Must design be optimal in order to be the product of intelligence?
In the battle over Creationism, Darwinian Evolution and Intelligent Design, there is often more heat than light. Rhetorical and political aims take center stage on all sides and the result is endless confusion on the part of those trying to understand what the issues actually entail. Often meaningful debate gets drowned out by attacks on one's political/theological affiliations (or lack thereof). William Dembski is no stranger to this, as his lectures and writings have generated a good bit of needless controversy. However, his book "The Design Revolution" is one of the clearest defenses of the validity of ID theory in print and deserves a fair reading by anyone seeking to enter into the fray.
Particularly insightful was his section on the difference between intelligent design and "optimal" design. Here is Dembski's take on the subject:
The word INTELLIGENT has two meanings. It can simply refer to the activity of an intelligent agent, even one that acts stupidly. On the other hand, it can mean that an intelligent agent acted with skill and mastery. Failure to draw this distinction results in confusion about intelligent design. This was brought home to me in a radio interview. Skeptic Michael Shermer and paleontologist Donald Prothero were interviewing me on National Public Radio. As the discussion unfolded, I was surprised to find that how they used the phrase “intelligent design” differed significantly from how the intelligent design community uses it.Shermer and Prothero understood the word intelligent in “intelligent design” in the sense of clever or masterful design. They therefore presumed that intelligent design must entail optimal design. The intelligent design community, on the other hand, understands the intelligent in “intelligent design” simply as referring to intelligent agency (irrespective of skill or mastery) and thus separates intelligent design from optimality of design.
[I]ntelligent design needs to be distinguished from apparent design on the one hand and optimal design on the other. Intelligent design stresses that the design is due to an actual intelligence, but it leaves entirely open the attributes or qualities of that intelligence.Apparent design, by contrast, asserts that the design is not actual. For instance, Richard Dawkins begins his book The Blind Watchmaker with the quotation, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” Dawkins then requires an additional three hundred pages to argue that this design is only an appearance and is not actual. Apparent design therefore constitutes a negation of intelligent design.Many biologists sidestep intelligent design and the evidence for it by shuttling between apparent design and optimal design. To argue for apparent design, they simply lay out the case for pure, unaided Darwinism. To argue against intelligent design, they substitute a handy strawman, identifying intelligent design with optimal design. To render intelligent design as implausible as possible, they then define optimal design as perfect design that is best with respect to every possible criterion of optimization. (Anything less, presumably, would not be worthy of an intelligent designer.) Since actual designs always involve tradeoffs and compromise, such globally-optimal-in-every-respect designs cannot exist except in an idealized realm (sometimes called a “Platonic heaven”) far removed from the actual designs of this world...Assimilating all biological design to either apparent or optimal design avoids the central question that needs to be answered, namely, whether there actually is design in biological systems regardless of what additional attributes they possess (like optimality). The automobiles that roll off the assembly plants in Detroit are intelligently designed in the sense that actual human intelligences are responsible for them. Nevertheless, even if we think Detroit manufactures the best cars in the world, it would still be wrong to say that they are optimally designed. Nor would it be correct to say that they are only apparently designed (and certainly not for the reason that they fail to be optimally designed). Is there an even minimally sensible reason for insisting that design theorists must demonstrate optimal design in nature? Critics of intelligent design (e.g., the late Stephen Jay Gould) often suggest that any purported cosmic designer would only design optimally. But that is a theological rather than a scientific claim.Although attributing intelligent design to human artifacts is uncontroversial, eyebrows are quickly raised when intelligent design is attributed to biological systems. Applied to biology, intelligent design maintains that a designing intelligence is required to account for the complex, information-rich structures in living systems. At the same time, it refuses to speculate about the nature of that designing intelligence. Whereas optimal design demands a perfectionistic designer who has to get everything just right, intelligent design fits our ordinary experience of design, which is conditioned by the needs of a situation, requires negotiation and tradeoffs, and therefore always falls short of some idealized global optimum....Indeed, there is no such thing as perfect design. Real designers strive for constrained optimization, which is something altogether different. As Henry Petroski, an engineer and historian at Duke University, aptly remarks in Invention by Design, “All design involves conflicting objectives and hence compromise, and the best designs will always be those that come up with the best compromise.” Constrained optimization is the art of compromise among conflicting objectives. This is what design is all about. To find fault with biological design because it misses some idealized optimum, as Gould regularly used to do, is simply gratuitous. Not knowing the objectives of the designer, Gould was in no position to say whether the designer proposed a faulty compromise among those objectives....In my public lectures, I’m frequently asked about the alleged suboptimal design of the human organism. At the top of the list...is the topsy-turvy arrangement of the human eye. The problem with the human eye, evolutionary biologists endlessly tell us, is that it has an inverted retina. Accordingly, the photoreceptors in the eye are oriented away from incoming light and situated behind nerves and blood vessels, which are said to obstruct the incoming light.In fact, there appear to be good functional reasons for this construction. A visual system needs three things: speed, sensitivity