And here is a good review of what it's all about. Pushing the ID movement is not a group of scientists who have a better scientific theory to offer, but "conservative philanthropists" and Christian fundamentalists and evangelicals.

quote:

In 1987, the US Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana law that mandated teaching 'creation science' in schools because the premise of the research was based on biblical texts. As intelligent design does not draw directly from biblical sources, Christian fundamentalist groups have seized on it as a possible way to force creationism back into the classroom. Last October, a school board in Dover, Pennsylvania,voted to include intelligent design in its local curriculum. And similar plans are now being considered in at least six states including Kansas, Mississippi and Arkansas. These plans include giving teachers new guidelines, and placing stickers on biology textbooks that question the scientific status of evolutionary theory.

The "scientific status of evolutionary theory" is not in question, however -- not among 99% of scientists, that is.

quote:

Even considered on its research merits, scientists mostly agree that intelligent design rests on shaky foundations. For one thing, Alberts points out, the concept often makes its claims based on gaps in the current body of scientific knowledge. "The whole history of science is that these gaps are always filled," he says. For example, one common argument used by intelligent-design advocates is that the bacterial flagellum, a whirling tail that some bacteria use to move around, is too complex to be explained by evolution alone. "I'm quite sure that within a decade or two we'll understand where it came from because we're sequencing more and more bacterial genomes," Alberts says. "But to give up now is totally ridiculous."

ID, in providing an explanation, actually undermines and even discourages research and investigation into open questions like the bacterial flagellum. What if a more "natural" explanation is found, then what? Would ID have to give up retreat to the next open questions, then the next, then the next? "Explanation-of-the-gaps" is not really scientific theory.

The rebuttals are that the papers aren't proposing scientific theories as alternatives, but philosophical explanations. And it is mostly "explanation-of-the-gaps" kinds of things. It's also being pushed by evangelical and fundamentalist Christians.

I realize that it is indeed difficult to offer positive evidence for ID, for if ID is true then that means that whatever force is involved must in principle act less predictably than the other four natural forces of nature or else that force would simply be an as-yet-undiscovered fifth natural force alongside gravity, electromagnetism, and the weak and strong nuclear forces. And if the force acted so predictably as to be able to describe it mathematically (as with the other forces) then it couldn't be the direct result of intelligence as there would be no free will involved in the use of that force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

Looks pretty shakey to me...

Wilber says that there are no transitional forms whatsoever, but "everyone" has agreed to say for the time being that "it must have happened somehow." He goes on to say in A Brief History of Everything that fundamentalists take advantage of this weakness to pack the floor with their delegates.

Hawkins says that "Evolution and creation describe the same process" calibrates as True.

Really irks the pea-brained human to not know from whence he comest, methinks...

Brad, it sounds like you're recognizing the limitations of ID as a "scientific" explanation. Their whole approach seems to be based more on a critique of some of the shortcomings of evolutionary theory rather than any kind of positive evidence. So they'll say stuff like, "sure, natural selection obviously operates on gene pools, but some things are too complex to have arisen from such a process . . ." And that's about all they've got! So in the world of ID proponents, some things evolve a la Darwin, but others like eyeballs and flagellae just show up, pre-fab and ready-to-go. That's patently ridiculous, imo.

---

MM, the problem with transitional fossils is that it seems there were periods when things changed very quickly, wiping out countless species and, within a few thousand years, others emerging. Most likely, these changes were precipitated by enormous cataclysms -- probably asteroids striking the earth, or maybe highly intensified solar phenomena. This makes for a small window of time to find transitional forms, if any. See the "Common Misconceptions" section of the wiki article you referenced for additional explanation on the "problem" of transitional fossils.

---

The larger question emerging from this discourse is how one might understand God's role in the creative process if evolutionary theory is true. Deists have no problem with this, as, for them, evolution is simply part of the functioning of the very nature that God created and endowed with certain laws to govern its unfolding. Christianity affirms at least this, but also recognizes God's intimate presence to and relationship with the creation as it unfolds. How this interplay between the divine and creation is conceptualized (especially in the light of evolution) is something theologians have written about at length during the past century. One of the most innovative approaches was that of Teilhard de Chardin, whose approach has been adopted by many theologians. I like it much myself. People like John F. Haught have also made significant inroads. JB has written much about him on this forum. Click here for a sample of his approach.

