The Flaw in ID theory.

The central flaw in the proposition that the Intelligent Design theory is a science and not based on religion, is simple: Who designed the designer?

Imagine we discovered an alien on Mars with a penchant for bio-engineering. Could such a natural being fulfill the requirements of an "intelligent designer"?
It could not. Such a being would not actually account for the complexity that "design" proponents seek to explain. Any natural being capable of "designing" the complex features of earthly life would, on their premises, require its own "designer." If "design" can be inferred merely from observed complexity, then our purported Martian "designer" would be just another complex being in nature that supposedly cannot be explained without positing another "designer." One does not explain complexity by dreaming up a new complexity as its cause.

www.the-undercurrent.com.../000080.html

the only way out of this is to postulate a supernatural being, i.e. God.




[edit on 24-1-2006 by HowardRoark]


[edit on 24-1-2006 by HowardRoark]

Hi Howard.

To say that design theory is flawed because it cannot explain who the designer is or who/what may have designed it/him/her/whatever is missing the point imo. The question is important surely, but it's philosphical in nature and not scientific. It seems that what you're saying here, correct me if i'm wrong, is that ID is unscientific because it doesn't answer philosophical or theological questions/concerns... what am i missing here?

This is from Dr. Dembski's blog "uncommon descent" it's not very long so i'll post it in full. You may be interested in the comments section (below) if so visit the link... not trying to dodge you here but this has been discussed to death and i've noticed no answer or explaination is ever adequate for the skeptics.

www.uncommondescent.com...-603

Ken Miller and Rick Wood (skeptic and host of the radio program audiomartini) claim to have more respect for young earth creationists than ID proponents because “at least they are upfront about what they believe.” According to them, everyone knows what the real purpose of ID is: it is to advance belief in God. What, then, is the problem with acknowledging it? So why not just be up front and put to rest the accusation of dishonesty?

Here is why in fictional monologue:

ID scientist, (insert Behe, Minnich, Dembski, anyone) is it true that you are a Christian and believe in God?

Is it true that one of the tenets of Christianity is to make disciples of all nations?

Although I acknowledge your claim that ID does not say who the designer is, you do in fact have a personal belief that it is God, correct?

Although I can agree that you are attempting to make observations and religiously neutral hypotheses, the conclusions ultimately will point to a supernatural intelligent designer correct?

Then even though you claim to be using science alone, I don’t believe that your motivation is only to advance science but instead are only hiding your real motivation to convert people.

Points 4 and 5 are problematic. Let’s cut to the chase: Is the designer responsible for biological complexity God? Even as a very traditional Christian and an ardent proponent of ID, I would say NOT NECESSARILY.

To ask who or what is the designer of a particular object is to ask for the immediate intelligent agent responsible for its design. The point is that God is able to work through derived or surrogate intelligences, which can be anything from angels to organizing principles embedded in nature.

For instance, just because I hold to both Christian theism and ID doesn’t mean that God directly designed and implemented the bacterial flagellum by specifically toggling its components. It could well have happened by a process of natural genetic engineering of the sort envisioned by James Shapiro. The design would be no less real, but God’s role in the design would be distant, not proximal.

Philosophers have long distinguished between primary and secondary causes. The problem is that under the pall of methodological naturalism, secondary causes have been identified with purely materialistic processes. But it’s perfectly legitimate for secondary causes to include teleological processes. I develop all this at length in THE DESIGN REVOLUTION.

I have more links on your topic from ID'ers if you're interested let me know... i realize ID isn't a topic you follow closely and i didn't want to track down and post the links if you had no intention of reading them or interest in the ID perspective on this.

Had me worried bud. The captain of the 'ATS debunking crew' starting an ID is unscientific thread. But alas just the same old song.... phewww.

[edit on 24-1-2006 by Rren]

All Theories focus on particular areas; to say that ID is flawed because it doesn't explain the origin (or even identity!) of the intelligence is fallacious. Few (if any) theories try to cover everything in one go.

A couple of answers to your questions. First the Intellegent Design Theory was manifested by the human mind and the this Theory did not come spiritually from the human mind.

