One of the knocks against Intelligent design is that it isn't specific to a question, that is, it can be used to answer multiple unrelated questions. For example:
In science, a theory that can answer questions that don't go together is regarded as suspect; it's more of a black box than a real theory, particularly if there's no mechanism behind the explanations, and especially if that answer yields no new knowledge, as is the case with Intelligent Design. In essence, appealing to ID is saying, "Hey, I don't know how or why this happened, so somebody must have planned for it to happen."
For this reason among others, most scientists dismiss ID, and quite rightly so. Ironically, there's another popular theory making the rounds that suffers the same defect, yet many scientist are happy to climb onto the band wagon on this one.
Of course, I'm talking about global warming theory, which is currently used to predict:
You get the point. It doesn't matter what happens with the weather; some scientist somewhere will make the case that it's all due to global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions.
There's an old saying that if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Maybe it's time we looked for another tool, one based on the facts.
Posted by Rich at December 10, 2005 5:16 AM | TrackBackWhy does the eye have a blindspot etc.......
because the creator wanted it that way. O.K. lets assume thats true. Its not the end of the line for research as many of the crybaby scientists insist.
\
The next question is WHY?
\
Intelligent Design simply means not random.
\As a poker player and chess player, I must say that the mind boggling machines, factories, and solutions that we're told that life stumbled on to by random mutation raises my eyebrows to the moon!
the only plausible result of undirected mutation is the failure of the system. ie (biosphere)
\
Random or not random. this is not religious, it is simply the only two possible choices.(semi-random would still indicate a creator) Life is more than complex, it is hideously more complex than mindkind has ever dreamed of. Biologists have a vested interest in perpetuating the propoganda that some 19 century scientist found the answer to where we come from.
\
Follow the money: The largest fortune in the 21st century will be gleaned from biotech. The biologist that creates a therapy that significantly extends life will reap a reward equal to the money created by the entire information age.
Most Doctors by the way are in the intelligent design camp. Hmm
Posted by: Steve on December 10, 2005 3:48 PMSteve, this is the key error that most ID proponents make, including Dr. Behe. In his case, he claims that since he can't conceive of a chain of events that could lead to a biochemical system, that there is no possible chain, and therefore the system must have been designed. There are two fallacies contained in that argument. The first is simple vanity. Since he can't conceive of it, it must not exist. The second is tunnel vision. Having already decided that ID is the answer, he is blinded to the very real alternative that there is a scientific explanation, but we don't have enough data to figure it out yet.
To demonstrate that both of these fallacies are very real, let's examine Behe's ideal of Irreducible Complexity. He states that biochemical systems are so complex, and so streamlined, that the removal of any one part renders the system inoperable. Therefore, the system cannot have evolved by slow, small changes and therefore evolution is not operative.
Hogwash.
Instead of making the assumption that the system had to be built up to where it is now, let's take the opposite assumption, that the system had to be refined down to where it is now. Instead of having just enough pieces to make the process work, there were dozens of extra pieces thrown together at random. The process functioned, but not as efficiently because it carried a higher biological load. As evolution reduced the unecessary parts, the system became more efficient, and thus was selcted for. The end result of this slow, steady incremental process would be an Irreducibly complex system, without the need for Intelligent Design.
Now, for your misconceptions. Evolution is not an unguided series of mutations; natural selection provides the guidance that gives coherency to the random mutations. Mutations that give a survival advantage are retained; those that do not are lost. Again, no designer needed. As for your contention that profits from bio-tech are the reason science continues to accept the evolutionary model, you are exactly correct, but not for the reasons you appear to think. It's not a money grubbing conspiracy, but the fact that the model works; evolutionary theroy is what allows the bio-techs to come up with their wonder therapies. ID doesn't.
Posted by: rich on December 11, 2005 12:45 AMRich, I’m happy to see that you responded to my post. Now I will respond to yours.
First of all Rich, you don’t have the information to assume that ID proponents such as Dr Behe and myself are incorrect. To suggest that you KNOW we are in error is not at all truthful. Secondly, Vanity plays a huge role in naturalism. Scientists would like to believe that Humans are the pinnacle of the Universal Food chain (not just terrestrial.) That assumption is so grandiose that it’s a shame that at the time of the Big Bang only trace amounts of Lithium were produced. I think that they somehow fear a designer that managed to put a gigabyte of data on a microscopic twisted ladder-like structure 4 billion years ago…. If the designer is still around, lets just say that I wouldn’t want to challenge it to a bar fight! And any ego I have about my intellect dissolves…Its FEAR Rich.
The age of the Universe is 13.7 billion years and humans have occupied this tiny little pond for a scant 100,000 years or so. This leaves PLENTY of time for another culture to have evolved so to speak, beyond our imagination. But I can easly imagine that terraforming is their means of gardening, and perhaps even replicating. I cant even imagine where humans are going to be in 100, 1000, or 10,000 years from now, let alone a few billion, assuming close minded intelligent people like yourself eventually wake up and smell the coffee. Michael Behe is really quite open-minded; he does credit evolution with variations within a species, as do I.
As for survival of the fittest providing the mechanism for natural selection. How can anyone with half a mind believe that?” If survival were the only criteria, blue algae is doing quite nicely. Why change at all???? It was among the first life forms and will likely be the last. Sorry, the biosphere requires more than this kindergarten approach. Try to write a chess program and get back to me.Hundreds of thousands of Highly diversified Interdependent, coexistent, and codependent life forms have far too many conflicting survival needs for me to swallow this coolaide. As for “selected for”. ………This tired phrase has yet to have any definition or meaning…selected by what?”???…Unless you speak from the paradigm of ID, there is surely no mechanism for selecting the proper order of amino acids to make the first protein. See my website.
While we can argue the past, the future is quite clear….Humans are going to evolve according to ID of their own hand.
PS. The theory of evolution has NOTHING to do with bio engineering (WHICH FYI, IS ID BY DEFINITION.) Turning genes on and off, spicing, and reverse engineering don’t require or employ an origin theory at all.
Your alternate explanation of irreducible complexity is quite puzzling. Please understand that life makes far too many unbelievable choices too fast to employ this strategy. When a molecular machine doesn’t work out its not stored in the (Cell’s) garage, the organism dies.
Life emerges on Earth almost at the first available instant…..something is fishy here.