Brad, it sounds like you're recognizing the limitations of ID as a "scientific" explanation.

Yes indeed. I think the best ID is likely to come up with is some sort of statistical probability. We might find a number of inexplicable things that, when taken as a whole (perhaps we see some type of pattern emerge on a scale that is very large), suggest an intelligent influence from outside of normal nature. But this is the kind of stuff that is not likely seen under the short-term, fine-grained microscope of the normal scientific process. Just as one must have a sample of billions of atoms of a particular element in order to be able to deduce what the half-life of that element is (at least within any one person�s lifetime), so it is likely that only through many centuries (or millennia) of scientific inquiry would there be the chance to find enough impenetrable anomalies to give ID a statistical probability.

All I can say is that if I were an honest and devoted scientist who was committed to discovering the truth, no matter where it lead, I would try to keep from collapsing my mind and attitudes (and imagination!) by becoming pulled into a supposed territorial struggle between science and creationists. Surely science does a disservice to itself if it adopts Gestapo-like tactics and defends itself as if it were an ideology that must be forced down people�s throats and not a pursuit that can be grasped through reason alone. Physician heal thyself! This is exactly what they suppose Creationists to be. (And I�m not saying that some of them aren�t.)

One of the most innovative approaches was that of Teilhard de Chardin, whose approach has been adopted by many theologians.

Is there a particular book or article by him that you recommend, Phil?

Brad, see this link for a sample of his foundational work, The Phenomenon of Man.

I think I'll start a new thread on Teilhard to discuss his views, as there's much to like, but a few problem areas (that don't really negate the main thrust, however).

Thanks, Phil. I just picked it up at Amazon.com used for three bucks.

[My two-bits in parentheses]

- Brad, I'm trying to honor "fair use" policies re. copyright here, so I've left the links and your comments. Sorry ol' chap.

quote:

Intelligent Design without the Bible - Part I
by Deepak Chopra

1. [I think that�s a great point about the "leap" to DNA. It will be interesting to see if information theory or any other theory is ever able to explain how DNA came about�or prove how it couldn�t have evolved on its own. My hunch is that those billions of years after the Big Bang may not have been so vacant. It�s just that whatever pre-cursory or transitional forms to life and DNA may not have been preserved. But if so, it is strange that we would not find these same precursors and transitional forms developing from scratch even now. We ought to clearly see this process undergoing somewhere in the environment. The odd thing (at least in my opinion) is that DNA is everywhere and in everything and we are left with nothing (as far as I know) that gives a hint of how DNA itself evolved or could have evolved.]

2. [Do negative mutations simply die off? Maybe I don�t understand his question.]

3. [I think that�s a good question. Crocodiles have been around for a long, long time and apparently virtually unchanged. In chaos theory there are things called attractors. At least one of these types of attractors, I think, is a stable point toward which chaos, randomness, and evolution (in this instance) would tend. No doubt any an all crocodiles are still under selective pressure and do undergo minor changes here and there, perhaps especially in isolated populations. But there may be something about their niche in the environment which always scupts their body shape and behavior toward pretty much what a crocodile is now.]

5. [There does seem, at least in my opinion, that there is some "will" or force driving evolution. But can evolution be shown to be able to do what it does without the input of any hidden, unknown, or outside energy or information? Inquiring minds what to know!]

6. [Perhaps a lot of points like this in regard to ID don�t have much to say in terms of hard science, but have much to say in terms of the skill, imagination, intelligence, and desire of a designer.

8.[I find that to be an intriguing point. There very well could be an intelligence shaping life on Earth via evolution and natural selection�and this could have been put in at the start. There could be hidden templates and niches, pre-made, toward which evolution would naturally flow.]

