply trying to word it such that they do not say “my god” and are attempting to pass it off as science.” Now you want to restrict your statement to “the loudest proponents” which is not a small difference. But it is a statement I would agree with. My point is that by attempting to equate those who believe that the world exhibits intelligence with the Creationists who are trying to “get God into the classroom” I don’t think you attack the theory itself fairly. Although the overlap may be great, the theory should be weighed on its own merits, or lack thereof. > [@JustAnotherGeek](#): > > Because its predictions have, in fact, been shown to be wrong. I don’t think the criteria should be right and wrong. There are many scientific theories that were proven to be wrong and had to be modified, sometimes greatly. Right now, some are questioning the red shift that indicates that our universe is expanding. The past is filled with theories that were unproven for decades and centuries or were proven incorrect and modified. I think the same scrutiny should be applied to the notion of intelligent design. I do also think that we should acknowledge our limitations of our time and not be too quick to shoot it down. > [@JustAnotherGeek](#): > > So, as long as we can’t explain absolutely everything, we have to include the supernatural in our possible explanations? IMO when science does not have the answer, and believes it might not ever be able to have one, we should broaden our outlook. Overwhelming evidence is one way to “prove” something. Logic is another. The Cosmological Argument cited earlier I think is a good example. The concept of irreducible complexity is an interesting one and shold be explored. The more it fails, the more it goes to “prove” the validity of Darwinism. > [@JustAnotherGeek](#): > > If that’s all you’ve gotten out of my posts, I will ask you to please read them again, in their entirety. I’ll admit that my statement was a bit of an exaggeration. My apologies. I was simply trying to point out that you were, more than once, conflating the theory of an intelligent designer with the movement of Creationists, which is emotionally charged and interferes with intellectual scrutiny. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2005, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-created-the-intelligent-designer/327457/57 "2005-10-24T17:28:36Z")
> [@JustAnotherGeek](#): > > If a deleterious mutation is offed before birth, it has been naturally selected against. The filtering is another example of natural selection (it is simply not the selection due to the environment outside of the organism; Dawkins, I believe.) And aren’t chromosomal cross-overs an example of random variations that do pass through the filtering process? Wouldn’t it be more correct to say that not _all_ random variations are exhibited in organisms? That is a good way of putting it. We can see it as a sequence of filters. The first filters out things that are not physically realizable given a specific genome. (These don’t even make it to the mutation state.) The seond filters out mutations causing the organism to die before birth. The third filters out mutations causing an organism to almost certainly not reproduce. (Like lacking locomotion.) The fourth consists of mutations that might allow reproduction, but in the long run are selected against. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2005, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-created-the-intelligent-designer/327457/58 "2005-10-25T02:54:36Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > **magellan01** , do you accept the cosmological argument? I haven’t seen it brought up in a long time. It can support deism but nothing more - I can explain further if you wish. I do. And yes, it supports deism but nothing more. And when I say intelligent design (small i, small d) that is what I mean by it. That there was a prime mover who started everything off. It pisses me off the that the concept of id is being usurped by the Creationist arm of ID (which may actually be the whole body _except_ for the arm). I’d be interested to hear your further thoughts, as you offered. ---
**Author:** ![JustAnotherGeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/58f4c7/32.png) [@JustAnotherGeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JustAnotherGeek)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2005, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-created-the-intelligent-designer/327457/59 "2005-10-25T04:02:00Z")
Ok… this will probably be my last post on this topic for a while. Got a couple of midterms coming up, and I notice that there is a definite positive correlation between post number and post size. If this thread is still going, or anyone feels like reviving it, come the weekend, I might be around. Anyway… > [@magellan01](#): > > I’m not sure what you mean by this paragraph, but if you’re claiming that we do have proof of the successful random variation that Darwinism says must exist, what is it? Have you found a missing link? Im not sure what you mean, either. We have evidence of [random variations](http://cropandsoil.oregonstate.edu/classes/css430/notes8s.htm) , as I’ve mentioned, in chromosomal crossover events that take place during meiosis. As for missing links, how many would you like? I know off the top of my head, three distinct cases; primates, birds, and whales. [This site](http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton2.html) lists others (such as ear development from reptile bones, I believe). How about a [not-so-missing link?](http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2001/03/26/MN172778.DTL&type=news) > [@magellan01](#): > > People who believe that intelligence played a role in our creation (small “c”) do not think they have all the answers. > [@JustAnotherGeek](#): > > When, for instance, Michael Behe stated that the was irreducible complexity in a bacterial flagellum, he was, in effect, claiming to have found the ultimate answer as to how that structure was created. Not “all the answers,” the “ultimate answer as to how that structure was created.” He is claiming knowledge of the prime reason for the shape of that structure. The scientists who disproved him found the next reason. He would not have, as he was sure he had the ultimate one. > [@](#): > > just as Darwinists believe The problem I have with equating one set of beliefs with another is that it is simply saying all theories are just beliefs. There is a tremendous amount of work that has gone into explaining the processes behind the theory of evolution. Intelligent Design has had no such level of experimentation & observation. > [@](#): > > SO, you’re saying that if something cannot be tested for it is not science? \will have advanced to such a degree to be able to test for it. B-I-N-G-O (and Bingo was his name-o!) Until physicists came up with a testible hypothesis to Relativity (for the then untestable parts), it was purely philosophy. (However, right off the bat, it did accurately explain a phenominon, which is generally enough to give a theory credibility.) Until physicists came up with a testable hypothesis for String Theory, it was purely philosophy, albeit with some pretty math. (And now that they have a testable hypothesis, they gotta go test it, which is the next step, and might take some time.) [Same dang Wikipedia site](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design) About 1/4 of the way down, they discuss what is required to make a statement scientific. One of the key requirements is that it is testable. If you can’t test it, it ain’t science. (Maybe you can test it later, but that’s later). As for the second part, how do you test for the supernatural? > [@](#): > > the theory should be weighed on its own merits, or lack thereof. Which it has been. See, for instance **tomndebb’s** post on the subject. Or my posts on the subject. **tomndebb’s** post pretty well summed up the testable hypotheses of other proponents. None. > [@](#): > > I don’t think the criteria should be right and wrong. What creteria would you like to use to judge the merits of a scientific theory? > [@](#): > > You just refuted it your self. Your original statement said: "Ask any ID Ok, go back to my original. Please show me the ID research looking for the intelligent aliens. But, wait, you say, they’re not looking for the IDer at all. Question. Why not? Don’t they want to know the physical mechanisms used by such a designer? And wouldn’t any evidence of designer just be evidence for the _mechanism_? It’s a lot of \ to avoid saying just what the IDer really is. > [@](#): > > you were, more than once, conflating the theory of an intelligent designer with the movement of Creationists ??? Sorry, I never once said Creationist. I _have_ been pointing out the ultimate untestable-ness of ID and have been showing the motives of people trying to force this philosophy into the science classroom. [OK, on preview of your latest post; you are arguing that the ID is the prime mover of the cosmological argument, without saying that it is the god of xxxxx religion. I can see why you don’t like me mentioning the motives behind the people involved in the cases at hand. However, 1.) ID has not been usurped by the creationists; this argument has been around for quite some time (as you point out through your cite) - since Aquinas, who definitely believed in a 'G’od. 2.) The Prime Mover is still an untestable philosophy. I’m not saying incorrect philosophy, I am saying untestable. Therefore, it is out of the bounds of science. 3.) You yourself stated that it “supports deism, nothing more.” This may not be the God of Abraham, but it is still a god.] Why is the central hypothesis of ID is fundamentally untestable? \*What would it mean if researchers found a positive result of design? 1.) Life on Earth was created by intelligent life from another planet. Immediately raises the question (among others): what created _that_ life? This does not answer the question what created life in the universe; keep repeating. 2.) The “design” was created by a previously unknown physical process. This is not intelligent; it is simply a process we didn’t know about. Hence, it’s not intelligently designed. 3.) Life in the universre was created by something not bound by the laws of this universe. “This universe” is all physical things. Matter, energy, time, and space. If something is from outside of the universe (meaning, not bound by the laws, currently known or as of yet undiscovered, that control this universe), how do you scientifically test it? (Please consider, that all you have at your disposal are these four things, and the laws that control them.) Since we can’t actually test #3, do we need ID to test #'s 1 & 2? Well, I ask again, who is actually looking for #1? Is this seriously on _anyone’s_ mind? What about #2? We certainly don’t need ID to test for new mechanisms. Just read any book on evolution, you will see hypotheses on new mechanisms all the time. > [@](#): > > Overwhelming evidence is one way to “prove” something. It is the _only_ way to prove something _using science_. Logic is not science (but may be employed by it), in much the same way that math is not science. If you want to take ID into a logic class, by all means. If you want to have every science teacher in the world make the statement that all of science is [just a bunch of theories](http://www.brown.edu/Administration/News_Bureau/2004-05/04-073.html), I’m all for it. (I’ve been teaching exactly that.) What I am against is a bunch of people with a scientifically disproven or untestable “theory” trying to force it into curricula. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2005, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-created-the-intelligent-designer/327457/60 "2005-10-25T06:42:45Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I do. And yes, it supports deism but nothing more. And when I say intelligent design (small i, small d) that is what I mean by it. That there was a prime mover who started everything off. It pisses me off the that the concept of id is being usurped by the Creationist arm of ID (which may actually be the whole body _except_ for the arm). I’d be interested to hear your further thoughts, as you offered. Well, you’ve short circuited my main argument, which is that if it were to support any particular religion, that religion would have to accurately describe the true history of the universe - which none do. Since deism does not say anything in particular about this, having no claim of direct contact with the deity, it is immune from this criticism. Perhaps there is some life form somewhere that has a Bible that got it right. Perhaps they all went to heaven, and we are hanging around in the dregs of a universe designed for someone else. How’s that for a theology? The second issue is that the root of the cosmological argument, everything is caused, appears to be not true. If the universe is an uncaused event, with zero energy in total (which now seems to be the case) then the argument falls. One can imagine other causes - an advanced culture in another universe who has learned how to create universes, but not interact with them, for instance. The other issue with deism is that by definition the deity has not given us moral guidance, so besides making people feel that there is a reason for all this, what’s the point? On the other hand deists rarely start up inquisitions. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-created-the-intelligent-designer/327457.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-created-the-intelligent-designer/327457.md?page=4)