Questions regarding Intelligent Design

[the_interactionist]

This series of questions is probably best answered by atheists, although I'm not going to ignore or dismiss anyone's opinions or contributions to the subject.

I basically want to make a point/ counter-point thread regarding Intelligent Design versus whatever "school" of evolutionary theory you may accept as your core system of beliefs. That's why I expect more atheists to answer these questions than believers, because no believer is going to have an alternative theory to evolution (other than I.D.)... well, at least, it's not likely.

Anyway, I want to point out that, first and foremost, this is not a debate or argument for me. I'm not wanting this thread to turn into a debate. I have questions. I'm simply looking for the answers from those who oppose Intelligent Design as a legitimate evolutionary theory and why. The reason I use the point/ counter-point scenario is simply because I intend to pose questions that make a point, suggested by experts on I.D. (not myself), and to then have those points counter-pointed and refuted to the best of your abilities. That's it.

With that said, I have some questions that follow the following summary I've concluded explains I.D. rather competently. After each question, please answer it to the best of your abilities, also citing as many resources and/ or links as you can to back up your claims and statements. Thanks

SUMMARY: From my understanding, Intelligent Design states that certain features of the universe and of the earth's biological complexity (and, of course, the biological complexity of humans) are all best explained by an intelligent agent or cosmic designer, not by an undirected process such as natural selection.

Question #1: Is this an accurate summary? Why/ why not?

Question #2: Michael Behe, a biologist, and author of Darwin's Black Box, states that proof of a designer lies in "irreducibly complex" biological systems made up of hundreds of cooperative functional parts, like enzymes or antibodies. Are these biological systems truly irreducibly complex, and if so, how does that prove this basic tenet of I.D.?

Question #3: Behe also claims that these complex systems cannot have been produced by natural selection because if any one part of the system had been imperfect during the evolutionary process, the system as a whole would not have been functional and would therefore offer no advantage to evolution. I'm not certain of what specific systems Behe is referring to here, or if he means all biological systems as they relate to evolutionary theory. So is this statement true and what is its juxtaposition?

Question #4: Behe also claims that one must deduce that these systems were planned. What is the weakness in this claim and why do you believe so?

Question #5: Advocates of I.D. invoke a certain spin on the anthropic principle, stating that the laws of physics are so fine-tuned to give birth to life that they chould not have been created by chance (or, natural selection/ random mutation). Is there a weakness in this position and, if so, what is it?

I know this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the different core beliefs of I.D. theory, but I'm new to studying evolutionary theory and want to get the take on it from a non-biased (most likely athiestic) viewpoint and someone with opposing evolutionary biological beliefs other than I.D.-ers. Again, I hope to hear back from as many people as possible, but please make sure you have some legitimate background in biology and evolutionary theory. I don't care if you have went to school for it or not. All knowledgeable input is appreciated and accepted.

Thanks and God bless everyone!

[the_interactionist]

1. I suppose it is, but I think it could be a little more specific.

2 & 3. I don't think any biological system is irreducibly complex because all the examples I have come across have been explained in reducible terms.

4. If a system was shown to be irreducibly complex then I suppose the best explanation may well by a designer of some kind.

5. Since we exist, our universe will NECESSARILY be suited to us existing. So why on earth is it a surprise when it does? Why find it confusing or interesting? Why be so amazed by how well it suits us that you invoke divine intervention? In other words, the laws of physics don't suit us, we suit the laws of physics.

As for your answer to #1, I agree. Like I said, I don't have a thorough working knowledge of I.D. or of any evolutionary theory. Perhaps you could expand on what I failed to expand on?

Your answer to 2 & 3 states that all the examples you have come across have been explained in reducible terms; what, specifically, are the examples you've come across that would serve as a good model? I hope to find examples of the precise biological systems Behe is referring to and hopefully get them covered on this thread as well.

Answer to 4 is agreeable, too. But is there any substantial evidence against this irreducibly complex model? I know this kind of goes hand-in-hand with the answers you may give for 2 & 3 as well.

As for your answer for #5, I'm not quite sure I understand your explanation. How is it the universe suits us out of necessity simply because we exist. Are you saying we suit the universe and laws of physics and not the other way around? Even if this is the case, the case of I.D. can still be argued for because the laws of physics could have been planned, designed or created as well as humanity and biological systems themselves. Isn't that the entire premise which I.D. approaches life and the cosmos? That God, being the Designer, created all the universe and life within it?

If so, it is still appropriate, from an I.D. viewpoint, to state that the laws of physics suit us just as much as we do them, because either way it goes, God designed and created both. That is, so long as I'm understanding your statement correctly.

Thanks, too, for your answers. Do you have any articles/ resources to recommend?

Also, what is your specific view of evolutionary theory? I know there are quite a few different "schools" of thought on it, but some deterministic reductionists summarily dismiss several of them out of hand - don't give them the time of day. I.D. is often one of them. And some of the more "hokey" ones, like Integralism or Esoteric Evolution.

[the_interactionist]

the_interactionist

As for your answer to #1, I agree. Like I said, I don't have a thorough working knowledge of I.D. or of any evolutionary theory. Perhaps you could expand on what I failed to expand on?

Your summary is a pretty good start, so I think I would have trouble expanding on it (especially without putting my own biases into it). I think someone who actually believes in ID would be able to have a go.

the_interactionist

As for your answer for #5, I'm not quite sure I understand your explanation. How is it the universe suits us out of necessity simply because we exist. Are you saying we suit the universe and laws of physics and not the other way around?

Exactly. The laws of physics must suit us because otherwise we wouldn't have come to be.

the_interactionist

Even if this is the case, the case of I.D. can still be argued for because the laws of physics could have been planned, designed or created as well as humanity and biological systems themselves.

Well sure it can, but the point is that the perfection of the laws of physics don't necessarily point to or imply a designer.

the_interactionist

Thanks, too, for your answers. Do you have any articles/ resources to recommend?

Articles? Proponents of ID aren't into publishing.

the_interactionist

Also, what is your specific view of evolutionary theory?

I support common descent and all that jazz, 'macroevolution' and such. I generally like to stick to scientific consensus.

In regards to the articles, I was actually talking about articles juxtaposed to I.D., not articles that are "pro" I.D.

I understand what you mean by everything else now. Thanks

Is anyone else going to jump in on this conversation? I know you're not the only non-believer/ athiest on Worthy

[psalmone]

1. I suppose it is, but I think it could be a little more specific.

2 & 3. I don't think any biological system is irreducibly complex because all the examples I have come across have been explained in reducible terms.

4. If a system was shown to be irreducibly complex then I suppose the best explanation may well by a designer of some kind.

5. Since we exist, our universe will NECESSARILY be suited to us existing. So why on earth is it a surprise when it does? Why find it confusing or interesting? Why be so amazed by how well it suits us that you invoke divine intervention? In other words, the laws of physics don't suit us, we suit the laws of physics.

Because mankind is being restored from a fallen state, through the gospel, scientific minds grope for substance as knowledge increases.

Edited February 28, 2008 by psalmone

[psalmone]

1. I suppose it is, but I think it could be a little more specific.

2 & 3. I don't think any biological system is irreducibly complex because all the examples I have come across have been explained in reducible terms.

4. If a system was shown to be irreducibly complex then I suppose the best explanation may well by a designer of some kind.

5. Since we exist, our universe will NECESSARILY be suited to us existing. So why on earth is it a surprise when it does? Why find it confusing or interesting? Why be so amazed by how well it suits us that you invoke divine intervention? In other words, the laws of physics don't suit us, we suit the laws of physics.

Because mankind is being restored from a fallen state, through the gospel, scientific mind grope for substance as knowledge increases.

[The Lorax]

Question #1: Is this an accurate summary? Why/ why not?

Yes, with one minor correction. Evolution can't accurately be called "undirected," but rather, "not directed by an intelligent agent." Because evo definitely IS directed...by natural selection.

Question #2: Michael Behe, a biologist, and author of Darwin's Black Box, states that proof of a designer lies in "irreducibly complex" biological systems made up of hundreds of cooperative functional parts, like enzymes or antibodies. Are these biological systems truly irreducibly complex, and if so, how does that prove this basic tenet of I.D.?

Behe believes organelles like cell motors are irreducibly complex and thusly are evidence of intelligent design. I disagree. I don't think any biological components are irreducibly complex. That is, every biological component, even cell motors, evolved.

Question #3: Behe also claims that these complex systems cannot have been produced by natural selection because if any one part of the system had been imperfect during the evolutionary process, the system as a whole would not have been functional and would therefore offer no advantage to evolution. I'm not certain of what specific systems Behe is referring to here, or if he means all biological systems as they relate to evolutionary theory. So is this statement true

No, Behe claims that some things either work perfectly or they don't work at all, but that's just not true. There are a lot of "irreducibly complex" mechanisms like the eyeball that can be less than perfect and still work.

Question #4: Behe also claims that one must deduce that these systems were planned. What is the weakness in this claim and why do you believe so?

Behe clearly doesn't understand the effects of differential reproductive success or the idea of positive feedback loops. Through natural selection, nature has a miraculous way of "designing" survivors. The weakness in Behe's argument is its denial of any non-teleogical, non-intelligent causes of design (namely, natural selection.)

Question #5: Advocates of I.D. invoke a certain spin on the anthropic principle, stating that the laws of physics are so fine-tuned to give birth to life that they chould not have been created by chance (or, natural selection/ random mutation). Is there a weakness in this position and, if so, what is it?

No, I think this is a very powerful position. The only way to downplay the fine-tuning of our universe is to believe in a huge number of alternate universes that are less finely tuned. That supposition is spectacularly unparsimonious and also lacking in evidence.

For what it's worth, I don't instantly throw out ID as junk science or pseudo-religion. As a believer in God, I think there is intelligent design in nature, but the problem is having a way to scientifically, objectively detect it. There are even some scientific hypotheses of ID, like the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis, which holds that either early Earth had the necessary building blocks for life, or life must have come from elsewhere. I see ID has a sort of null hypothesis, something that can't be proved or even really supported; it just gains favor when all naturalistic explanations fail. I'm not sure how I feel about that sort of thing, as clearly any void of knowledge could be used to "support" it. It's also non-falsifiable, which doesn't help. It's a tricky subject and it doesn't help that it's been politicized by the creation/evolution debate.

[stan4257]

For what it's worth, I don't instantly throw out ID as junk science or pseudo-religion. As a believer in God, I think there is intelligent design in nature, but the problem is having a way to scientifically, objectively detect it. There are even some scientific hypotheses of ID, like the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis, which holds that either early Earth had the necessary building blocks for life, or life must have come from elsewhere. I see ID has a sort of null hypothesis, something that can't be proved or even really supported; it just gains favor when all naturalistic explanations fail. I'm not sure how I feel about that sort of thing, as clearly any void of knowledge could be used to "support" it. It's also non-falsifiable, which doesn't help. It's a tricky subject and it doesn't help that it's been politicized by the creation/evolution debate.

An excellent answer.

There will always be many who raise arguments under the disguise of promoting reasoned discussion, usually in an attempt to disprove the glorious fact of Jesus Christ, Son of God, as if that is not already sufficient reason for the faith that is in us as Christians, but it leads to nothing but supposition based on, as you say, 'a null hypothesis'.

Even if, as you again say, you do not instantly throw out ID as junk science or pseudo-religion, that, I suggest, is because of your innate courtesy. I have less time for such discussions because I believe they lead nowhere and are not genuinely intended to do so.

Jesus Christ, Son of God has come in the flesh is sufficient argument for a simple brain like mine.

[the_interactionist]

For what it's worth, I don't instantly throw out ID as junk science or pseudo-religion. As a believer in God, I think there is intelligent design in nature, but the problem is having a way to scientifically, objectively detect it. There are even some scientific hypotheses of ID, like the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis, which holds that either early Earth had the necessary building blocks for life, or life must have come from elsewhere. I see ID has a sort of null hypothesis, something that can't be proved or even really supported; it just gains favor when all naturalistic explanations fail. I'm not sure how I feel about that sort of thing, as clearly any void of knowledge could be used to "support" it. It's also non-falsifiable, which doesn't help. It's a tricky subject and it doesn't help that it's been politicized by the creation/evolution debate.

An excellent answer.

There will always be many who raise arguments under the disguise of promoting reasoned discussion, usually in an attempt to disprove the glorious fact of Jesus Christ, Son of God, as if that is not already sufficient reason for the faith that is in us as Christians, but it leads to nothing but supposition based on, as you say, 'a null hypothesis'.

Even if, as you again say, you do not instantly throw out ID as junk science or pseudo-religion, that, I suggest, is because of your innate courtesy. I have less time for such discussions because I believe they lead nowhere and are not genuinely intended to do so.

Jesus Christ, Son of God has come in the flesh is sufficient argument for a simple brain like mine.

Are you claiming this thread was posted as a disguise for underlying motives? I hope you're evaluation of my post and your statements aren't misguided and that it is me who is misinterpreting what you've said here. I hide behind no masks, my friend. This thread is for MY information-gathering purposes ONLY. Not for disproving the historicity and miraculous life of Jesus, or of disproving God and, thus, Christianity. I clearly stated my reasons for posting my questions and they are the reasons I posted here. It's a matter of personal interest, not a matter of trying to disprove anything.

[stan4257]

It's a matter of personal interest, not a matter of trying to disprove anything.

Dear ineractionist.

My concern is that the facts of Jesus Christ are kept simple, and even more than that, that my brothers and sisters in Christ are not confused by unnecessary complications, and if that sounds smug, which it probably is, I apologise for how it sounds but not for what I mean.

You have been very open in previous posts about the drug induced hell you have been through, and how you escaped and God bless you for that, as he does. And a great deal of that slippery slope was in following complicated enquiries about the simple issues of life in Christ.

Three extracts from your posts might help me explain. They are

""I have learned one great truth Jesus was trying to convey to us all along. I acknowledge this truth in my signature at the end of every one of my posts, too. In Mark 5:36, Jesus sums it up so very short and sweet when he says, “…only believe.” That’s all we must do to receive the word of wisdom from our Heavenly Father, this day and every day."

This series of questions is probably best answered by atheists, although I'm not going to ignore or dismiss anyone's opinions or contributions to the subject.

I basically want to make a point/ counter-point thread regarding Intelligent Design versus whatever "school" of evolutionary theory you may accept as your core system of beliefs. That's why I expect more atheists to answer these questions than believers, because no believer is going to have an alternative theory to evolution (other than I.D.)... well, at least, it's not likely.

"If I have any real purpose in life, I guess it would be to slam a stapler against the forehead of American pop culture." - "Weird" Al Yankovich

"No one can persuade another to change. Each of us guards a gate of change that can only be opened from the inside. We cannot open the gate of another, either by argument or by emotional appeal." - Marilyn Ferguson, Researcher/ Author"

You are a highly intelligent young man with a wonderful life ahead of you as a follower of Jesus Christ, who has already found out how treacherous are the waters of looking for answers by those who already know the truth, and however much I do not want to hurt you, please, please, keep it simple. The quotes from your words above suggest that is difficult for you.

Your nature and compulsion to examine the detail in your search for truth is admirable but as a person convalescing in the arms of Jesus, please just look into his eyes for a few years, leaving all else except the facts of his love to think about later.

[the_interactionist]

It's a matter of personal interest, not a matter of trying to disprove anything.

Dear ineractionist.

My concern is that the facts of Jesus Christ are kept simple, and even more than that, that my brothers and sisters in Christ are not confused by unnecessary complications, and if that sounds smug, which it probably is, I apologise for how it sounds but not for what I mean.

You have been very open in previous posts about the drug induced hell you have been through, and how you escaped and God bless you for that, as he does. And a great deal of that slippery slope was in following complicated enquiries about the simple issues of life in Christ.

Three extracts from your posts might help me explain. They are

""I have learned one great truth Jesus was trying to convey to us all along. I acknowledge this truth in my signature at the end of every one of my posts, too. In Mark 5:36, Jesus sums it up so very short and sweet when he says,