I had to post this bit which I found in connection with that other bit. I at least admire Mallika Chopra�s honesty. But "Democrats vs. Liberals?" What planet would that be on?

quote:

We live in a world which has extreme points of view. Blue vs. Red, Muslims vs. Jews, Conservatives vs. Liberals, North vs. South, Hindus vs. Muslims, Democrats vs. Liberals, the list goes on and on. We hold on to our point of view with such passion that sometimes we cannot hear what others have to say. For me, I just have to hear George Bush open his mouth and I already disagree with him. I don't even give him a fair chance.

Some responses to Chopra in addition to Brad's.

1. The theory of evolution has nothing to say about how DNA came about.

2. Because the negative mutants probably weren't born or didn't leave offspring. (D'oh! )

3. Populations quit "evolving" when they're adapted to their environment.

5. We are intelligent because (in terms of evolution) it has survival advantages.

6. Because that's what they're genetically programmed to do.

8. They don't.

This guy doesn't really know much about science, does he?

----

Here's what the ID people need to consider -- that every living thing that supposedly was zapped on the earth ready-made (or with parts pre-fab) nonetheless now replicate themselves genetically. Everything! So if living creatures can do that now, then why could they have not developed the capacity to do so over time through processes that selected for those genes?

Case closed!

Here's what the ID people need to consider -- that every living thing that supposedly was zapped on the earth ready-made (or with parts pre-fab) nonetheless now replicate themselves genetically. Everything! So if living creatures can do that now, then why could they have not developed the capacity to do so over time through processes that selected for those genes?

It was my understanding that the main thrust of ID (or at least one interpretation of it) was that it is a theory (hypothesis, if you will) that is trying to account for apparent features in nature (bacterial flagellum) that natural selection could not account for; that ID is the effect of a Creator perhaps doing some extra-Darwinian tinkering here and there (perhaps at some crucial points in order to overcome stuff like irreducible complexity), but that otherwise natural selection and genetics was running the show. I didn�t think it was considered as a wholesale replacement for natural selection a la pre-fab units that then never change.

What ID would have to be suggesting is that certain segments of DNA could not have come about through the usual selection, but would have had to have been inserted into the molecular strand by the "designer" (whom they disingeniously say need not be God . . . could be an alien, etc.) because those segments could never have been developed through natural selection. Once the segments were in place and the genome had thus been "upgraded," then continuing selection could improve the tissue or whatever, right? That's what I hear.

But suppose it can later be demonstrated through genetic mapping, new fossil evidence, computer models, a better understanding of DNA, etc. how a selection process could have occurred? What then? ID would recede to the next "gap" or rhetorical position. It's always "explanation of the gaps," at best, and nothing remotely close to a "scientific" theory. Increasingly, I'm not even inclined to consider it a philosophical position, as it doesn't even ground itself in sound philosophical inferences or principles. It's not teleological like Teilhard or the process philosophers; it's just really trying to say that God must have had a direct hand in the creation . . . creationism v. 2.0. And, Brad, if you really look into who's pushing this stuff, you'll see that it's Christian evangelicals and fundamentalists who can't see evolution as anything but a "Godless philosophy" that contradicts their literal view of the Genesis account of creation.

But suppose it can later be demonstrated through genetic mapping, new fossil evidence, computer models, a better understanding of DNA, etc. how a selection process could have occurred? What then? ID would recede to the next "gap" or rhetorical position.

I dunno. I don't think you're giving it quite enough credit. If I get time, and if I maintain interest, I may read a couple books this winter and then report back. Reading a quick bit here and there, I think the fundamentalists (and others concerned about the truth) have a point about science philosophizing above and beyond just the science of it. Natural selection could very well be a "set it and forget it" natural process that runs on its own and thus, within the system, one could say there is no direct purpose driving the process. But to call then call nature and existence itself purposeless is to delve into philosophy and way past what science can tell us. So at the very least, hopefully this ID controversy will help rein in the scientism. It would also be considered an educational success if the scientific and the philosophical parts of the equation were noticed and noted.

The below is from this pdf:

quote:

Darwin did two things: he showed that evolution was a fact contradicting scriptural legends of creation, and that its cause, natural selection, was automatic with no room for divine guidance or design.5 Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind.

My question, Phil, would be if the Designer had no hand in evolution then, as the above paragraph states, man would then be the result of a purposeless process. An accident. But that clearly doesn't jibe with Christianity. So how do you resolve that?

