Gods, Earthlings, and Intelligent Design

Dr. Pournelle, a balanced and respectable article. Still, I’m going to play somewhat the devil’s advocate, partly because I have a little of him in me.

Like Dawkins, I’ve run into a heckuva lot of intelligent design supporters who do, indeed, use intelligent design as a more respectable package for what is, ultimately, creationism. And by “creationism” here I mean that an entity that goes by the name God, Omie, got out of bed one morning, stretched, waved his magic wand and–voila–Adam. And I do believe, as Dawkins does, that Plan 9 from Outer Space represents the best hope for pseudo-creationism. Not that I really believe or disbelieve it.

Not all intelligent design supporters are creationists in the sense above. The mysteries of existence together with its awesome and singular coincidences cry out for an analysis that penetrates the illusion of lifeless matter and energy. These people are trying to understand the nature of God and creation based upon this cry that manifests itself as the philosophy of intelligent design. Still, from my experience, the fundamentalists outnumber this latter category. And I do find the tendency amongst “believers” to incarcerate the great and universal truths expressed via mythology in the straightjacket of factual accident quite pronounced.

Alas, I find the same tendency amongst the non-believers, Dawkins being a good example. God is an entity? I hope they’ve made enough dimensions available for Him in their latest M theory. Hope they’ve discovered a mathematical category big enough to hold Him. The universe is merely the dance of matter and energy? Whew! At least we only have two things to worry about–except when it inhabits some other zone neither here nor there, like chi (which doesn’t turn on light bulbs without first activating the practitioner’s finger to contact the switch) or that funny thing we call consciousness. I hear they finally found the chemicals and receptors responsible for that!

While the fundamentalists within both camps exhibit varying degrees of prejudice and arrogance, I must agree that it is the anti-theists whom I find most unpalatable. Not because of my ontological inclinations vis-a-vis God, but because they are the more dangerous. They rely on the obviousness of what their five senses report and what their brain computes. This gives them a degree of confidence that shields them from self-criticism and allows their arrogance to grow unchecked.

It’s easy to point to a rotting corpse and say, “See, I told you it doesn’t rise!” It’s a lot more difficult to explain, “That’s because you are looking here, inside the tomb.”

“They were also theories. By theory I mean statements sufficiently precise to generate falsifiable hypotheses.”

Hmmmm. There is a bit more to ‘Theory’ than that.

Too often the word is attached to a speculation. A Theory has to encompass all the already known facts in the immediate field and is a unifying conceptualisation. It is predominantly post hoc reasoning but as you say it has the special quality of being able to generate falsifiable hypothoses.

Your Friendly and wise Priest was generous in his scope, including in his instructions to young minds a reasonably comprehensive overview of alternative view.

” Brother Fidelis was careful to teach the theory of evolution along with St. Augustine’s and St. Thomas Aquinas’s discourses on reason and science; and the concept that God could easily have created the universe in germinal causes and fixed laws, and allowed development to proceed with a bare minimum of miraculous interventions.”

This last part is so easily ignored. The concept of God is hightly inclusive and does not restrict his ways of going about things. But the past helps us to understand how He may have gone about what He has gone about.

Our planet was formed by gaseous matter coalescing; so we understand today. It was largely inert for billions of years. It ‘naturally’ produced life. Whether this was through its own natural effort of obtained some of Fred Hoyles proposed help from nature further afield and outside, we don’t know as yet.

A very varied Biosphere was formed, on its surface. In that varied biosphere life took many forms, some successful, some not. Vegetation dominates even today.

Animal life came about providing motility and found its multifarious niches amongst the flora. Recently, in such Eon-measured terms, there has arisen a creature that thinks.

It is a most unusual creature on this planet as it is not only conscious, as many other animals are to some much lesser degree, but Self- Aware, Self-Conscious.

And we thinking creatures have developed a Noosphere (in Tielhard’s terminology) with a building up of transmittable knowledge and culture. We are on the way to making it a permanent feature of planetary life through hard-wired communication.

We are the carriers and builders of the planet’s own self-awareness.

I see this upward movement from inert gaseous matter to self awareness to be a planned outcome, a deliberate strategy built into the fabric of the Universe. I cannot prove that of course. I cannot even claim it explains all known facts. It isn’t a Theory. It is as good a speculation as most though.

I see our Planet itself as a developing, sentient entity, growing to maturity through stages. Perhaps there is a mind of immense power – beyond even ‘simple’ planetary self-awareness – behind it, and this is just a small, local stage of development of a much broader and deeper Universe phenomenon, predetermined by a creative Deity with an agenda that is ineffable.

But back to the present. I think that man is part of nature, not seperate from it, and that almost anything mankind does is ‘natural’. Indeed we may be that flowerng of nature’s ongoing inclination to change continually, and an expression of its power once self-consciousness has been evolved and achieved.

It is also likely that ‘Debate’ and disagreement is a natural driver of a process to become not simply self-aware but aware of the Truth. We have taken an wafully long time to get this far in our understanding and the debate will range back and forth for a while yet.

Nature has changed the courses of rivers, thrown up and cast down mountains, produced fish that grow legs and lungs and take to the land. Radical and astounding changes are natural. It has become sentient though its evolved and evolving capacities.

To date we have been subject to nature’s seeming contrariness, but now we have the capacity to accelerate and direct. We can think and discover and determine where and how to look and in some respects, where improvements may be made.

What we lack is a known, acknowledged, understood and ‘known to be right’ direction. Although a Christiologist might disagree and claim that we just don’t want to see what is plain to them in their speculations.

We are going through a phase which is unprecedented. We are considering ourselves deeply. We can change the nature of humanity, once we have adopted a position that our destiny is in our own hands and not God’s. But I would argue that any changes are all in the Plan. Even the failed elements that have preceeded us.

Whether our efforts will bring a successful change or a desirable change – or even the ‘right’ change remains to be seen. Certainly some desire the course we have set out on, post Darwin and sooner or later post-Dawkins, Hoyle, Augustine, you and me. Frankly we have no idea where we are going and that too is part of this stage of ‘Nature’.

Some seek a more adequate control, preserving elements of the past that have worked very well, including ideas that may well be in decline after serving us well but only due to our past ignorance. We are less ignorant these days, but barely wiser or more significantly knowledgeable.

So we speculate and pontificate.

Dawkins is de Facto leader of a movement. His will fall, as almost all ideas do, if he fails to encompass the ‘natural’ inclination of people to see deep inside and recognise a small energetic particle that has no proper name or provenance yet, but one dickens of a lot of guesses about.

