The noun, design, in the Discovery Institute's brainchild, intelligent design, describes the act of planning and skillfully fashioning material things. Design is modified by the adjective, intelligent, to convey the sense that a high mental capacity is at work. The material world is touted by ID promoters as "irreducibly complex", such that it could have never evolved from primitive states into intricate states. Rather, an intelligent designer, the wondrous supernatural being of the cosmos, created all that exists as is. To refute the scientific theory of evolution, intelligent design advocates claim that the cosmos is too complex to result from natural causes and chance, and that a designer (guess who) must have been involved.
The paragraph above shows that I get the idea of intelligent design. At least, I think I do. What I can't know is whether or not a non-material being preceded material existence, which would be necessary for there to be an intelligent designer. It could be. I just can't tell if it's so. Neither can anyone else. In the material world, factual knowledge of causes other than natural is just not possible. I can never know if an intelligent designer exists or not. I wouldn't bet on ID in the horse race of real discovery that we call science, because ID never arrives at the starting gate.
The concept, chance, is meaningless to the material world, except for humans. The material world doesn't operate by "chance". It is not a natural law, at least as far as I know. Chance is a human explanation for nature's possibilities. To say that something could not have occurred from natural causes belies its very existence. It's nonsense. To say something is improbable is more accurate than to say it could not occur by chance. To say something is improbable, considering the millions and millions of years (a really long time) and the infinite interactions and circumstances available for natural causes to fashion material existence (a whole lot of chances) is more unlikely than to say things have evolved. Under the circumstances, to say anything is "irreducibly complex" is nonsense as well. Saying that all things are capable of unlimited differentiation is equally nonsense. All "irreducibly complex" conveys is that evolution is not fully understood, a human failing, not nature's. Science has challenges, not dead-end ideas.
Let's look now at the concept of design. Symmetry, geometric motifs, functionality, decorativeness, coherence, balance, unity, composition, rhythm and harmony are all elements of design. There are yet other elements of design according to your fancy. The cosmos exhibits design through these enumerated elements and others. Except for humans, no other consciousness of design exists. A molecule has design. A snowflake has design. A diatom has design. A geode has design. Design does not require a designer. To quote Louis J. Halle (Out of Chaos, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1977, p121.):
"The structure of some aggregations (of molecules), their formal design, may give them an advantage in competition (for such molecules) over other aggregations with more imperfect structures. So natural selection would get underway even at this primitive stage, favoring the proliferation of what may become, with time, increasingly harmonious and elaborate designs. The equivalent of the Parthenon may at last emerge, then, from the random collision of atoms and molecules, taking the form of the living cell."
The idea of intelligent design is unworthy of study at any educational level, either as science or philosophy. It's a conundrum. It is not the grist of science. It's self-fulfilling discourse.
Showing posts with label Intelligent Design. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Intelligent Design. Show all posts
Thursday, August 04, 2005
Friday, May 20, 2005
Fanning the Fires
The following, captioned "Intelligent Design", appeared in the KC Star on May 19, 2005:
For all those apologists who claim there is no controversy about evolution, either keep drinking the Kool-Aid or read Francis Hitching's book, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong or Michael Denton's book, Evolution: a Theory in Crisis.
Evolutionists have fobbed on us all kinds of lies (Java Man, Peking Man, Nebraska Man, Haeckel's drawings, primordial soup, etc.) and leaps of faith (amino acids can easily group into proteins, scales can easily turn into feathers, morality evolved easily from animal culture, etc.). I say keep the debates alive.
John Lagle
Kansas City
It is beyond me why the Star prints such tripe. Perhaps, exposing the letter's fantasies will get the Star to quit printing such junk or immunize readers from the letter's distractions. More than likely, nothing will happen. Anyway, here goes, point-by-point:
Apologists(?) If one doesn't accept the idea of a "controversy about evolution", how are they tagged "apologists". People who see no controversy between religion and evolution need not apologize.
Drink the Kool-Aid or read(?) I suppose the "Kool-Aid" reference suggests that either one blindly follow authority down a perilous path to perdition or be saved by the grace of the written word. Well, let's look at the texts cited. The first, Hitching's The Neck of the Giraffe, is discussed in http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hitching.html, thusly:
Research on Hitching turned up the following: Hitching is basically a sensational TV scriptwriter and has no scientific credentials. In The Neck of the Giraffe, he claimed to be a member of the Royal Archaeological Institute, but an inquiry to that institute said he was not. He implied in the "Acknowledgements" of The Neck of the Giraffe that paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould had helped in the writing of the book, but upon inquiry Gould said he did not know him and had no information about him. Hitching also implied that his book had been endorsed by Richard Dawkins, but upon inquiry Dawkins stated: "I know nothing at all about Francis Hitching. If you are uncovering the fact that he is a charlatan, good for you. His book, The Neck of the Giraffe, is one of the silliest and most ignorant I have read for years."
The seconded text named as a source of enlightenment, Denton's Evolution: a Theory in Crisis is discussed in http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/denton.html, thusly:
Evolutionary pattern and process stands vindicated from Denton's assault. It does not win out by default, being implausible but socially established and lacking a superior alternative - rather, it is a plausible process with no contenders, and is backed up strongly by empirical evidence. There is debate within evolutionist circles about systematics, tempo, and the roles of genetic drift and preadaptation, and still plenty of work to be done fleshing out stories about the development of certain structures, but none of this in any way puts macroevolution and the pattern of non-teleological common descent in a crisis situation. Rather, they are indicators that evolutionary biology is still a field which offers work to be done, just like any other field.
In a later book, Nature's Destiny, Denton himself refuted his contentions in Evolution. See
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho29.htm.
Lies and Leaps(?) In the letter's second paragraph, it is alleged that evolutionists have "fobbed" us with "lies…and leaps of faith". Again, point-by-point:
1. Java Man. See the following Web sites: http://www.eastjava.com/books/mystery/html/search.html and http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/java.html.
A recent book, Java Man: How Two Geologists Changed Our Understanding of Human Evolution, University of Chicago Press, has the e-word in its title. No lie there.
2. Peking Man. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/peking.html.
3. Nebraska Man. See: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html. The following quote from this URL is not that of an apologist.
"Nebraska Man should not be considered an embarrassment to science. The scientists involved were mistaken, and somewhat incautious, but not incompetent or dishonest. The whole episode was actually an excellent example of the scientific process working at its best. Given a problematic identification, scientists investigated further, found data which falsified their earlier ideas, and promptly abandoned them (a marked contrast to the creationist approach)."
4. Haeckel's drawings. See http://zygote.swarthmore.edu/evo5.html. The following quote from this site shows the ability of science to police its ranks, another contrast to the creationist or intelligent design approach.
"Interestingly, this knowledge appears to be "old hat" among German biologists. Haeckel's drawings were not trusted (see Goldschmidt, 1956), and Haeckel was accused of scientific fraud by a university court in Jena, where he worked and by other embryologists, as well (see Hamblin, 1997; Richardson et al., 1997b)."
5. Primordial Soup. See http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SUA02/primordial_soup.html.
Whaddaya know! A laboratory trial replicates what could have occurred on early Earth.
6. Amino acids. Leap of faith: "Amino acids can easily group into proteins?" Basic chemistry tells us that proteins are composed of amino-acid molecules. Without the grouping of amino-acid molecules into proteins, easy or not, we'd still be in the soup primordial.
7. Scales into feathers. Leap of faith: Scales can easily turn into feathers? Perhaps scales and feathers have both evolved since the reptile to bird transformation. How does easy matter?
8. Morality and animal culture. Leap of faith: morality evolved easily from animal culture? Linking morality to animal culture transcends evolutionary biology, but if animals have culture, couldn't they also have morals?
Rather than keeping the debates alive, perhaps it would be better to let leaping dogs lie. As for making points about the "controversy", the letter fails. Scientists have better pursuits.
For all those apologists who claim there is no controversy about evolution, either keep drinking the Kool-Aid or read Francis Hitching's book, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong or Michael Denton's book, Evolution: a Theory in Crisis.
Evolutionists have fobbed on us all kinds of lies (Java Man, Peking Man, Nebraska Man, Haeckel's drawings, primordial soup, etc.) and leaps of faith (amino acids can easily group into proteins, scales can easily turn into feathers, morality evolved easily from animal culture, etc.). I say keep the debates alive.