and resolution. Speed is unaffected by the inverse wiring. Resolution seems unaffected as well (save for a tiny blind spot, which the brain seems to work around without difficulty). Indeed, there is no evidence that the cephalopod retina of squids and octopuses, which is “correctly wired” by having receptors facing forward and nerves tucked behind, is any better at resolving objects in its visual field. As for sensitivity, however, it seems that there are good functional reasons for an inverted retina. Retinal cells require the most oxygen of any cells in the human body. But when do they require the most oxygen? Their oxygen requirement is maximal when incident light is minimal. Having a blood supply in front of the photoreceptors guarantees that the retinal cells will have the oxygen they need to be as sensitive as possible when incident light is minimal. (Some vertebrate eyes with inverted retinas are so sensitive that they can respond to single photons.)Now my point here is not that the human eye can’t be improved or is in some ultimate sense optimal. My point, rather, is that simply drawing attention to the inverted retina is not a reason to think that eyes with that structure are suboptimal. Indeed, there are no concrete proposals on the table for how the human eye might be improved that can also guarantee no loss in speed, sensitivity and resolution...Design is a matter of tradeoffs. There’s no question that we would like to add to or improve existing designs by conferring additional functionalities. It would be nice to have all the functionality of the human eye without a blind spot. It would be nice to have all the functionality of the respiratory and food-intake system as well as a reduced incidence of choking. It would be nice to have all the functionality of our backs and a decreased incidence of back pain. It would be nice to have all the functionality of the female pelvis along with easier delivery of children. It would be nice to have all the functionality of our jaws without wisdom teeth. But when the suboptimality objection is raised, invariably one finds only additional functionalities mentioned but no details about how they might be implemented. And with design, the devil is in the details.Yet even if such details were forthcoming, they would undercut not design as such but only its quality (i.e., its degree of excellence). And even here we have to be careful. Just because a design could be improved in the sense of increasing the functionality of some aspect of an organism, this does not mean that such an improvement would be beneficial within the wider ecosystem within which the organism finds itself. A functionality belonging to a predator might be vastly improvable, but it also might render the predator that much more dangerous to its prey and thereby drastically alter the balance of the ecosystem, conceivably to the detriment of the entire ecosystem. In criticizing design, biologists tend to place a premium on functionalities of individual organisms and see design as optimal to the degree that those individual functionalities are maximized. But higher-order designs of entire ecosystems might require lower-order designs of individual organisms to fall short of maximal function...Biology is, among other things, a drama. Interesting dramas require characters who are less than optimal in some respects. In fact, authors of human dramas often consciously design their characters with flaws and weaknesses. Would Hamlet be nearly as interesting if Shakespeare had not designed the play’s lead character to exhibit certain flaws and weaknesses, notably indecisiveness?I’m not saying that weaknesses or flaws in the design characteristics of organisms or ecosystems can be the basis for a design inference. Design inferences are drawn by identifying features of systems that are uniquely diagnostic of intelligence. At the same time, weaknesses or flaws in the design characteristics of organisms or ecosystems could be compatible with evolutionary changes guided by an intelligence. Such an evolutionary scenario—in which not every aspect of organisms taken in isolation is optimal—would not entail that any intelligence guiding evolutionary change is necessarily flawed...We’ve veered a long way from science, and for good reason. In arguing that nature couldn’t be designed because various biological systems are suboptimal, opponents of intelligent design have shifted the terms of the discussion from science to theology. In place of, How specifically can an existing structure be improved? the question instead becomes, Would any self-respecting deity really create a structure like that? Gould was a master of this bait-and-switch. For instance, in The Panda’s Thumb he wrote:If God had designed a beautiful machine to reflect his wisdom and power, surely he would not have used a collection of parts generally fashioned for other purposes.… Odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution—paths that a sensible God would never tread but that a natural process, constrained by history, follows perforce.Gould was criticizing here what’s called the panda’s “thumb,” a bony extrusion that helps the panda strip bamboo of its hard exterior and thus render the bamboo edible to the panda. (The panda’s thumb, which is an enlarged radial sesamoid, in fact serves the panda extremely well in rendering bamboo edible.)The first question that needs to be answered about the panda’s thumb, and indeed about any biological structure, is whether it displays clear marks of intelligence. The design theorist is not committed to every biological structure being designed. Naturalistic mechanisms like mutation and selection do operate in natural history to adapt organisms to their environments. Perhaps the panda’s thumb is such an adaptation. Nonetheless, naturalistic mechanisms are incapable of generating the highly specific, information-rich structures that pervade biology. Organisms display the hallmarks of intelligently engineered high-tech systems—information storage and transfer, functioning codes, sorting and delivery systems, self-regulation and feedback loops, signal-transduction circuitry—and everywhere, complex arrangements of mutually interdependent and well-fitted parts that work in concert to perform a function. Opponents of intelligent design are fond of equivocating, staging ad hominem attacks, slaying strawmen, making simplistic theological claims in the guise of science or simply stonewalling. What they are not fond of is squarely facing the astonishing evidence for intelligent design and seeking to refute it point by logical point.
