Intelligent Design

[lucaspa]

The Intelligent Design movement is not something totally new.  In the late 18th and early 19th centuries there was what was called the Argument from Design, arguing that biological organisms had to be designed by an intelligence.  The seminal work was published by William Paley in 1802 entitled Natural Theology:.  But it is the subtitle that is revealing:  or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature.  Paley was the guy who introduced the famous "watch on the heath" argument.  He stated that biological organisms were so much more complex than a watch and fulfilled obvious tasks, therefore they too were manufactured artifacts just like a watch.

Paley wasn't formulating a scientific theory, however, as this passage shows:
"There cannot be design without a designer; contrivance, without a contriver; order, without choice; arrangement, without any thing capable of arranging; subserviency and relation to a purpose, without that which could intend a purpose; means suitable to an end, and executing their office in accomplishing that end, without the end ever having been contemplated, or the means accommodated to it.  [emphasis mine] Arrangement, disposition of parts, subserviency of means to an end, relation of instruments to a use, imply the presence of intelligence and mind. No one, therefore, can rationally believe that the insensible, inanimate watch, from which the watch before us issued, was the proper cause of the mechanism we so much admire in it --could be truly said to have constructed the instrument, disposed its parts, assigned their office, determined their order, action, and mutual dependency, combined their several motions into one result, and that also a result connected with the utilities of other beings. ...A second examination presents us with a new discovery. The watch is found, in the course of its movement, to produce another watch similar to itself; only so, but we perceive in it a system or organization separately calculated for that purpose. What effect would this discovery have or ought it to have, upon our former inference? What, as hath already been said, but to increase beyond measure our admiration of the skill which had been employed in the formation of such a machine? Or shall it, instead of this, all at once turn us round to an opposite conclusion, namely, that no art or skill whatever has been concerned in the business, although all other evidences of art and skill remain as they were, and this last and supreme piece of art be now added to the rest? Can this be maintained without absurdity? Yet this is atheism.

Application of the Argument

This is atheism; for every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature, with the difference on the side of nature of being greater and more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation. I mean, that the contrivances of nature surpass the contrivances of art, in the complexity, subtelty, and curiosity of the mechanism; and still more, if possible, do they go beyond them in number and variety; yet, in a multitude of cases, are not less evidently mechanical, not less evidently contrivances, not less evidently accommodated to their end or suited to their office, than are the most perfect productions of human ingenuity."

Paley was constructing an argument against atheism and for theism, not a scientific theory.

Darwin read Paley while at Cambridge and it had a great effect on him.  Darwin knew that, in order to answer Paley's question about the source of the designs in biological organisms, he had to find a mechanism to get design. And he did: natural selection.

Now, what IDers do is exactly what Paley did: look at the organisms themselves, in isolation, and conclude that their complexity and adaptation to a purpose alone justified the inference of intelligent design and manufacture.

But is that criteria true?  Is the object itself the only thing we base our inference of design upon?  If you walk through a woods and come across a straight oak stick and a bronze-headed spear with an oak shaft, you infer that the stick is not designed but that the spear is. Why?  How do you do that? If you answer that you know about manufacturing processes to get a spear, consider Spielberg's new show Taken where humans have an alien artifact. They don't know how it is made or what it does, but they are very confident in their inference that this is a manufactured artifact.  Why?

When you puzzle this out, you will find one of the major flaws of ID.

 

[Hank]

Originally posted by lucaspa
Now, what IDers do is exactly what Paley did: look at the organisms themselves, in isolation, and conclude that their complexity and adaptation to a purpose alone justified the inference of intelligent design and manufacture.

But is that criteria true?  Is the object itself the only thing we base our inference of design upon?  If you walk through a woods and come across a straight oak stick and a bronze-headed spear with an oak shaft, you infer that the stick is not designed but that the spear is. Why?  How do you do that? If you answer that you know about manufacturing processes to get a spear, consider Spielberg's new show Taken where humans have an alien artifact. They don't know how it is made or what it does, but they are very confident in their inference that this is a manufactured artifact.  Why?

When you puzzle this out, you will find one of the major flaws of ID. [/B]

I am going to play devil's advocate and make the following statement pro ID. I am not into ID, I just want to see how far I can get.

If one has no prior knowledge about anything and finds that spear; would he not discover first, based on the composition of the stick, that the stick has an identical composition to trees? Only the shape is not exactly as trees or branches - He continues his search. He finds other brass or steel items which have identical composition of the head. Let's assume he does not find the manufacturer of those brass or steel items. He finds only iron ore and/or nickel and copper. Would he conclude all to have somehow evolved? Could he conclude that trees could have had straight branches at one time? Could he conclude that perhaps a volcano action mounted the head on to the stick at one time?