- probably my last post on this topic -

. . . I think the fundamentalists (and others concerned about the truth) have a point about science philosophizing above and beyond just the science of it.

Acknowledged. That does take place sometimes, but it doesn't follow that this discredits the validity of the theory of evolution, nor does it warrant considering ID an equally valid explanation.

Natural selection could very well be a "set it and forget it" natural process that runs on its own and thus, within the system, one could say there is no direct purpose driving the process. But to call then call nature and existence itself purposeless is to delve into philosophy and way past what science can tell us.

I agree. But that doesn't mean the "scientific theory" of evolution is a "Godless philosophy," only that the philosophizing that some (not many, btw) are doing is so.

So at the very least, hopefully this ID controversy will help rein in the scientism. It would also be considered an educational success if the scientific and the philosophical parts of the equation were noticed and noted.

It's gotten everyone talking about these matters, but I don't think the ID has scored many points among scientists -- even good, Christian ones.

quote:

Darwin did two things: he showed that evolution was a fact contradicting scriptural legends of creation, and that its cause, natural selection, was automatic with no room for divine guidance or design.5 Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind.

I read a bit from that pdf and am appalled by the author's lack of understanding concerning biology and evolutionary theory. It's not biology's job to respond to questions of philosophical purpose; might as well ask a chemist to what purpose hydrogen and oxygen combine to form water. They just do so because of the lawfulness of their nature, and it's the same with plants and animals adapting to the environment. It bugs the author that biologists don't speak of purpose but instead describe evolution in impersonal terms where chance factors have significance. Well, that's what science sees and documents, and if it tries to formulate a theory that goes beyond what the data can support, it has ceased to be science and has become philosophy.

I might add, here (without boasting, I hope), that I do have some understanding of these matters, having completed all the course work for a Ph. D. in biology with over 70 hrs. of academic credits that touched on one or many aspects of evolutionary theory. I doubt that some of the ID people I've read have even had one course on the topic -- or, if they did, they didn't understand what was being said.

About the quote above, then. First, Darwin would disagree with this characterization. But as far as the scientific perspective is concerned, it's correct to say that evolution contradicts a "literal" view of the Genesis account (which is precisely why fundamentalists are going bonkers about it). It's also correct to say that human beings have come about from the same processes of selection that gave rise to other animal forms. It's not correct to say that this is "purposeless," for evolution has no interest in that question beyond adaptive competence. Once again, the IDers are wanting science to sound more philosophical, but it wouldn't be science if it did.

My question, Phil, would be if the Designer had no hand in evolution then, as the above paragraph states, man would then be the result of a purposeless process. An accident. But that clearly doesn't jibe with Christianity. So how do you resolve that?

It doesn't follow from any of the above that the Creator had no hand in evolution. Evolution can neither prove nor disprove that. Nor does it follow that the emergence of creation is "an accident," not even using the most strident scientific standards. The so-called "accidental" forces operate within a realm of lawfulness that is an a priori "given" and which constrain the kinds of variations that can become adaptive. Secondly, selection is a process of competition for greater adaptability, and that's hardly an accidental process or direction. It's no "accident" that an organism is adapted to its environment; e.g., we are resistant to countless microbes because we have lived through a long process of selection that has the consequence of outfitting the race with a robust immune system. So one could rightly speak of a purpose (but not a philosophical one) when describing how selection brought kept tweaking the immune system. You see what I mean about adaptations and purposefulness?

And so it is with humans, as our race found its adaptive line moving in the direction of greater intelligence and communication, this adaptive "purpose" also selected for a wide variety of characteristics from opposable thumbs to vocal cords and larger brains. There's a certain randomness to the mutations that allowed new variations to emerge, but the perpetuation of these in a population falls under the province of natural selection -- e.g., adaptive purposes.

Re. the Creator's role in all this, then . . . I've already mentioned a few things in posts above, but will summarize briefly:

A. The Creator created the matter and lawfulness that's at stake. The deist position stops here and goes no further, but this is already a lot, especially if we view this lawfulness as including an intrinsic dynamism to "agitate" for greater complexity and consciousness.