[William A. Dembski, The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 57ff.]
Whatever one's personal thoughts on Dembski's political or theological outlook (being favorably disposed towards Ann Coulter certainly SHOULD give one pause, admittedly!), his presentation of the core claims of Intelligent Design and his defense of it against both anti-ID attacks and Creationist co-opting of it are well thought-out and deserve to be taken seriously by those who dismiss ID as legitimate.
If you enjoyed this article, you may also enjoy the following:
Young-earth, old-earth, creation, evolution...what does Genesis teach? (Part 1)
Young-earth, old-earth, creation, evolution...what does Genesis teach? (Part 2)
Young-earth, old-earth, creation, evolution...what does Genesis teach? (Part 3)
Young-earth, old-earth, creation, evolution...what does Genesis teach? (Part 4)
Young-earth, old-earth, creation, evolution...what does Genesis teach? (Part 5)
Comments
..So "Intelligent design" can be supported only by those people of faith who believe:
a) God is not perfect, and
b) God is not the only designer
Well, the hardest part for me.
is that we are to take a super complex problem (life) and say we dont really know so lets just use this imaginary figure we will call God and say he made it all in 7 days, honestly how much information did we have 6000 years ago to assume we can answer all these questions that we still cannot answer today.
riddle me that.
One problem with Dembski's case is that it doesn't supply a reasonable method of distinguishing evolution-produced complex specified information from agent-designed complex specified information. He draws the line based on degree of probability, but there is no bar to evolution producing CSI of any particular degree of improbability.
See Wes Elsberry's critique of Dembski's book, where he gives some specific scenarios for Dembski to distinguish between real-CSI and apparent-CSI at antievolution.org, "Critique of Detecting Design."
As for intelligent vs. optimal design--Dembski believes that the intelligent designer is omniscient and omnipotent, which would seem to require a further explanation for suboptimality in design. Appeal to Satan doesn't work since that's also a God-produced design. (Cue free will theodicy..)
Wow, yet another article attempting to deflect the arguement concerning ID as science. It cannot and has never produced empirical data via a repeatable testing process. Not science.
Dembski's only "thoughtful" in avoiding the actual issue, which is that almost all "poor design" is readily understood as due to the limitations of evolutionary processes, and none is demonstrably due to "design limitations."
Why is Archaeopteryx "poorly designed" compared with modern birds? There's only one good answer, which is that, as evolution predicts, a large evolution in lifestyle will take time, and transitional forms like archaeopteryx are only partly modified (in this case from terrestrial reptiles).
Dembski's completely unable to explain why archaeopteryx is "poorly designed" as a partly modified earth-bound dinosaur, as there is no reason for "design" to start from such an unpromising form. Evolution has no choice but to start with legs and turn them into wings. How weird that the "designer" mimicked evolution--or just perhaps one would more rightly conclude that organisms having the marks of evolution (all of them) evolved.
Glen Davidson
tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
The challenge for Dembski and other IDers is to propose a way to recognize design, and so far it's been an epic fail. We have plausible natural mechanisms to explain biological diversity and DNA complexity just fine.
The ID movement's primary goal seems to be to get ID allowed into public schools, but they're skipping the whole part about doing the science first.
I don't fault them for trying to come up with a way that would demonstrate their ideas. I don't think it will pan out, but they're free to try. I do fault them for trying to get their ideas taught as science when it hasn't become science, and I fault them for whining about how they're not recognized as having done the science, because clearly they haven't.
Badguy, seriously, did you even bother reading?
Dembski's latest book, "The End of Christianity: Finding a Good God in an Evil World," demonstrates where Dembski is coming from. He is not a scientist, but a religious apologist. His "science" is merely the disguised tip of a Wedge, trying to open the schoolroom door to sectarian scientific illiteracy. As others have noted, intelligent design creationism is a pseudoscience, not actual science: No theory, no hypothesis, no experiment possible on its invisible supernatural designer.
[ID] is showing severe cracks scientifically in that the supposedly irreducibly complex structures are, increasingly, yielding up their secrets, and we can see how they have been arrived at by a stepwise mechanism that’s quite comfortable from an evolutionary perspective. So intelligent design is turning out to be – and probably could have been predicted to be – a God-of-the-gaps theory, which inserts God into places that science hasn’t quite yet explained, and then science comes along and explains them.
I think I would also say intelligent design is not only bad science; it’s questionable theology. It implies that God was an underachiever and started this evolutionary process and then realized it wasn’t going to quite work and had to keep stepping in all along the way to fix it. That seems like a limitation of God’s omniscience.
- Francis Collins, May 4, 2009
Here's an interesting thought to chew on: "intelligent" implies "capable of learning". Is God capable of learning?
I'm curious, is it ignorance or intellectual dishonesty that drives anti-IDers to continue labeling it creationism?
I have a great deal of respect for Collins. But I don't know if he's accurately portrayed ID. He seems to feel that ID = Irreducible Complexity. But Irr.Comp. is only one possible subset of ID theory...which Dembski specifically addresses in this book.
Darin, I would dispute your premise. Learning implies gaining knowledge that one does not previously possess. If God possesses all knowledge, then there is no learning that can take place. But this is a discussion for another time, perhaps. :)
"Rhetorical and political aims take center stage on all sides"
What takes center stage on the evolution side is evidence. Evolution has tons of it. Read "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry Coyne (published in 2009).
On the intelligent design side what takes center stage are the most stupid people in human history. Intelligent design are just fancy words that mean supernatural magic. Only retards believe in magic, and of course there isn't one shred of evidence for it.
Only an idiot would invoke Dembski, who is well known for his compulsive lying and breathtaking stupidity. Of course Dembski has contributed nothing to biology. He's a professional liar and he knows he's a professional liar, as are the other retards who work for the Discovery Institute (which has never discovered anything).
James-Michael Smith, I'm very sorry but you're a moron. Since you know zero about science, why don't you shut up about it. Better yet, go educate yourself and find out why everyone laughs at subhumans like yourself.
"The design theorist is not committed to every biological structure being designed."
Translation: "The MAGIC theorist is not committed to every biological structure being MAGICALLY CREATED."
THE STUPIDITY BURNS.
James-Michael says: "I'm curious, is it ignorance or intellectual dishonesty that drives anti-IDers to continue labeling it creationism?"
James-Michael, you're not just stupid. You're not just insane. You're a compulsive liar, just like the retarded Dembski.
Intelligent design means magical creation. It's pure creationism. Lying idiots like yourself don't explain who the designer is because you know the designer is the MAGIC MAN.
I don't care about your stupidity mister. You will always have a small defective brain. That's not your fault. But I can't forgive your dishonesty. Also, I have to wonder why a liar like yourself thinks anyone is going to believe you. Why repeat the same old lies that have already been refuted many years ago? What's the point of lying when everyone knows you're a liar?
Just shut up James-Michael. Go read your worthless Bible and shut up. Or expect to be ridiculed and laughed at for the rest of your pathetic wasted life.
Thanks for the thoughtful rational comments, Bobxxx. You're a model of intellectual discourse.
You're a model of religious insanity. Go suck on something moron. You belong in Iran.
Hey moron, are you going to read Coyne's book?
Why don't you read it. Then you will know why everyone laughs at your hopeless stupidity.
Of course you won't read it. You're too lazy and it would make your brain hurt. So you will just continue cutting and pasting childish nonsense from professional liars.
You really do belong in Iran.