 

[Jerry Smith]

My own answer to Watch on the Beach.. It needs a re-write, but it gets the point across:

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/smijer/TheWatch.htm

 

[Hank]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
My own answer to Watch on the Beach.. It needs a re-write, but it gets the point across:

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/smijer/TheWatch.htm

I don't understand.
The story describes that one believes God made something the other that man made it. They both agreed that the watch has had to be made, they only disagreed on whom.

 

[Jerry Smith]

I don't understand.
The story describes that one believes God made something the other that man made it. They both agreed that the watch has had to be made, they only disagreed on whom.

On the one hand, yes. The point of the story is that the 'Bob' character tries to answer the question by fitting it into his theological view - jumping to conclusions, and refusing to be swayed by the evidence. The 'Mary' character attempts to solve the problem by making an hypothesis, then methodogically searching for objective evidence.

Mary's approach revealed the correct answer!

If they had been looking at life, instead of a watch, Bob would have jumped to the conclusion that it was created the way it was found, recently, according to his interpretation of the Bible. By looking at the evidence in nature, Mary would have found the correct answer: that all living things come from older living things that are similar, but not exactly the same as themselves.

Mary is the classic "evolutionist" - Bob the classic "creationist".

 

[Hank]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
If they had been looking at life, instead of a watch, Bob would have jumped to the conclusion that it was created the way it was found, recently, according to his interpretation of the Bible. By looking at the evidence in nature, Mary would have found the correct answer: that all living things come from older living things that are similar, but not exactly the same as themselves.

Mary is the classic "evolutionist" - Bob the classic "creationist".

As I said I am playing the classic creationist.

Thus I am asking: How do you know that Mary (evolutionists) has found the correct answer? Propagation is an obvious fact of life. I have parents. My parents have had parent and so on. Where did the first pair of homo sepias come from?

 

[Jerry Smith]

Thus I am asking: How do you know that Mary (evolutionists) has found the correct answer?

Well, Bob and his crew don't and never will know that. Everyone else sees that Mary was able to find the correct answer by looking at the evidence. They also see that they can confirm that her answer is correct by looking at the evidence. This is an essay about methodology, not a discussion of every bit of evidence. If you haven't already, visit:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

to review some highlights from that body of evidence for yourself.

Propagation is an obvious fact of life. I have parents. My parents have had parent and so on. Where did the first pair of homo sepias come from?

There was no "first pair" of Homo sapiens. The first population of Homo sapiens was descended from a particularly bright population of Homo erectus. But this is a question Mary et. al. have already answered. I see no need to rehash.

The point is this: Paley takes an overly simplistic methodology and shows that we can use it to "determine" that a watch was designed. He hopes that since we concluded the watch was designed (in part because of its complexity) that we will assume living things are designed (only because of their complexity). I say to heck with assuming all of that. No matter how much I think watches are designed, if I went out in the field and saw two grandfather clocks mating and birthing a watch instead of factories where people assemble them, I would conclude that watches are a product of natural forces. It's about the methodology.

 

[Hank]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
No matter how much I think watches are designed, if I went out in the field and saw two grandfather clocks mating and birthing a watch instead of factories where people assemble them, I would conclude that watches are a product of natural forces. It's about the methodology.

I think mating and giving birth is no reason to conclude for evolution. You mentioned methodology, which one would allow for such a conclusion?

 

[Jerry Smith]

I think mating and giving birth is no reason to conclude for evolution.

No, of course not. But if clocks did mate and give birth to watches, then I would know that watches were caused by the reproductive efforts of clocks, rather than by the productive efforts of assembly line workers.

You mentioned methodology, which one would allow for such a conclusion?

Mary's methodology, coupled with the real-world evidence, forces the rational person to accept evolution. Mary is an analogy for Darwin and modern scientists.

Bob's methodology, coupled with the Bible, requires its adherent to reject evolution in favor of recent special creation. Bob is an analogy for Paley and his creationist descendants.

Mary's methodology is to look for the answer to "where does/did 'X' come from?" in nature, and to find the best answer that is supported by the evidence. That is the one that concludes with evolution.

Bob's methodology is to selectively look at whatever aspects of nature seem (on the surface) to support the Biblical answer to the same question ("where does/did 'X' come from?") Since the Bible says recent special creation, then that is what Bob must conclude.

Mary's methodology worked for her on the watch. It works for scientists on everything from the structure of the atom to tooth decay. It works for the diversity of life.