So taking that, letss take a look at your question as to the designer of the designer. Those two entities (The Designer of the Designer, and Designer).

plus:

two positions I have, intellectual inspiration (human inspiration of our own self) and spiritual inspiration to understand things,(through faith in God in Heaven).


First lets take a look at your question scientifically (intellectual inspiration) that most of our scientific questions can be broken down into what? Mathmatical formula *physics". Man's Law. That is Pi. In the beginning there is and always will be Pi in every mathmatical formula known to humankind. Now until recently, physics guys have come across a new quotient, where did it come from, it is half of Pi. They are both infinite numbers. Phi is the result of tying to divide Pi. Or in laymans terms, split in half. I like to say upside down. See each number has no end. Kinda like Heaven and Hell wouldnt you say?

So, lets take a look at the spiritual answer to your question and the answer is God (the Designer of the Design (us)) and the Design is humankind, And Phi is Lucifer's number trying to split and understand God and creating confusion. That is why so many phyics guys are burned out on looking for simbient life in this universe. There is none. The Aliens are in another dimension right next to Earth. Cordially, Ravenmock.

A couple of answers to your questions. First the Intellegent Design Theory was manifested by the human mind and the this Theory did not come spiritually from the human mind.

So taking that, letss take a look at your question as to the designer of the designer. Those two entities (The Designer of the Designer, and Designer).

plus:

two positions I have, intellectual inspiration (human inspiration of our own self) and spiritual inspiration to understand things,(through faith in God in Heaven).


First lets take a look at your question scientifically (intellectual inspiration) that most of our scientific questions can be broken down into what? Mathmatical formula *physics". Man's Law. That is Pi. In the beginning there is and always will be Pi in every mathmatical formula known to humankind. Now until recently, physics guys have come across a new quotient, where did it come from, it is half of Pi. They are both infinite numbers. Phi is the result of tying to divide Pi. Or in laymans terms, split in half. I like to say upside down. See each number has no end. Kinda like Heaven and Hell wouldnt you say?

So, lets take a look at the spiritual answer to your question and the answer is God (the Designer of the Design (us)) and the Design is humankind, And Phi is Lucifer's number trying to split and understand God and creating confusion. That is why so many phyics guys are burned out on looking for simbient life in this universe. There is none. The Aliens are in another dimension right next to Earth. Cordially, Ravenmock.

this is the central flaw? hmm let me see , who created god? let's see who steps up to the plate first, will it be god? or will it be the designer? or will it be the same guy? or don't you think that god could be intelligent? ponder that a while. oh , the evolutionists , sad little pseudo-scientists descended from rats; can't see them creating anything besides tall-stories

[edit on 31-1-2006 by exsmokingman]

it is a which came first question, the chicken or the egg.
perhaps aliens are controlling the events on earth, steering the world into conflict to attempt to irradicate the creationist theory.

Originally posted by exsmokingman
oh , the evolutionists , sad little pseudo-scientists descended from rats; can't see them creating anything besides tall-stories

..and 6000 years ago someone made modern human shaped sandcastles and waved a hand turning them into flesh? That was probably Merlin. It's a shame you couldn't have made a constructive opinion apart from abuse [tall stories? At least there are actual FACTS that support evolution]. It was a relevent point.. where was this god that created the universe residing before he apparently said "Let there be light."?

[edit on 31-1-2006 by riley]

far from it, their ideas are even sillier than yours. intelligent design by persons unknown........

"THE" flaw??? We're talking about a theory that has an invisible guy who lives on a cloud who made the Universe in 6 days and you say "THE" flaw??

Feynman, the great physicist, says that making a theory that's based upon no evidence is no different than superstition.

We're only having this discussion as a reaction to an effort to give creationism the cachet of science. We're dancing to the tune of people who are desperate to make patriarchal religious beliefs a little less primative. You don' t really have to rebut a theory that's so flimsy. It's too easy, and you're never going to convince the true believers anyway. And finally, that's why it can never be science. Because even if an experiment could be designed that would prove there is no "intelligent designer" it wouldn't convince the believers. And if no such experiment can be designed, then it's definitely not science.

My suggestion is that if we want to maintain any veneer of a search for truth that we not be quite so willing to engage nonsense. How much different is the Intelligent Design debate from the Serpo Project debate?

Carry on.

Originally posted by exsmokingman
far from it, their ideas are even sillier than yours. intelligent design by persons unknown........

And how is my idea 'silly'? There is a wealth of FACTS that supports evolution. If you are not a creationalist.. what are you? You think evolution is silly.. you think creationalism is silly.. what is behind door number three and why is it 'not' silly? Obviously you must be about to provide us with loads of scientific evidence so you don't look so full of it. I look forward to reading through it all.

[edit on 31-1-2006 by riley]

Originally posted by vuoto
"THE" flaw??? We're talking about a theory that has an invisible guy who lives on a cloud who made the Universe in 6 days and you say "THE" flaw??

You're confusing young-earth creationism with design theory, either intentionally or ignorantly... i have no idea.

Feynman, the great physicist, says that making a theory that's based upon no evidence is no different than superstition.

"No evidence"... you're joking yes? Is that in the same vein as your previous comment that ID theory supposes or is predicated on the belief that the Genesis account in the Bible, when read literally (ie YECism), is an accurate depiction of the origins of the universe? You base this on what exactly? Any references to back up anything you've said; or were you just preaching? Guess we'll just take it on faith... eh?

And while Peynman is correct... ID is not a superstition and there's ample emperical data to support the design inference. Lack of data is not the issue... interpretation of the data is. The "appearance" of design in nature/cosmos is widely acknowledged by scientists on both sides of the debate.

Some links for you:

Evidence for Intelligent Design from Biochemistry

Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference

Just a couple to get you started... saying there's no (scientific) evidence for design is patently false. The counter argument is that the "appearance" of design is an illusion (aka the blind watchmaker)... to state there's no evidence for this "flimsy theory" is beyond ridiculous/ignorant imo. If you'd like to argue your naturalistic interpretation of the data then do so... however i think you're just hiding behind your "stealth creationism" bull because you have nothing of substance to contribute... for or against.

We're only having this discussion as a reaction to an effort to give creationism the cachet of science. We're dancing to the tune of people who are desperate to make patriarchal religious beliefs a little less primative.

Back it up. What "patriarchal religous beliefs" are used to formulate the ID hypothesis? What do you think ID (if shown valid) does to support someone's "patriarchal religious beliefs"? Please be specific. Read the link i posted above... FYI from a Christian ID theorist. ID doesn't support Christian theology anymore than it does Islam, Hindu, Buddhist or Jewish theology...etc, etc. All ID says, imo, is that we are not here by accident. The ramifications and implications of that are philosophical/theological and not scientific.

You don' t really have to rebut a theory that's so flimsy. It's too easy, and you're never going to convince the true believers anyway. And finally, that's why it can never be science. Because even if an experiment could be designed that would prove there is no "intelligent designer" it wouldn't convince the believers. And if no such experiment can be designed, then it's definitely not science.

You're saying that a concept like irreducible complexity can't be falsified... care to elaborate? How exactly is the naturalistic (Darwinian) model falsified?

- molecular machinery

- No one has ever identified the "simple" precursors used to contruct these structures.

-The pathway whereby these machines can self-assemble by random mutation and natural selection remains unidentified.


-Most evolutionary microbiologists would admit that there exists no detailed Darwinian accounts of the most fundamental systems and components found in the "simplest" forms of life. Some evolutionists have even gone so far to say that we may never know these evolutionary pathways.

How exactly do i falsify such good "hard science" again? Under your criteria evolution, on the micro-biological level, is pseudoscientific... is it not? ID, according to you, is pseudo-scientific because it can't identify the designer; but evolution can't identify the Darwinian pathways responsible for the 'construction' of the most fundamental systems... what's the difference exactly? Why, for some, isn't ID allowed grow as we learn and understand more? Why isn't ID allowed to be a theory instead of a law? It was 50/60 years or so after Darwin published the 'Origin' before we had an actual research programme yes?


Irreducible Complexity And Darwinian Pathways - Read this please.

Behe's notion of IC does indeed help us to effectively rule out some of the Darwinian pathways, as admitted by T&U. What is most relevant is that the pathways ruled out by IC are also those best supported by example/evidence and those that are most persuasive in explaining apparent design. The traditional examples of Darwin's finches (and their beaks), giraffe necks, elephant trunks, antibiotic resistance, and the darkening wings in moths give us no reason to think IC systems were generated by the RM&NS. The remaining explanations for IC are indeed possible, but without evidence to support them, there is no reason to seriously embrace them. Neither explanation constitutes a better general solution to IC than intelligent design. What's more, both explanations seriously weaken the overall appeal of the standard non-teleological explanations, as they resurrect a prominent role for pure chance in the origin of apparent design and/or rely on complicated initial states that may lend themselves more readily to a teleological cause.

Without realizing it, T&U have made a significant contribution to ID.

My suggestion is that if we want to maintain any veneer of a search for truth that we not be quite so willing to engage nonsense. How much different is the Intelligent Design debate from the Serpo Project debate?

Carry on.

Thanks for the wisdom... i don't enjoy being spoon-fed by the "mainstream" though. If you don't mind i'll actually read some of the material, and when/if i do come to the conclusion ID is unscientific i'll be able to support my position. The ID debate is similar to the Serpo debate?? You're killing me... how do you guys blast something you've, quite obviously, never spent a minute researching... unreal.

Oh... carry on.

[edit on 1-2-2006 by Rren]

You're saying that a concept like irreducible complexity can't be falsified... care to elaborate? How exactly is the naturalistic (Darwinian) model falsified?

Evolution is falsifiable.

Evidence of a pre-cambrian platypus would suffice, maybe a true chimera. Evidence that primates are more closely related to birds than other mammals. Lack of a biological device for heredity. Lack of any transitional fossils.

Darwin proposed his own falsifiable prediction...

Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species; though throughout nature one species incessantly takes advantage of, and profits by, the structure of another. But natural selection can and does often produce structures for the direct injury of other species, as we see in the fang of the adder, and in the ovipositor of the ichneumon, by which its eggs are deposited in the living bodies of other insects. If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.
(Darwin, 1859, ch. 6)

Evolution has a mechanism and predictive value. ID does not. ID and IC as a concept is not falsifiable. We can falsify each IC system, but not the concept itself.

[edit on 1-2-2006 by melatonin]

[edit on 1-2-2006 by melatonin]

The whole question of Intelligent Design relys on the basic premise, that in some way an intelligence was involved in creation, be it human or god. That Evolutionary steps are too great for Darwins theory to pan out... eg some bacteria have a complex interralating system that if one bit was missing how could it have evolved. (incidently this has apparently been explained) see
Horizon BBC documentary on ID

The point is that this is not science, saying that the chances of evolution working in a particular way is unfare, as you are working backwards. Science is the observation of something and drawing conclusions from it.
The ID theory actually explains nothing, all it does is refute evolution. It puts nothing in its place except an ID, but doesn't say how that might work - magic one assumes.

External Source BBC Horizon Website
In 2005, the school board of Dover, a small farming community in western Pennsylvania, became the first in America to adopt the theory of intelligent design. The move divided the community and the small town became the centre of national attention. The school board voted to teach the ninth grade biology class that there are gaps and problems with the theory of evolution and to present intelligent design as an alternative.

Dover science teacher Bryan Rehm and his wife Christy believed that this new policy was not only anti-science, but religious and therefore unconstitutional. By promoting religion it was a violation of the law passed in 1987. The Rehms and nine other parents and teachers filed a law suit against the school board. Neighbour was pitted against neighbour in the first legal challenge to intelligent design.

After 40 days of trial, Judge John E Jones III ruled against the school board, stating: "We have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."

I post with some trepidation now after reading the many texts from alot of well-read individuals.

The commonality with some of the posts is the scientists are attempting to resolved the Designer of the Design (us) by "breaking" it down, (ie. fossils, dirt, microbiology, microphysics, micro, micro, micro, etc.

With your bright minds, try taking the exponential view instead. So, try starting with mere "thought". Hey we all have it, Right? Its that voice in our heads when we read to ourselves, talk to ourselves and the voice we use to rationalize what are next decision is going to be. Right? I mean nobody even starts their car to go to work without "thought". It's the first thing we wake up with in the mornning. Right?

Now. Is thought energy? Because I do not know.
Can thought be "broken down" into a micro-science? Because I do not know.
Is the mind energy? Because I do not know.

Does the mind and thought create anything or propogate anything. Yes! Ideas! From there I am a blank.

I think creation was done by pure thought from my Father in Heaven. There is your designer of the design. It was done by pure thought which modern man to this date has been unable to measure or break down into a science.. Or, has a scientist broken down thought by using math?

Can I get some answers? Cordially, Ravenmock1

Originally posted by Ravenmock1
I think creation was done by pure thought from my Father in Heaven. There is your designer of the design.

Where was he at the time?

It was done by pure thought which modern man to this date has been unable to measure or break down into a science.. Or, has a scientist broken down thought by using math?

Thoughts are basically impulses of the synapses transfering information.. [or something like that].. they require a brain.

[edit on 3-2-2006 by riley]

The nature of thought and intelligence is largely unknown to man. You cant say scientifically that these thoughts are from an intelligence. You are then trying to make observations fit your theories or beliefs, rather than drawing the conclusions from observations that is science. 'Intelligent Design' is not science but philosophy.

Philosophy should not be taught in the classroom as science. Evolution can be demonstrated in logical steps. Intelligent Design answers no questions.

Is it not then logical to say based upon scientific philosophy, which my understanding that all Phi Alpha Omega alumni members are taught is that there is Alpha and Omega. Beginning and End. Now in the abstract could these two words, with meanings constitute God and Satan? Or Pi and Phi. See without Pi you can't add an extra "h" because then the "h" would then be non-existent. So, unlike the chicken and egg, science already knows the answer to the universe, it is Pi or God.

Then it is can be reasonably and logically assumed that because science bases its whole philosophy on "Phi" (or breaking everything down with Phi)(because you can not do micro science with Pi. Huh! So science is based on God. Because without Pi there is no Phi. God is the beginning and Satan is the end. Go to the plasma drive Threads re: science and see how science is going to unleash the end with interdimensional travel which will open the door for a take over by aliens that have no concept of right or wrong or what we would call a conscience. Because again "Con-science" goes against science too! Ravenmock.

I am sorry, but i cant understand what you are driving at... The Universe was createdby God? I find that hard to believe..
I like the odds better that everything happened by chance more appealing.
Again this is my opinion... not to be confused with scientific fact.

With your bright minds, try taking the exponential view instead. So, try starting with mere "thought". Hey we all have it, Right? Its that voice in our heads when we read to ourselves, talk to ourselves and the voice we use to rationalize what are next decision is going to be. Right? I mean nobody even starts their car to go to work without "thought". It's the first thing we wake up with in the mornning. Right?

Now. Is thought energy? Because I do not know.
Can thought be "broken down" into a micro-science? Because I do not know.
Is the mind energy? Because I do not know.

Does the mind and thought create anything or propogate anything. Yes! Ideas! From there I am a blank.

we can see making a decision as a purely biological process. Certain individuals with damage to the ventral-medial pre-frontal cortex make poor social decisions which are against their best interests, although they have no intellectual deficit. This damage also causes emotional deficits - thus emotional systems are involved in most decisions.

Antonio Damasio's theory is a good starting place for this (he has a couple of books on this). Although, his theory is a bit vacuous. He also studies elements of consciousness such as self-awareness, introspection, feelings. We generally break consciousness into elements, and study a part of the 'elephant'.

But to fully understand consciousness we will have to integrate these parts, as it's certainly a gestalt.

[edit on 3-2-2006 by melatonin]

[edit on 3-2-2006 by melatonin]

[edit on 3-2-2006 by melatonin]