Tell us, Mr. World-Class Idiot, why you think your use of "design" doesn't mean "magic".
Let's hear it moron. Explain why I shouldn't call you a compulsive liar.
"Why don't you go suck on something moron"
That made me chuckle I must admit. Thanks for livening up my morning. :)
bobxxxx - are you actually a creationist trying to make science look bad?
I think bobxxxx needs a hug.
ID cannot be debunked by anything because it is a religious belief.
Evolution is visible. We see it happening. End of story. Please give it up.
sigh...Jay, please tell me what you think ID actually claims.
"Evolution" is not in question by any ID proponent (as it is by many Creationists). Behe's latest book "The Edge of Evolution" makes this crystal clear. What's in question is the nature and extent of the evolutionary mechanism of mutation/selection and its ability to generate CSI.
I agree, Bobxxx does need a hug. :)
Dembski says:"The design theorist is not committed to every biological structure being designed. "
That's one thing (among many) that weakens the ID argument. Those who support evolution by natural selection don't go around saying, "We'll take that one - no I don't like the look of that one...".
So, you want to critique these designs in nature? Hypocrites! Design something better yourselves first. Then maybe you'll have a basis for criticism! Not to mention the fact that they have persisted to this day after thousands of generations despite all the mutations that have corrupted their once pristine genomes.
James-Michael says:
"I'm curious, is it ignorance or intellectual dishonesty that drives anti-IDers to continue labeling it creationism?"
Gee, where would anyone ever get the idea that ID is just religious creationism in disguise?
"Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." - William Dembski
The irony of bobxxxx comments is that they support the Charlotte Methodist Examiner. Keep them coming for my friend bobxxxx! Oh, and Jesus loves you. No really, he does.
John,
That's a fair quote to bring up. Thank you for offering it as a reasonable response. However, the Logos notion of John 1 is not the same as Creationism (I should've capitalized that word to be clear). Creationism is interpreting science according to a literalistic reading of Genesis. ID is saying that one can often detect Complex Specific Information in a system with varying degrees of certainty. ID is compatible with, but not equal to any doctrine of the universe's creation.
And to be clear, I think Dembski puts his foot in his mouth at times (as does everyone!). But his arguments put forth in "Design Revolution" are quite sound in my opinion. However, if you or others have sources that directly engage the specific points he raises in DR please feel free to provide a link or citation and I'll do my best to look at them. For me, ID isn't a live-or-die issue of doctrine; rather, it's a curious academic development that reveals peoples biases quicker than anything el
Rich, it's NATIONAL Methodist Examiner...get it right! heh heh ;)
Any I pray that the Holy Spirit will break down the hard heart that bobxxxx has. Lord, do a work on this person's life.
"...will break down the hard heart that bobxxxx has."
..and allow all to see "that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris."
(from the Clergy Letter Project).
In response to your question.
What I believe ID is:
It is the theory that the complexity of organisms can only be explained by adding a designer, ie god, ie Yhweh and that natural processes alone cannot explain this complexity.
Jay,
That is not the definition of Intelligent Design theory at its core. That is an application of ID at a theological level. Most people think this is what ID is all about because that's all they hear in sound bytes. But ID theory proper is simply that there exists the ability to determine design within a system based on criteria such as Complex Specified Information.
This is the foundation of other branches of research, such as Cryptography, SETI, archeology and forensics. It is only controversial when it gets applied to biological systems. But philosophically, it is legitimate, despite the ad hominems and strawmen that appear without ceasing in the current climate of the debate.
The problem is that by not speculating about the nature of the designer, and by not offering any objective means of determining design vs. evolution, ID falls far short of being a useful or testable theory. Simply asserting that complex structures cannot have arisen naturally is not scientific, but even if we accept this claim, how do we know when or how to apply it? ID allows you to cherry pick—this is designed, that's not—and, at least to date, relies on individual perceptions about which systems must have been designed.
Attempting to identifying the designer would flesh out the mechanism of ID and might provide a better standard for evaluating the contribution of design to a given system. In not doing so ID proponents appear to be appeasing creationists of all stripes and side steps the legal issues with teaching ID. ID wants to have its cake and eat it, too.
Mercurium,
Thanks for the constructive comments. I think that since ID is still in its infancy, the objective criteria of which you speak are starting to take shape. The explanatory filter seems to be a step in the right direction.
I don't think ID should be taught in science classes in schools yet (and ID proponents trying to get it in prematurely is their biggest mistake and has set ID research back a couple of decades, IMO) because it hasn't had time to develop and test its methods. But as the last chapters in Dembski's book illustrate, there are many paths of inquiry that ID can take in establishing testable, repeatable, observable claims.
James-Michael said: "..I think that since ID is still in its infancy"
To me, and almost all people who understand the nature of science, ID is not in its infancy - it's closer to senility!
James-Michael: I'm relieved to learn that you do not support teaching ID in schools. I personally do not see it going anywhere, but if it does begin to generate data then I will be forced to rethink my position.
One major point that Dembski either misses or ignores is that when biologists attack sub-optimal designs, they usually offer alternative, evolutionary explanations. Analysis of fossil and modern quadrupeds, and a recognition of the fact that humans share a common ancestor with these animals, accounts for many of the peculiarities of human anatomy that design opponents often point out. The orientation of the bladder, pharynx and nasal sinuses, the curvature of the spine and the presence of the coccyx suddenly make sense when you consider the body forms from which they evolved. ID can only speculate as to what sort of trade-offs the designer chose to make, bringing us back to the problems I discussed earlier.
Mercurium,
Good points and a fair critique. Thanks.
James-Michael says:
"Creationism is interpreting science according to a literalistic reading of Genesis."
That's not an accurate definition of creationism. For one thing, that definition excludes all types of Old Earth Creationism (OEC). That definition essentially says that there is no such thing as OEC.
Also, that definition does not comport with definitions that creationists have given for their views. Consider the early drafts of the notorious "Of Pandas and People": "Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc." After the Edwards decision, this was revised: "Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc."
Do you see a differenc
James-Michael, everyone here knows exactly what designer is implied in intelligent design.
If you don't believe in the designer, the theory falls apart before you even start it. This is why it cannot be science.
I want to clarify what I mean. I think the real problem here is that "ID Science" starts with an idea and works backwards trying to prove it. Thus, it is inherently flawed from the beginning and any data will be skewed by the preexisting bias.
Real science takes the information and then draws conclusions based on what is found through observation and experimentation. This is how we arrived at evolution. It can only be done with an atheistic approach.
If you believe that god can alter the laws of the universe at any time, and in fact does that... science becomes worthless as a predective tool. But what we see through observation and experimentation is that the rules we have established hold fast.
But doesn't Real Science presuppose that no meaningful reality could exist outside of observable phenomena? That seems to me equally biased. Isn't much of the scientific method a process of starting "with an idea and work[ing] backwards trying to prove it"?
Science doesn't pre-suppose anything, but scienTISTS do, and you're right, scientists are historically recorded to be predisposed to the practice of "Copernicanism", which is the quasi-religious cosmological belief in a form of mediocrity and meaninglessness that contradicts what is actually observed:
AND I SERIOUSLY HATE BLOGS THAT WON'T LET YOU LINK REFERENCES!!!
Jermaine Walker said: "But doesn't Real Science presuppose that no meaningful reality could exist outside of observable phenomena?"
No - science is the process of looking for material reasons for material phenomena. It makes no comment on what may or may not exist "outside of observable phenomena". It's the same thing you do when your car or computer doesn't start. You check all the material reasons without making any comment on the existence of any "higher power".
Seems like they've just redefined "intelligent design" to be indistinguishable from natural selection.
How do you tell the difference between something designed via the trial and error process of mutation and differential mortality/fecundity vs. something designed via the trial and error process of gene manipulation and externally influenced mortality/fecundity?
In short, what does ID explain that existing theories do not?
Kaid Presus says:
"In short, what does ID explain that existing theories do not?"
And what does it predict that existing theories do not?
We're still waiting for Dembski or Behe or any of the DI folks to answer these seemingly straightforward questions.
John and Kaid,
Those are fair questions and honest objections. I'll post Dembski's answer in a separate post. As for Behe, have either of you read his latest work "The Edge of Evolution"? It hasn't gotten as much press as Darwin's Black Box, but in it he uses the example of the malaria virus (the most well-studied and fastest evolutionary development in modern science) to suggest where Darwinian selection/mutation's ability to generate information ends and where some other process is needed to account for it.
"...where Darwinian selection/mutation's ability to generate information ends and where some other process is needed to account for it."
The question was "what does ID explain or predict", not "what do you see as 'Darwinian selection/mutation's' shortcomings".
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!