I’m afraid I find this article both misleading and unfair. It is perfectly clear from Dawkins’ article that he is referring to the deceptions of the current ID crowd clustered around the Discovery Institute. He then goes on to point out that in any case a “panspermia” hypothesis falls victim to the same problem of infinite regress as the god hypothesis. And this LA Times Op-ed was in response to his being duped into doing an interview for that scandalous movie Expelled on false pretenses. He had every right to be irritated.

As for simply dismissing opponents as “buffoons” (he doesn’t use the term, btw) and arguing by assertion, these are silly libels. Dawkins has written two of the most eloquent books refuting arguments from design — The Blind Watchmaker and Climbing Mount Improbable — in which he patiently deals with all the arguments in turn (including some by Hoyle). These included extensive discussions of the (multiple) evolution of the eye and many other issues that often perplex those with little background in biology.

Hoyle’s rejection of natural selection was simply embarrassing (even more so than his refusal to jettison Steady State cosmology in the face of the evidence). His strongest arguments — about the improbability of enzyme and protein formation — have been so frequently refuted that they are now known as Hoyle’s Fallacy. The best short discussion is probably by Ian Musgrave and can be found here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

As for “irreducible complexity”, its inventor Michael Behe was forced to retract his formulation in Darwin’s Black Box. But he shrugged this off as “sloppy writing”, and continues to produce popular screeds about ID. I am not aware of any published scientific work by him or anyone else in support of ID. There are no testable hypotheses, no research program, no publications to evaluate.

One argument I have never heard expressed is – “how did sex come about”?

The argument for sexual reproduction is obvious. But how did two separate entities instantly have the ability to share genetic material? It would have to have been an instant ability, as none of the components of sexual reproduction (on it’s own) would have any benefit whatsoever. There is no reason to have any form of male genitalia on a creature that reproduces through mitosis (or for it to have any male characteristics at all).

One of the things that Mr. Pournelle skips over lightly is that this complexity/guiding hand/Big Juju, if it exists, came from somewhere. So we are again stuck with an uncreated creator, and logic be damned. Or, if someone wants to quibble with “creator,” then the editor in the sky. If the evolution of the eye or whatever seems improbable here, then it was improbable there. Also, I find it curious that Mr. Pournelle seems stuck on old-line, classical Darwinism. The eye, for instance, is now thought to have evolved several separate times, in forms constrained only by definition and available materials. Also, “Squiggy” is in error about sex. Many bacteria share genetic material, to their considerable benefit, and even across lines of “species” – whatever that might mean among the protists – and without the accessory structures that seem to fascinate him.

It sounds like we’re here talking about variations of the argument from irreducible complexity. Eyes, sexual reproduction, wings…they’re all “irreducibly complex.” I really don’t see anything about life that’s not, and I find this reasoning specious. It’s a high-sounding term that, in the end, means very little because, precisely, the human mind is too obtuse to imagine, de novio, how much of anything can happen, without having nature be its guide.

How can one possibly place confidence in the statement, “The eye must have been created whole because otherwise, if missing any part, the whole organ would be useless?” That’s making some quite deep assumptions, the most egregious being that evolution is a mere shake-up of trillions of coins that must come up heads. That would seem to be excruciatingly limiting, and I doubt if “the editor” is that stodgy.

I’ve made a point in an earlier discussion on this topic, but it bears repeating. It is simply this: That ID does not require a deity, or “Big Juju”, to guide speciation and the development of highly complex systems. It simply requires an intelligence, and that intelligence must reside somewhere in the chain of life. My bet is on the genome itself, that all those genes that appear useless or vestigial are in fact a sort of miniature “brain of life” that adapts life forms to their environment, and that this “brain” has been growing slowly over the eons, as life become increasingly complex.

To me, the appeal of this notion is that it doesn’t require one to be either religious or anti-religious, as its central idea is compatible with both. If you choose to believe that this intelligence began in an extremely rudimentary form as part of the original synthesis of amino acids into single-celled organisms capable of reproduction, and that this original, highly simplistic intelligence occurred by random happenstance, then knock yourself out; it’s fine by me.

Conversely, if you choose to believe that life was created by supernatural means, by a Divine Being as it were, and that this intelligence was put there intentionally to guide life according to the Creator’s will, then be my guest. It doesn’t matter which one a person believes to be the origin of that intelligence, only that one recognize its existence, and stops insisting that we reject all of the laws of probability in order to justify random mutation as the sole method by which all of life’s complexity evolved. And best of all, it removes any justification for either group to attempt to bully the other into accepting its world view, at least insofar as it relates to the development of life on this planet.

My two cents.

rastus said:
“It simply requires an intelligence, and that intelligence must reside somewhere in the chain of life. My bet is on the genome itself, that all those genes that appear useless or vestigial are in fact a sort of miniature “brain of life” that adapts life forms to their environment, and that this “brain” has been growing slowly over the eons, as life become increasingly complex.”
Very doubtful. Some of these “junk genes” are literally stutters, repetitions of short sequences for thousands of iterations. If there weren’t instructions available to the decoding enzymes saying in effect “ignore the next 10000 base pairs,” the organism would never survive, let alone reproduce. There is at least one species of fly in which junk DNA is literally half of its genome. In the human genome there is plenty of junk, mere accidents of transcription, along with vestiges of our amphibian and reptilian ancestors. This is not to say that these genes have no function; they appear to have obscure regulatory effects, but they do not code for proteins, and messenger RNA ignores them.

I believe in intelligent design, but many advocates of it are contending that if someone believes in intelligent design overall, they must then believe in the Genesis account of Creation in specific.

Yet, there is no need for those who believe overarchingly in I.D. as a general principle to accept Genesis, which is only one contention amongst the many possible origins of the universe that I.D. potentially allows for.

“I believe in intelligent design” — what does “belief” have to do with it? We are talking about *knowledge” of the natural world, and the only reliable method of obtaining that knowledge in the entire history of human existence has been *science*. ID is not science. Full stop.

Everyone may be entitled to an opinion, but opinions are not all equal in science. This is where science is different to voting for a president, for instance. And there are ground rules for what constitutes a valid opinion — most pertinently in this case, beliefs in magical beings and happenings are excluded from science a priori, because such beliefs would make render the scientific method invalid. This does not mean scientists have to be athiests, but if they are not, they are required to leave their superstitions at the door before they enter the lab.

This is a simple reality that many Americans have lost sight of, and its denial is rapidly driving the US to the bottom of pile in science education. At least Turkey will have company!

A statement to the effect of “Based upon a wide variety of rationally assessable factors, I recognize that there is a high level of probability that an intelligent design model for the development of the universe as we know it is at once workable and real” would have been unwieldy.

Thus, I said the same thing with greater brevity as, “I believe in intelligent design”.

Secondarily, what do you characterize as “magical beings and happenings”?

I believe in God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.

No need to disguise it with Intelligent Design.

There have always been those who say there is no God, and used their human minds to defend it. They think it wisdom, and I call it folly.

Nevertheless, it isn’t directly a men’s news issue. If it is, then know that God would surely have recongized the bonds between a father and his children.

johnc, I’ll have to agree with you in #3. From what I have read of Dawkins, the man patiently refutes what I also see as fallacious, or at least shallow, arguments for creationism. I also agree that the ploy in obtaining an interview for splicing and dicing in Expelled isn’t admirable. The technique is just as scandalous when used by Ben Stein as it is when used by Michael Moore.

If I glimpse properly what rastus in #7 is after, it sounds as plausible as anything else I’ve heard. Traditional evolutionary theories based upon natural selection are woefully underpowered probabilistically, as I understand it. Something somewhere is doing something that we haven’t properly identified yet.

Yet even here, the problem will loom larger than can be managed, because the search for intelligence merges seemlessly into the search for God. If you’re looking for God, I’m afraid those microscopes, databases, and mathematical theories, while beautiful and illuminating, won’t halt in a final state yielding a true/false answer. And most people are, indeed, looking exactly for that.

Without a richer context, I expect nothing ever to come of any debate over God’s existence–regardless of any new and relatively verified theory of creation/evolution. This context is far more outside the gene than inside, and eloquently described in Amfortas’ post #2. Despite it’s not being “science,” it is most definitely knowledge.

If ID fails the test of “science,” then Darwinian evolution fails just as clearly.

Most ID believers, in spite of what the equivocators claim, believe in the God of Judeo-Christian heritage, as do I. Most ID believers believe that “Intelligence” guided the “evolution” of life here on Earth (and else where should the occassion arise).

Darwinian evolution fails to explain with any degree of certainty many phenomena which have been observed in nature, the most looming of which is the sudden explosion of biodiversity in the Cambrian period.

Darwinian fails the test of science in it’s inability to be proven experimentally and in a sort of Catch-22, any experiment devised by man to prove speciation requires the interference of an outside intelligence (man).

Therefore Darwinian evolution is exposed as a religion equally as driven by the desire of the proponent to explain the inexplicable as is any proponent of any other religion.

Dawkins has proven nothing but his own self-infatuation and that he is a lacking in the ability to explain the unknown as is any other mortal.

I am completely happy with my “primative mysticism” called “Christianity” and since the subject is one of such high emotionality that scientists are reduced from reason to name calling, it is highly unlikely that anyone’s view will be altered by another’s argument.

Dawkins is a legend in his own mind and will remain so.

Incidently Palinurus’ argument in #8 is a two edged sword. If ID adherents are required to explain the origin of their Intelligence – mine happens to be eternal and therefore requires no permission from me to exist – then those who would deny ID must in turn explain the origin of the universe.

Here we fall into the abyss of Cosmology (not to be cofused with Cosmetology which is the study of the origin of false eyelashes or some such nonsense) in which…the great Singularity is invoked with reverence by the “Scientific community” ( I guess as opposed to the unscientific community which believes in an entity rather than a singularity).

In other words, if God’s origin is to be explained, then the origin or ultimate source of matter, energy and the universe must also be explained.

My personal preference is “42,” which as Douglas Adams explained is the answer to the ultimate question of Life, the Universe and Everything.

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin, gentlemen? The question is just as relevent and answerable.

If you want answers to unanswerable questions, ask Schrodinger’s cat, he may be able to tell you, assuming he is alive, can speak and will choose to tell you.

Both Evolution and ID are theories. Both fail the rigorous standard of science that a theory be provable or disprovable by experimentation.

Pick you poison, I’ve already made my choice…Thank God.

One last thought, perhaps the Minbari religion (of J. Michael Straczynski’s highly entertaining Babylon 5 series) is correct.

I believe the explanation by Delenn goes as follows:

“We believe that the universe itself is conscious in a way we can never truly understand. It is engaged in a search for meaning. So it .. breaks itself apart, investing its own consciousness in every form of life.” We are the universe made manifest trying to figure itself out.”

It’s very poetic…a bit pantheistic for me, but I still like it.

The Minbari may well be onto something.

I don’t see that it has to Pantheistic though.

Here’s Big G. Actually a Trinity. But it is hard to play double’s tennis with just three. He needs another.

So He goes about creating one. Not necessarily ‘Perfect’ but at least pretty well verse in everything that is. It takes time to mature a brew that can produce an ‘almost God, but good enough for Guvment work.

Palinurus said,

Also, “Squiggy” is in error about sex. Many bacteria share genetic material, to their considerable benefit, and even across lines of “species” – whatever that might mean among the protists – and without the accessory structures that seem to fascinate him.

Never heard of you, nor have I spoken to you, and yet you feel the need to insult me. Textbook case of having no good argument, just a large case of ego.

Now prove yourself – tell me all about these creatures that “share genetic material”. It would have to benefit both of them – it can’t be a parasitic situation, and even a symbiotic relationship wouldn’t fit the parameters of “sharing genetic material”. I have to admit, last night I “shared the genetic material” of an Angus steer, but I don’t really think it “mutually benefited” us both.

You won’t though. You’ll copy and paste something that doesn’t really fit what you said, and you’ll claim that’s what you really meant. Bet you can’t guess how I know this.

For Squiggy:
Now prove yourself – tell me all about these creatures that “share genetic material”. It would have to benefit both of them – it can’t be a parasitic situation, and even a symbiotic relationship wouldn’t fit the parameters of “sharing genetic material”.
http://whyfiles.org/038badbugs/mechanism.html
and yes, that’s what I really meant. A simple search will find any number of more specialized references. And actually, you did not attempt to share the genetic material of a steer, unless through some sort of exotic gene-splicing experiment you attempted to integrate its DNA into your own chromosomes. Don’t be so touchy; there are actually areas in which your knowledge is limited. For myself, I regard the whole field of sports with monolithic indifference. As to the exact flavor of the “relationship” among these bacteria, beware teleology; I called the benefit “mutual” because it obviously benefited the recipient organism, and there was no obvious duress and no harm to the donor. As to whether this is mutual benefit, one is left in the unprofitable position of asking a bacterium. One might even be tempted to call the benefit “social.” Or you might find no mutuality in it at all, and lash me with withering scorn. I await with bated breath.

All that is clear from reading Pournelle’s item is that he does not like Richard Dawkins. And judged from this article, he correctly acknowledges not having “a lot to add” to the discussion of intelligent design creationism versus science. I have yet to finish reading any Dawkins book I have started, and I find his evangelical atheism tedious. But I am an activist in the Evo/creato conflict. I have contributed to the National Center for Science Education Reports and such internet sites as the TalkOrigns Archive, and I co-founded the popular Panda’s Thumb site. I was also a contributing author to “Why Intelligent Design Fails: A scientific critique of the new creationism” (2004). My chapter in that book, “The Explanatory Filter, Archaeology and Forensics” was featured as part of Mike Behe’s cross-examination in the famous Dover “Panda’s” trial.

There are certainly problems with Dawkins’ piece, particularly his theological argument that a “simple god” could not have created a complex universe. Scientific cosmology has proposed that “simple” rules govern the behavior of matter and energy, and that as Dawkins must agree, these simple rules control biological life and evolution as well. If simple rules can lead to humans impregnating virgins (a sadly common unplanned occurrence), why couldn’t a simple god manage?

Pournelle’s attack on Dawkins ends up reading as an argument for ID creationism, and not a very good one. Take his use of a quote from the LA Times, “Intelligent design ‘theorists’ (a misnomer, for they have no theory) often use the alien scenario to distance themselves from old-style creationists: “For all we know, the designer might be an alien from outer space.” This attempt to fend off accusations of unconstitutionally importing religion into science classes is lame and disingenuous. All the leading intelligent design spokesmen are devout, and, when talking to the faithful, they drop the science-fiction fig leaf and expose themselves as the fundamentalist creationists they truly are.”

Pournelle claims this is typical of Dawkins and “also egregiously wrong.” What?? It is exactly correct.

1) There is no ID theory, 2) ID proponents do use the “aliens or time travelers could be the designer/creator” claim as a way to obscure their intimate connection to “scientific creationism,” and fundamentalism, 3) when speaking to religious fundamentalists the ID proponents are very clear in repudiating the “outer space” claim and acknowledge their religious motivation – supernatural creationism by the Judeo-Christian god.

Let’s look at some statements by some principle ID proponents.

First, Philip Johnson:

“Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.” Date: January 10, 2003. Source: American Family Radio

Michael Behe:

“Our intelligence depends critically on physical structures in the brain which are irreducibly complex. Extrapolating from this sample of one, it may be that all possible natural designers require irreducibly complex structures which themselves were designed. If so, then at some point a supernatural designer must get into the picture. I myself find this line of reasoning persuasive. In my estimation, although possible in a broadly permissive sense, it is not plausible that the original intelligent agent is a natural entity. … Thus, in my judgment it is implausible that the designer is a natural entity.” (Reply to My Critics)

And three from William Dembski:

“Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.” 1999 “Signs of Intelligence,” Touchstone Magazine.

“My thesis is that all disciplines find their completion in Christ and cannot be properly understood apart from Christ.” William Dembski, ‘Intelligent Design’, p 206

“…but let’s admit that our aim, as proponents of intelligent design, is to beat naturalistic evolution, and the scientific materialism that undergirds it, back to the Stone Age. “DEALING WITH THE BACKLASH
AGAINST INTELLIGENT DESIGN version 1.1, April 14, 2004”

But, it turns out that Pournelle has not read what Dawkins wrote. Pournelle reads “Begin with the last sentence: that only fundamentalist creationists assert the possibility of evolution influenced by aliens from outer space.” In the LA Times item, Dawkins clearly discussed this “outer space” notion as presented by Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel and makes no inference regarding any religious motivation. Dawkins is referring to ID creationists as fundamentalists. Dawkins observes that ID creationists do not seriously argue the space alien idea.

This is such a gross misreading of what Dawkins wrote that I wonder what is his problem. Is it that Pournelle dislikes Dawkins to the extent that he cannot even look for a legitimate failing, but grasps at the first thing he can distort? Or does he actually support ID creationism and throws up a strawman argument to burn? Or, has he never bothered to learn what ID creationism is about and lack any basis of opinion?

If the later, I recommend some reading;

Pro ID creationism

Behe, Michael
2007 The Edge of Evolution. New York: Free Press

Dembski, William
1999 Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Religion. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity

_______
2002. No Free Lunch. Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased Without Intelligence. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Johnson, Phillip E.
1993 Darwin on Trial, 2nd Edition. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press

Moreland, J. P. (ed.)
1994 The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for the Intelligent Designer. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press

Pro science

Barbara Carroll Forrest, Paul R. Gross
2004 Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design. Oxford University Press

Mark Perakh
2003 Unintelligent Design. New York: Prometheus Press

Matt Young, Taner Edis (Editors),
2004 Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism. Rutgers University Press

And of course the decision in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial.

>>jjtaup said,

If I glimpse properly what rastus in #7 is after, it sounds as plausible as anything else I’ve heard. Traditional evolutionary theories based upon natural selection are woefully underpowered probabilistically, as I understand it. Something somewhere is doing something that we haven’t properly identified yet.<>johnc said,

“I believe in intelligent design” — what does “belief” have to do with it? We are talking about *knowledge” of the natural world, and the only reliable method of obtaining that knowledge in the entire history of human existence has been *science*.<>there are ground rules for what constitutes a valid opinion — most pertinently in this case, beliefs in magical beings and happenings are excluded from science a priori, because such beliefs would make render the scientific method invalid. This does not mean scientists have to be athiests, but if they are not, they are required to leave their superstitions at the door before they enter the lab.<<

What eludes me in this kind of debate is why all but the most hardened Biblical literalists exhibit a great deal of tolerance for empirical science, even that which appears to deny God, yet the scientific consensus seems to be a visceral intolerance for anything even hinting at the supernatural, as evidenced by the contempt expressed just above, and by the virulent opposition to ID and the attempts to portray it as just another form of Creationism. Methinks there is more going on here than a simple appeal to logic, or those responses would be much more even-handed, and would engage in far less name calling.

All I am saying is that science and religion don’t have to be antagonistic, but each needs to exist to counterbalance the other. Science needs to be there to show religious believers that the mechanics of life’s wonders must be known for us to fulfill our potential in this world. And religion needs to be there to provide scientists with a moral and ethical base from which to pursue their work. IMHO, both of those are good things, and we ignore or proscribe one or the other at our peril.

A lot of people are in fact seeking to advance Biblical Creationism when the push Intelligent Design, with B.C. being the end and I.D. being the means.

However, that does not mean at all that a belief in the existence of Intelligent Design necessitates a belief in Biblical Creationism.

It doesn’t.

To the contrary, a belief in Intelligent Design allows for a number of possible ways for the establishment and maintenance of that design.

OK,

I will proceed on Tuesday. Having actually finished reading some of Pournelle’s Sf novels, I am disappointed in his inadequate grasp of science.

Defining terms:

There seems to be some confusion in the terminology here.

A “fundamental Creationist” is an individual who believes in the Genesis Creation paradigm. God created the universe, the planet and all life in seven days, period, end of story. No allowances for the variation of what a “day” as used in the Bible means, no extended developmental period for life, simply “Boom” 6 days and everything was created as it is today. For them the Bible is the authoratative explanation.

No ID believers are “fundamental Creationists.” The very concept is repugnant to “fundamental Creationists.” It would be heresy.

Most ID believers are however believers in the God of Judeo-Christian tradition. The original narrative of ID is that God created the universe and life, and then he allowed scientific forces, the laws of which He set up, to run with an occasional “supernatural nudge” (for lack of better term) to direct life to move in the direction He envisioned.

There is nothing (except bias) in science which precludes the existence of such a supernatural being. In fact most Darwinian evolutionists are eager to point out that their theory does not encompass “the moment of creation” of the universe. They claim to leave that to the Cosmologists.

It’s a “cop-out” because they don’t want to be dragged into a debate for which there is no supportive scientific evidence, only scientific conjecture.

I suppose there are a few ID believers who think that some sort of extra-terrestrial intelligence was at work in the development of life on Earth, but the vast majority of ID proponents are of the sort I previously described…God exists and directly influenced the path that life took in its development.

Those who propose, somewhat absurdly, that somehow pure science excludes the possibility of a Higher Being are bias driven and being less than honest when they claim that “faith” has no place in science and then turn around and propose an equally faith based explanation of how the universe came into being.

I return to my original challenge. If God’s source of existence must be explained to be a legitimate scientific force, then the phenomena that Cosmologists claim as the cause of the universe coming into existence must also be sourced.

From where did the energy-matter-time singularity come? What is the origin of the universe in which all of these “laws” exist?

The mere fact that some scientists assert that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of God is not the same as saying there is proof that God does not exist or have influence in our universe. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive.

Neither ID nor Darwinian evolution can be scientifically proven. What can be proven is that Darwinian evolution is insufficient to explain the diversity, developmental timeline, and sophistication of life.

For Dr. Hurd to assert that “ID Fails” as a reasonable explanation for the existence of life on Earth in all its diversity is nothing but hubris resulting from an internal bias against the theory.

Every challenge that can be made to ID is a challenge that can be made to the “scientific” explanations offered by the Cosmology/Darwinian paradigm.

I find it interesting and noteworthy that most believers in ID and in religion do not run from science, but most scientist run from religion. Which group is closed minded and which invites investigation of all possibilities?

That group is the most “scientific” in their approach to the pertaining question.

In science, there is never any reason to believe something without evidence.

MND has entertained this discussion many times before.

The issue here is not “belief” in God, but rather the methods of those who fulsomely declare a fundamentalist allegiance with “Science” — as though Science were itself a religion.

Commenter lieweary (#24) identified the rub: Popperian “falsifiability” is the common problem.

IMO, the Double Slit Experiment made it epistemologically obvious that “Truth” cannot be determined through human institutions — most certainly including Science.

I have noted professor Susskind’s comments as to the viability of the Mulitverse theory as valid science. Susskind was quoted in the Jan 5, 2006 edition of Nature:

Susskind … finds it “deeply, deeply troubling” that there’s no way to test the principle [of the Multiverse]. But he is not yet ready to rule it out completely. “It would be very foolish to throw away the right answer on the basis that it doesn’t conform to some criteria for what is or isn’t science,” he says.

It’s an important point: the best solutions for the largest problems in science may not be covered under contemporary rules.

Dr. Hurd has proven once again that the term “creationism” means absolutely nothing. The defenders of the faith have fallen into hysteria and mongering…

I am sorry I was unable to respond on Tuesday.

Novelist and social observer Jerry Pournelle had recently posted his objections and rejections to an editorial written by Richard Dawkins. The original piece by Dawkins was a protest against his mangled interview for the creationist movie “Expelled.”

Pournelle ignores or is ignorant of the context of the Dawkins piece. None the less, while Pournelle repeatedly says he does not want to argue the Intelligent Design creationism case, he reiterates it and ignores any counter arguments and even implied there were none.

On the other hand, intelligent design theorists do have scientific critiques of Natural Selection’s ability to explain what we observe. I have already alluded to one, irreducible complexity, which states that certain organism or organs are simply too complex to have arisen in stages.

The refutations of Behe’s notion of “irreducible complexity” begin with its definition.

Behe’s definition of IC is”

A single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function of the system, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. (Darwin’s Black Box, pg. 39)

Unnoticed by Behe was a deadly flaw, the existence of something that is IC under that definition merely loses a particular function if damaged. It says nothing about how such an entity or process could have evolved by the combinations of otherwise functional entities. Behe’s favorite example is a five part mousetrap. But, every single part has independent functions, and multiple functions exist for various combinations of these individual parts. This is well known in biology as “Cooption” the common occurrence when one, or a group of genes is duplicated, and then modified resulting in new functions. One concrete example is the evolution of nylonase. Only a slightly more difficult notion is scaffolding; two or more existing processes are combined and the result is then simplified by reduction in the number of steps or parts. We see biological examples most easily in the reduction of genes in obligate parasites, and the most famous example is endosymbiosis.

So, then Behe then tried to salvage his cherry with a redifinition;

An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one or more unselected steps (that is, one or more necessary-but-unselected mutations). The degree of irreducible complexity is the number of unselected steps in the pathway.

Note well that Behe has abandoned the entire core of his original argument regarding function. In its place he has substituted “necessary-but-unselected mutations.” Real science has shown that even mildly unfavorable mutations are commonly transmitted; ie the unselected steps in Beheland. We have known this for decades. These unselected, or even detrimental mutations are then material available for recombination, and the expression of new complex functional genomes.

Behe’s latest is to take a page from Bill Dembski and adopt a probability argument. In the just released “The Edge of Evolution,” he claimed that there is a limit on the number of genetic changes, mutations, that can be allowed. His example is protein to protein binding, and Behe insisted that more than two sites just cannot evolve independently. This is of course nonsense. A very well illustrated and easy to follow refutation is available from Ian Musgrave, “ Behe versus ribonuclease; the origin and evolution of protein-protein binding sites” http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/04/behe-versus-rib.html

Another of Behe’s arguments in “The Edge of Evolution” bites the dust with the recent publication from Richard Lenski’s research group at the Michigan State University. (Z.D. Blount, C.Z. Borland, and R.E. Lenski, “Historical Contingency and the Evolution of a Key Innovation in an Experimental Population of Escherichia coli.” PNAS). Carl Zimmer’s “Microcosm: E. coli and the New Science of Life” (Pantheon, May 6, 2008), places this research in the context of broader scientific questions. An easy to understand presentation of their most recent article is available at “A New Step In Evolution.”
http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php

#4, Squiggy said: One argument I have never heard expressed is – “how did sex come about”?

God is Perfect. Everything God has brought into be is perfect. There have been mistakes, as far as we can judge. Sex is the Perfect Mistake.

How did it come about? Eve wore very little, we are lead to understand. Just as Adam approached her with a surprise bunch of cherries, she bent to pick a flower. The rest is history.

God is Perfect. Everything God has brought into be is perfect.

One of the lead characters in the TV show Battlestar Galactica — flawed Monotheist Gaius frakking Baltar — believes much the same thing, based on a viewing of recent episodes.

Baltar goes on to preach that God loves all humans regardless of their sin because everyone is perfect just as they are.

Sounds like you, Amfortas. God’s creation is indeed good — I’m just not sure about the perfect part.

Pournelle III

First, I want to thank Mike for cleaning up my mangled HTML yesterday. I hope this will be better.

Pournelle,

while many “Intelligent Design Theorists” are in fact fundamentalist creationists, not all of them are, and some like the late Sir Fred Hoyle are not creationists at all.

Dawkins wrote, “All the leading intelligent design spokesmen are devout, and, when talking to the faithful, they drop the science-fiction fig leaf and expose themselves as the fundamentalist creationists they truly are.”

First of all, Fred Hoyle was never an “Intelligent Design Theorist,” nor is he in anyway referred to in the Dawkins editorial that I can see. In the candid moments I quoted above, the prominent ID proponents all reveal their true goals and opinions which are undistinguished from “scientific creationism.” In her Dover testimony, Prof. Barbara Forest demonstrated that the founding IDC textbook, “Of Pandas and People” had been simply altered by replacing “Creator” with “designer.” Available but not employed at the trial was an early manuscript where the deletion/insertion was incomplete and the neologism “cdesignproponentist.” It is a perfect literary “transitional fossil.” ID creationists hope to take advantage of language games in an applied post-modern relativism that is breath taking and to a degree successful.

Intelligent Design Creationism is unrelated to the natural theology of William Paley, as has been insisted on by William Dembski. Paley assumed the existence of a creator and sought in the expression of nature clues to the attributes of that deity. IDC assert that there is a method by which they can demonstrate that a deity exists, and all talk about space aliens and time travel is a smoke screen (references as above).

Pournelle wrote,

The panspermia hypothesis, which asserts that life originated on a planet other than Earth and was brought here by either natural or intelligently directed actions, is hardly ludicrous, has at least some unexplained evidence in its favor, and holding it as an hypothesis is hardly evidence of buffoonery. The late Robert Bussard was well known to believe in panspermia. Several of my science fiction novels make use of this hypothesis, and I have yet to see any definitive refutation.

There are two sorts of “panspermia” hypotheses. One might be called a “global” panspermia where life is ubiquitous wherever possible conditions exist, and that a feature of life is to transfer from one planetary system to another. There are two accessible books, “Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe” by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee, and “Life’s Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe” by Simon Conway Morris that take up this notion. Even though neither take a positive view of the global panspermia idea, neither invoke magical creators nor argue that the existence of life implies a magical creator. This sets them apart from the creationist book “Privileged Planet” by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards (Mar 2004).

Another would be a “local” version where the ability of life as microorganisms to migrate is limited to single planetary systems. These do certainly provide possible tests and as such are scientific rather than religious. For example, here are three papers that examine this later version;

Hornbeck, Gerda et al
2001 “Protection of Bacterial Spores in Space, a Contribution to the Discussion on Panspermia” Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere v.31(6):527-547

Kirchvink, Joseph, L, Benjamin P. Weiss
2001 “Mars, Panspermia, and the Origin Of Life: Where Did It All Begin?” Palaeontologia Electronica vol.4 No.2

Line, Martin A.
2002 The Enigma of the Origin of Life and its Timing. Microbiology 148, 21-27

No matter how great a physicist Bussard was, this does not translate into an expert in biology, let alone the origin of life. This was the same problem Hoyle had, success in one area of science does not simply leap into other areas. Another good example would be physicist Lee Spetner, who authored “Not By Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution” (1997, New York: The Judaica Press). This problem is suffered by Hubert Yockey to the extent that, were I still a professor of medicine, I would propose defining a “Yockey syndrome” characterized by the delusion that a physicist knows all things about all things and even if there was knowledge they lacked it would be trivial. The acute form is expressed by physicists writing about biology.

The “directed” seeding of life by natural intelligent beings has no empirical literature that I know of, and has no part to play in IDC at any rate. (This is not mere repetition as Pournelle has objected to earlier- the references have been given). Forty years ago I wrote a story (influenced by “Childhoods End”) in which an accident in a fusion experiment transported a hapless fellow back to the Hadean. His internal population of bacteria and viruses started life on earth. My high school teacher liked it, as far as I recall. But this was fiction, and outside of a creative writing class, has no place in school curricula.

My favorite part of the Dover Panda’s Trial begins with Eric Rothschild asking Mike Behe, “We’re going to look at chapter 8 of that book (“Why Intelligent Design Fails”), if you could pull up the chapter heading there? And it’s titled “The Explanatory Filter, Archaeology and Forensics,” and it’s written by somebody named Gary S. Hurd. Are you familiar with Dr. Hurd?”

It ends with Rothschild’s comment, “Science fiction movies are not science, are they, Professor Behe?”

[...] Gods, Earthlings, and Intelligent Design [...]

Dear Jerry,

I’ve been a fan of yours for decades. I’ve read many of your science fiction novels and subscribed to Analog for decades where you often published. I’m a retired software and hardware design engineer (most recently with Dell) and your column in Byte Magazine was a first look in every issue that crossed my path beginning at least as far back as 1981.

I had no idea you were sympathetic to ID but it makes sense. I’ve managed and write for Bill Dembski’s website “Uncommon Descent” for the past few years. I’m one of those rare few in ID that are not inspired by religion but rather by my long engagement with science fiction, science fact, and engineering. The nanotechnology we’re discovering in the machinery of life appears to be an engineering accomplishment far beyond anything humans have managed to invent to date. No way a blind, brute force trial & error mechanism could have pulled that together. Personally I favor Francis Crick & Leslie Orgel’s hypothesis “Directed Panspermia”. Dawkins admitted on camera in “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” that extraterrestrial intelligence could have designed life on earth but then he, without any underlying support, claimed that even if that were true the extraterrestrial intelligence must itself be an evolved intelligence.

Piffle! As far as anyone knows mind could have preceded matter in the universe. The infinite regression argument – who designed the designer – is bogus. Every fundamental theory in physics, chemistry, and biology can be subjected to an infinite regression which hits a brick wall at the origin of the observable universe. For the materialist I ask “Where does the material in materialism come from?” Who designed the designer indeed.

Anyhow, thanks for delighting me with the discovery that one of my favorite authors finds merit in the concept of Intelligent Design.

I blogged your article here:

Jerry Pournelle weighs in on intelligent design

“For the materialist I ask “Where does the material in materialism come from?” Who designed the designer indeed.”

Interesting. Does the argument from ignorance really strike you as compelling?

Dr. G. Hurd Said -”1) There is no ID theory, 2) ID proponents do use the “aliens or time travelers could be the designer/creator” claim as a way to obscure their intimate connection to “scientific creationism,” and fundamentalism, 3) when speaking to religious fundamentalists the ID proponents are very clear in repudiating the “outer space” claim and acknowledge their religious motivation – supernatural creationism by the Judeo-Christian god.”

1) That depends on what your definition of a theory is(I personally don’t think schools of thought are governed by people. Call me crazy, but schools of thought aren’t physical things one could govern.) But it’s nice to know you’re self important enough to think your judgement is without question.

2)ID proponents acknowledge the possibility of material creators because our species is on the verge of creating a synthetic microbe as it is, and because in the case of selective breeding and artificial insemenation, design is already being employed.

3) Then explain design proponents who are hindu, such as Balazs Hornyanszky ( M.S., bio-engineer, University of Technology, Budapest), and Istvan Tasi (M.A., Phd student, cultural anthropologist, Eotvos Lorant University, Budapest).

Dr. G. Hurd -
“Michael Behe:

“Our intelligence depends critically on physical structures in the brain which are irreducibly complex. Extrapolating from this sample of one, it may be that all possible natural designers require irreducibly complex structures which themselves were designed. If so, then at some point a supernatural designer must get into the picture. I myself find this line of reasoning persuasive. In my estimation, although possible in a broadly permissive sense, it is not plausible that the original intelligent agent is a natural entity. … Thus, in my judgment it is implausible that the designer is a natural entity.” (Reply to My Critics)

Hmmm
And the words “Yahweh” or “Jehova” appear where? Oh wait, it doesn’t really matter does it? Because regardless of theological implications, even if Behe was a fundie(which your comment does absolutely nothing to demonstrate), ultimately something is either correct or incorrect.

It’s nice to know people are high and mighty enough to think that creationism is inherently wrong, or so polarized in the culture wars it couldn’t possibly have scientific basis. However, to out right ignore the arguments for creationism as a possibility is not scientific.

If you want to refute or dismiss something, you must disprove it, not simply make up a smear campaign and attempt to generalize a group of people through personal bias, as though you were born with a golden pen up your ass that had Einstein’s, Newton’s and Darwin’s faces etched into it, with the words “One voice to rule them all” enscribed as well.

I cannot falsify a quasar or a quark, that does not make them hypothetical, and most acknowledge this when they repeatively call them “Theoretical”.

It must be nice to live in a world where only your voice is heard, activism is politics, the state is a beaurocracy, and those two things have absolutely nothing to do with science.

My favorite part of the Dover Panda’s Trial begins with Eric Rothschild asking Mike Behe, “We’re going to look at chapter 8 of that book (“Why Intelligent Design Fails”), if you could pull up the chapter heading there? And it’s titled “The Explanatory Filter, Archaeology and Forensics,” and it’s written by somebody named Gary S. Hurd. Are you familiar with Dr. Hurd?”

It ends with Rothschild’s comment, “Science fiction movies are not science, are they, Professor Behe?”

That’s your attack? …The person examining him made an ass out of himself

A. That’s correct. But it is certainly if I might just clarify, if an archaeologist had gone to the moon and found an object there with which was familiar, he would realize it was designed and he would have much less certainty about who the designer was.

Q. But archaeologists are involved in human design, so –

A. So he would have to conclude it was a human, is that correct?

Q. Not necessarily, Professor Behe.

Oh great argument… “Archeology is percise in detecting human design”….except when it isn’t!! … or when it is “not necessarily”

Jesus.. at least consider what you post.

Oh no he didn’t! He called Behe on a sci fi reference related to the obalisk on the moon from the movie “2001 a space oddesy!!!!” Woooo, that’s showing how the bacterial flagellum might have evolved step by step!!!

Do you really thing completely avoiding an argument will make it go away?

Mike, in #29 comments, “Sounds like you, Amfortas. God’s creation is indeed good — I’m just not sure about the perfect part.”

The blind watchmaker springs to mind – just for a nanosecond. If you give a wristwatch to an octopus, it would be a bit of a waste of timepeice. The octopus is ‘perfect’ for what an octopus is usually up to and a watch would be an ‘imperfection’ in it’s world. Not essentially dangerous or damaging imperfection to the octopus in the environmental conditions, but virtually useless.

There may have been a lot of pretty useless bits and pieces floating around, but all just perfect to make things out of or tell the time with – if something had a mind to. (don’t skip to the end just yet!)

Early man was pretty well perfect for standing up, a shade wobbly, on the African plains and setting off on a long journey. For that is what he had to do. His abilities weren’t perfect, developing as they were, but he was. That was what he had to do at that point in the long existence of everything that God had set off well before, and to unfold well after. If that wobbly apeman had a wristwatch it would have been out of time.

All things are ‘perfect’ for what they are about, even if developable and as the arguements have shown above, conditions change, new combinations arise for which the conditions suit as so those new forms succeed and are in turn ‘perfect’ for a while.

Perfect isn’t necessarily permanent. Change itself is part of the process and is in turn, ‘perfect’ – albeit a tad inconvenient if we want things to stay the same. But as Goethe indicated in Faustus, wanting everything to remain just as it is is how we lose our soul.

Evolution is a new concept. We have had a small grasp of some of its components for roughly a tenth of a second – if the world’s history were a year. We have a great deal to learn yet. We are developing our knowledge, because that’s what we perfect creatures do, perfectly for our time and developing abilities.

Matter is an essential part of that evolution, not just of ‘life’ but of everything. Palinurus, #33, asks where does matter come from. It is an evolved state. We ‘know’ that from our scientific discoveries and mathematical constructions. Matter is a state of energy, condensed as energetic plasma cooled in the first almost immediate period of our Universe. We ‘glimps’ that so far but have little clear idea of where that concept will go, as yet.

So, an obvious question is ‘what is energy then’? Buggered if we know. Yet. But we do know that it, itself, is a transmutable state. Of what, we don’t know. But we are far along the path to knowing that; part of what the wobbly apeman set off to find out (did no-one ever ask where he was off to ?)

If i were to go out on a limb, I would say (with fingers crossed) that energy and matter are states of Mind. Of ‘consciousness. at its most fundemental. If so, then we are an partially evolved expression of a fundemental drive of consciousness to become self-conscious ie: Mind building all that is essential for becoming aware of itself. We ( and it) have a way to go yet.

Is ‘Mind’ fundemental? Hodgson (The Mind Matters) argues that it is. But what does he know. He’s a supreme Court Judge and he is used to the wooly nature of our grasp of Truth. Plausible evidence is all we have at present.

Now, where did I put my socks?

“Does the argument from ignorance really strike you as compelling?

No, I don’t, but they seem to be the stock in trade of those who assert that unintelligent causes can explain the origin and diversification of life. Do you find it a compelling argument that some unknown sequence of random events caused the first living thing to appear? On the other hand we know that intelligent causes produce complex systems that would otherwise be close to statistically impossible. The efficacy of intelligent causation is well demonstrated by what humans have produced. Until someone can demonstrate the efficacy of unintelligent causation then intelligent causation remains the best explanation.

“Do you find it a compelling argument that some unknown sequence of random events caused the first living thing to appear?”

No, nor do I assume in front of the evidence.

“On the other hand we know that intelligent causes produce complex systems that would otherwise be close to statistically impossible.”

That “close to” is telling. Early estimates of the probabilities failed to account for the now well-known self-assembly capabilities of organic molecules, and observations of such, in an oxygen-free environment rich with energy sources has been going on for less than a century. Later estimators clearly had no real idea of what they were evaluating, or how to do it. Get back to me in ten million years.

“Until someone can demonstrate the efficacy of unintelligent causation then intelligent causation remains the best explanation.”

I submit that nobody ever will, since your definition of “best” carries so much emotional baggage. As well as an infinite regression. Try shaving with Occam’s Razor.

In more general terms, many people seem compelled to a premature conclusion, in this and in many other things. Many things are simply not known, for whatever reason, and not many of them will be resolved while I’m still above the ground, or perhaps afterward. This is a simple fact of life, and much mischief – by which I mean war, genocide, poisonous philosophies, and so on – has been caused by those who thought otherwise. To know what is, and what is not, and what might be – and how to tell the difference, and to learn more – is the supremely human endeavor. Any God I might be interested in would approve more of this than my hewing to an intellectually bankrupt party line. For, note, it is you who attempts to contain the unknowable in a small and battered can of dogma. I remain open to greater possibilities.

“No, nor do I assume in front of the evidence.”

When you insist on the absence of an Intelligent Designer, you are indeed making an assumption in front of the evidence.

And since there is currently no credible explanation for the chance causation of life, Mozart and everything, we are compelled to allow for all possibilities — including Intelligent Intention.

“a simple complex” consider that “theory” is not a “guess” and has specific requirements and criteria. If you do not know what these are, or how they are applied in the sciences, you will need a course in the philosophy of science.

Then consider the following observations by IDC professionals;

Is there a “theory” for intelligent design?

Paul Nelson
Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don’t have such a theory now, and that’s a real problem. Without a theory it’s very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as “irreducible complexity” and “specified complexity” – but as yet no general theory of biological design.
Date: July/August 2004
Source: Touchstone Magazine interview

Intelligent design founder argues against evolution
The Register-Mail – February 18, 2006

GALESBURG – The father of intelligent design says his child is not ready for school.

The hypothesis of intelligent design, while being developed, is not complete enough to be taught in the classroom, Phillip Johnson, professor emeritus of law at the University of California at Berkeley, said during a lecture at Knox College Friday. Johnson is widely recognized as a founder of the intelligent design movement. . . .

Regarding LGM as the creators: The original point, which seems to avoided your grasp, was the falsehoods knowingly promoted by “leading intelligent design spokesmen.” Graduate students do not fall into this category.

Phillip Johnson
On just who the designer is:
It certainly could be God, a supernatural creature, but in principle it could be space aliens who did the designing.
Date: 21 April 2002
Source: Cited by author Louis Freedberg on SFGate.com

Now contrast this with:

Phillip Johnson
Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.
Date: January 10, 2003. Source: American Family Radio

Now- who is a hypocrite?

Dr. G. Hurd-
“a simple complex” consider that “theory” is not a “guess” and has specific requirements and criteria. If you do not know what these are, or how they are applied in the sciences, you will need a course in the philosophy of science.”

If you think there is a set standard for either of these things, you are far too arogant to have a valid opinion on the subject to start.

A “guess” is a very vague term.
I may say based on the evdidence I’ve seen from storm fronts that my best guess is we will have a much easier hurricane season than last year, that the storms we encounter will be of a certain consistancy in the size of the land mass they cover and the speed at which they will move over land.

Even if I have a body of evidence and charts that make predictions to support that, I am not incorrect in calling that a “guess” or a “theory”…

At the end of the day, the hierarchy which you speak on is ficticious and fabricated by a community,
since you are a part of this community and carry their bias, you have no objective way of demonstrating this difference between a “guess” and a “theory”.

All you have is tired rhetoric.

Science is was and always will be a methodology. Philosophy in science is simply a snobby elitist ideology propogated by uber liberal universities who have absolutely no business commenting.

This is not a physical plain you can govern, it is not within your authority to tell me what is and isn’t theory.

Save the retro-fitted philosophies for another time and stick to the arguments, otherwise you’ll just get smeared.

As I said before, it depends on what you consider a theory.

I am capable of independent thought…
(And disagreement)
I would say, although design theory is far from a universal theory in biology, for both microbes and macrobes, I think intelligent design is wholly a theory in microbiology.

The extent to which that theory applies and the implications from the supposed Design found in microbiology may expand as we learn more, but it(as a theory) certainly already exists.

And again with the character assassinations… You aren’t swaying my opinion on the plausibility of producing certain systems through step by step mutation + NS by dragging these out of context quotes.

And even if I am to believe there is some level of hypocrisy, you’ve completely avoided the point I made about creationism.

There is no scientific disqualification for a super natural being creating the spatiotemporal realm or any of the things that inhabit it.

Science can address this as a possibility and confirm it if true.. Even if you cannot falsify it that does not mean it could not at some point in time be demonstrated as correct, and it may very well have an empirical basis.

““No, nor do I assume in front of the evidence.”

When you insist on the absence of an Intelligent Designer, you are indeed making an assumption in front of the evidence.”

(Sigh.) Read it again. Now look up the definition of “agnostic.”

“And since there is currently no credible explanation for the chance causation of life, Mozart and everything, we are compelled to allow for all possibilities — including Intelligent Intention.”

Allow for, certainly. Accept your implicit definition of credibility, no. Accept as a foregone conclusion, immune from questioning and criticism, no. Note the gigantic predicate assumption, yes indeed.