John Lagle
Kansas City
It is beyond me why the Star prints such tripe. Perhaps, exposing the letter's fantasies will get the Star to quit printing such junk or immunize readers from the letter's distractions. More than likely, nothing will happen. Anyway, here goes, point-by-point:
Apologists(?) If one doesn't accept the idea of a "controversy about evolution", how are they tagged "apologists". People who see no controversy between religion and evolution need not apologize.
Drink the Kool-Aid or read(?) I suppose the "Kool-Aid" reference suggests that either one blindly follow authority down a perilous path to perdition or be saved by the grace of the written word. Well, let's look at the texts cited. The first, Hitching's The Neck of the Giraffe, is discussed in http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hitching.html, thusly:
Research on Hitching turned up the following: Hitching is basically a sensational TV scriptwriter and has no scientific credentials. In The Neck of the Giraffe, he claimed to be a member of the Royal Archaeological Institute, but an inquiry to that institute said he was not. He implied in the "Acknowledgements" of The Neck of the Giraffe that paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould had helped in the writing of the book, but upon inquiry Gould said he did not know him and had no information about him. Hitching also implied that his book had been endorsed by Richard Dawkins, but upon inquiry Dawkins stated: "I know nothing at all about Francis Hitching. If you are uncovering the fact that he is a charlatan, good for you. His book, The Neck of the Giraffe, is one of the silliest and most ignorant I have read for years."
The seconded text named as a source of enlightenment, Denton's Evolution: a Theory in Crisis is discussed in http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/denton.html, thusly:
Evolutionary pattern and process stands vindicated from Denton's assault. It does not win out by default, being implausible but socially established and lacking a superior alternative - rather, it is a plausible process with no contenders, and is backed up strongly by empirical evidence. There is debate within evolutionist circles about systematics, tempo, and the roles of genetic drift and preadaptation, and still plenty of work to be done fleshing out stories about the development of certain structures, but none of this in any way puts macroevolution and the pattern of non-teleological common descent in a crisis situation. Rather, they are indicators that evolutionary biology is still a field which offers work to be done, just like any other field.
In a later book, Nature's Destiny, Denton himself refuted his contentions in Evolution. See
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho29.htm.
Lies and Leaps(?) In the letter's second paragraph, it is alleged that evolutionists have "fobbed" us with "lies…and leaps of faith". Again, point-by-point:
1. Java Man. See the following Web sites: http://www.eastjava.com/books/mystery/html/search.html and http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/java.html.
A recent book, Java Man: How Two Geologists Changed Our Understanding of Human Evolution, University of Chicago Press, has the e-word in its title. No lie there.
2. Peking Man. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/peking.html.
3. Nebraska Man. See: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html. The following quote from this URL is not that of an apologist.
"Nebraska Man should not be considered an embarrassment to science. The scientists involved were mistaken, and somewhat incautious, but not incompetent or dishonest. The whole episode was actually an excellent example of the scientific process working at its best. Given a problematic identification, scientists investigated further, found data which falsified their earlier ideas, and promptly abandoned them (a marked contrast to the creationist approach)."
4. Haeckel's drawings. See http://zygote.swarthmore.edu/evo5.html. The following quote from this site shows the ability of science to police its ranks, another contrast to the creationist or intelligent design approach.
"Interestingly, this knowledge appears to be "old hat" among German biologists. Haeckel's drawings were not trusted (see Goldschmidt, 1956), and Haeckel was accused of scientific fraud by a university court in Jena, where he worked and by other embryologists, as well (see Hamblin, 1997; Richardson et al., 1997b)."
5. Primordial Soup. See http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SUA02/primordial_soup.html.
Whaddaya know! A laboratory trial replicates what could have occurred on early Earth.
6. Amino acids. Leap of faith: "Amino acids can easily group into proteins?" Basic chemistry tells us that proteins are composed of amino-acid molecules. Without the grouping of amino-acid molecules into proteins, easy or not, we'd still be in the soup primordial.
7. Scales into feathers. Leap of faith: Scales can easily turn into feathers? Perhaps scales and feathers have both evolved since the reptile to bird transformation. How does easy matter?
8. Morality and animal culture. Leap of faith: morality evolved easily from animal culture? Linking morality to animal culture transcends evolutionary biology, but if animals have culture, couldn't they also have morals?
Rather than keeping the debates alive, perhaps it would be better to let leaping dogs lie. As for making points about the "controversy", the letter fails. Scientists have better pursuits.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