B. Theist positions like Teilhard and the process philosophers go further by positing a God who is intimately present to and influencing creation through love, appealing to the levels of freedom in creation to move in the direction intended by the Creator. All sorts of possibilities for describing this interplay have been put forward, some of which are more compatible with Christian doctrine than others.

C. Somewhat related to the above is the concept of morphogenetic fields, which posits a kind of non-energetic, formative influence on the "shape" creation takes. This is gaining in credibility and it's just a short stretch from there to Aristotle's and Aquinas' understanding of "form," as Arraj has already written.

In short, there's no reason to resort to ID as a way to salvage a place for God in the creation -- which is the main reason why the movement has any traction (again, it's not being pushed by scientists). If ID is to have any credibility, it must present its case using more than rhetorical and inferential language and it should attempt to connect better with both scientific and philosophical approaches. Alas, I don't see this happening anytime soon, as the people who are excited about it seem to be totally lacking in imagination and scientific understanding.

In short, there's no reason to resort to ID as a way to salvage a place for God in the creation

Well, that may be your last post on the topic, but it still seems that in refuting ID (or, rather, giving total power to natural selection) we also refute God�s hand in specifically creating humans. Either nature is set into motion and is left to create what it will according only to the influences of survival and adaptability (and therefore humans appear only by accident), or there is some influence by God whether during evolution (via tinkering, which ID is arguably trying to detect) or before evolution via natural attractors or things built into the system like morphogenetic fields. Or maybe this influence is all done on the epigenetic level via Grace. Or maybe, ultimately, there is some long-term uber-survival advantage to the creation of a human type of intelligence and therefore the whole process itself is geared toward the development of intelligence, or that the process of natural selection simply leads to greater and greater complexity and therefore intelligence. And this intelligence will be eventually be put into a package of sorts, into "man", and "man" would end up looking and being pretty much the same type of creature due to the effects of parallel evolution which made a wolf in Europe and a marsupial Tasmanian "wolf" in Australia. Therefore to say that nature is in its current form is to say (via "agitation" or whatever") that man was created, even if a few of the details (four legs vs. two legs) may have been left to chance.

Brad, did you read the other points in my post, especially A, B and C? Where do you see my explanations limiting God's hand? And how does it follow that to refute ID refutes God's hand in specifically creating humans? I don't follow at all.

In short, there's no reason to resort to ID as a way to salvage a place for God in the creation -- which is the main reason why the movement has any traction (again, it's not being pushed by scientists).

I agree with you because of some of the points I�ve made and some of your points in A, B, and C. God needn�t have tinkered with the genetic code of the bacterial flagellum in order for that feature to have appeared. In some way ID need only back up and view nature itself as evidence of intelligent design. They need only view nature as an immense and complex operating system or computer program that is running and producing all kinds of interesting data. One can wonder about the Programmer who booted the world with this software, but that is all one can do because, for whatever reason, the Programmer isn�t busy tinkering with the code. It was considered good enough (if not perfect) to begin with so that no upgrade was needed.

But the Programmer could be tinkering with things here and there and it might be impossible to detect it. Surely a Miracle or Grace is one of these ways of "tinkering". And any tinkering done on the quantum level, especially concerning mutations would be completely hidden and undetectable � and quite effective. Small changes can produce big effects.

And really, I suppose it depends what one means it means, but if one looks at a bacterial flagellum and doesn�t see the intelligence of a Creator, at least somewhere up the line, then one ought to check one�s pulse.

Not only "somewhere up the line," but right now in our midst.

BTW, there are evolutionary models to explain that flagellum. See this article, for example, or this one propose hypothetical evolutionary scenarios. Just fyi, there . . .

It's been awhile since we visited this topic, but with the movie, "Expelled," out and gaining crowds, I thought this article from NRO timely. I especially liked this part:

quote:

Trying to wish away valid scientific findings because you believe that they imperil religious or ethical beliefs is a fool�s errand on many levels. Augustine�s guidance from The Literal Meaning of Genesis is quite relevant here:

"Even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipse of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn."