My Problem With Intelligent Design

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I wanted to state my feelings on the ID movement without derailing Punchy's thread on the same matter.

First off I would like to say that I don't think the ID movement is the same thing as creation science. Although both overlap, the ID movement has not, as a whole, condemned evolutionary biology or the mainstream scientific consensus on the age of the earth.

But my problem with the ID movement is this:

Intelligent Design advocates basically put forward two arguments for the existence of an Intelligent Designer.

1. Fine tuning (John Polkinhorne, Robin Collins). The universe seems immaculately designed to develop living organisms. This is basically a recapitulation of St. Thomas Aquinas's argument from final cause, or teleological argument.

2. Irreducible complexity (Michael Behe, et al.). Elements in the universe, especially microbiotic cellular structures, are so terribly complex, that only an intelligent designer could keep them working right and allow them to mutate and adapt to new situations. This is essential a God-of-the-gaps argument.

My real problem is that these two arguments are contradictory. On the one hand, we have the argument that the universe is so amazingly self-sustaining and finely tuned that only an intelligent designer could have designed it. On the other hand, we have the argument that the universe and especially biomatter is terribly complex and constantly threatens to fall apart if there isn't an intelligent force to keep it afloat.

See the problem?

Now I like John Polkinghorne. Anybody that's an Anglican philosopher-priest and a leading particle astrophysicist at the same time deserves my respect. And I've taken a class with Robin Collins- he teaches at my school. And although I would never use the teleological argument in a formal setting because I think it has some awful problems (namely, a subjective understanding of purposeful tuning), I respect it's proponents and it's fine history.

But to throw it in with Behe's God-of-the-gaps argument is just nonsense. Not only do I think all God-of-the-gaps arguments are doomed to fail eventually, and not only are they a great insult to God as an intelligent designer (the very thing they seek to prove!), but they so obviously contradict the other philosophical underpinning of the movement as to make it just laughable.

Anyway, that's what I think.

 

[mark kennedy]

First off I would like to say that I don't think the ID movement is the same thing as creation science. Although both overlap, the ID movement has not, as a whole, condemned evolutionary biology or the mainstream scientific consensus on the age of the earth.

I think they are very different in that Creationism is focused on religious doctrine while Intelligent Design goes into the philosophy and functions of living systems. As much as I would like to see Creationism and Intelligent Design somehow merged they are very different ways of approaching the subject of evolution.

But my problem with the ID movement is this:

Intelligent Design advocates basically put forward two arguments for the existence of an Intelligent Designer.

1. Fine tuning (John Polkinhorne, Robin Collins). The universe seems immaculately designed to develop living organisms. This is basically a recapitulation of St. Thomas Aquinas's argument from final cause, or teleological argument.

2. Irreducible complexity (Michael Behe, et al.). Elements in the universe, especially microbiotic cellular structures, are so terribly complex, that only an intelligent designer could keep them working right and allow them to mutate and adapt to new situations. This is essential a God-of-the-gaps argument.

My real problem is that these two arguments are contradictory. On the one hand, we have the argument that the universe is so amazingly self-sustaining and finely tuned that only an intelligent designer could have designed it. On the other hand, we have the argument that the universe and especially biomatter is terribly complex and constantly threatens to fall apart if there isn't an intelligent force to keep it afloat.

See the problem?

Now I like John Polkinghorne. Anybody that's an Anglican philosopher-priest and a leading particle astrophysicist at the same time deserves my respect. And I've taken a class with Robin Collins- he teaches at my school. And although I would never use the teleological argument in a formal setting because I think it has some awful problems (namely, a subjective understanding of purposeful tuning), I respect it's proponents and it's fine history.

But to throw it in with Behe's God-of-the-gaps argument is just nonsense. Not only do I think all God-of-the-gaps arguments are doomed to fail eventually, and not only are they a great insult to God as an intelligent designer (the very thing they seek to prove!), but they so obviously contradict the other philosophical underpinning of the movement as to make it just laughable.

Anyway, that's what I think.

For one thing Behe is not into some God of the Gaps argument, irreducible complexity is a fundamental principle in molecular biology. Second of all this philosophy they now call intelligent design used to be called natural theology.

IN crossing a health, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for any thing I knew to the contrary, it had lain there for ever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given, that, for any thing I knew, the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for the stone? why is it not as admissible in the second case, as in the first? For this reason,and for no other, viz. that, when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive (what we could not discover in the stone) that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose, e. g. that they are so formed and adjusted as to produce motion, and that motion so regulated as to point out the hour of the day; that, if the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, of a different size from what they are, or placed after any other manner, or in any other order, than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is now served by it. NATURAL THEOLOGY Evidences of the existence and attributes of the Deity. Collected from the appearances of nature 12th edition. (William Paley, D.D. Later Archdeacon of Carlisle)​

I'm a little surprised I see theistic arguments that don't give any attention to the merits of concluding an intelligent designer. Behe started wondering how a molecular machine could be formed gradually and what kind of precursors would lead up to it. When he couldn't find anything in the literature he began to re-evaluate one of the fundamental axioms of evolutionary biology, that all living things grew progressively complex.

I don't really care if you reject Intelligent Design after considering it, if it ever interests you at all. I just think it's wrong to make it such a grand controversy every time someone asks the hard questions. Evolution is not about natural history, I am more convinced of this then I ever was. It only makes a reliable guide when the basic premise of exclusively naturalistic causes is never seriously questioned.

Behe in no way, shape or form has ever rejected evolution much less attacked it. He has applied on old and interesting philosophical proposal to problems he encountered as a molecular biologist. There are as many molecular machines in living systems as there are functions. It says something about academic and scientific professionals when they never even consider an alternative.

By and large Intelligent Design has been rejected because of it's inference that God may have created something, anything fully formed. Darwinism is a categorical rejection of theistic reasoning and it's requisite a priori assumptions are unnatural. They are imposed artificially on human reasoning that at some point wonders about evidence in nature of deity.

Theistic evolution accepts this concept as compatible with Christian theism. More and more I have become convinced that this is absurd. Human reason rejects God for a lot of reasons and it's rarely due to something they observed under a microscope.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I think they are very different in that Creationism is focused on religious doctrine while Intelligent Design goes into the philosophy and functions of living systems.

I agree, and I made my comment specifically in contrast to Punchy's conflation of the two in another thread.

Second of all this philosophy they now call intelligent design used to be called natural theology.

Arguments from intelligent design are one facet of natural theology. But the field of natural theology is considerably wider in its scope.

For one thing Behe is not into some God of the Gaps argument, irreducible complexity is a fundamental principle in molecular biology.

Behe's basic argument is that molecular biostructures are far too complex to have naturally developed by purely mechanistic process. How is that not God-of-the-gaps?

I'm a little surprised I see theistic arguments that don't give any attention to the merits of concluding an intelligent designer.

I think one reason arguments for an intelligent designer (from either fine-tuning or complexity) are rejected is because they are purely based on subjective impressions of complexity and teleology. We have no other universes from which to make a comparative argument.

Behe in no way, shape or form has ever rejected evolution much less attacked it.

Never said he did.

Darwinism is a categorical rejection of theistic reasoning and it's requisite a priori assumptions are unnatural.

Here's my philosophical problem with this: Biology is a hard science. Like all the hard sciences, it seeks to find natural causes to natural effects. All the hard sciences must operate on a methodological naturalism in order to remain cogent as disciplines.

Again, if we ask 4 - 2 = x, we ask a mathematical question. And in asking a mathematical question, we expect a mathematical answer. We expect that x = 2, not x = God. Certain God is the underlying principle that allows mathematical axioms to remained fix (such that 1 will always equal 1) and that allows causal relationships to occur (such that we can move along the plotted line in time). But the mathematical answer to the question is not God.

So too in science. In scientific investigation, we study natural effects- individual facts. And in assembling these facts, we should look for general natural laws and systems (a theory) that makes sense of all the facts. Certainly we can say with Isaac Newton that gravity, a fundamental law of the physical world, is caused by God. Certainly. But when asking why objects fall at such and such a rate given such and such an amount of mass, we don't just say 'God does it.' Certainly God allows gravity to operate in a consistent way, because God is a God of order. But we posit a general theory of universal gravitation as a natural law of the universe, as a natural set of laws operating as a system (a theory) that explains the most facts (individual instances of objects attracting).

Theistic evolution accepts this concept as compatible with Christian theism. More and more I have become convinced that this is absurd.

Why? Why must Christians force scientists to reject their vocational goal to find natural causes to natural effects?

Regardless, all this talk about science and complexity is really just smashing the OP into the general young earth vs. theistic evolutionary mold. My simple point was that the Intelligent Design movement has adapted two, mutually contradictory arguments for the existence of God- one of which I greatly respect, even if I have problems with it, and the other of which I find highly problematic.

 

[mark kennedy]

I agree, and I made my comment specifically in contrast to Punchy's conflation of the two in another thread.



Arguments from intelligent design are one facet of natural theology. But the field of natural theology is considerably wider in its scope.

All I know is that there isn't anything in Biology or Natural Theology that gives me any reason to take Genesis one figuratively. Biology is about living systems not dead ancestors and natural theology relates to this description of God to His creation.

Romans1:20

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:​

Just think about it, I don't want you to respond unless you do. First of all, what are these invisible things and how are they evidenced in the things that are made?

Want to know what my problem is with your problem with intelligent design? Your not describing intelligent design. Behe is a microbiologist, Demiski is a mathamatician, Paul Little is a University of Chicago Philosophy professor and you characterize their collective work as 'Godofthegaps'.

You know what, there is such a thing as a gap theory in Creationism. Between the original creation and the special creation of life many people think there is a gap. That's it, that is the only Creationist gap theory in existence.

Behe's basic argument is that molecular biostructures are far too complex to have naturally developed by purely mechanistic process. How is that not God-of-the-gaps?

No it's not and I really get sick of these pedantic dismissals that grossly distort Behe's argument. Irreducible complex systems are pretty much molecular machines, actually they are most often enzymes. I know this because I read their literature. Irreducibly complex means at a bare minimum what it takes for one of these molecular machines to do it's job.

Here's the thing, if this whole controversy was about science then that is what we would be talking about. If it was about Darwinism then we would be talking about Darwin's exquisitely well written On the Origin of Species, Spencer's metaphysics and the modern synthesis Ernst Mayr and others worked on.

None of that ever comes up, no one wants to talk about it, no one cares. The only thing more rare in these debates that is more rare then a truly scientific discussion is a remotely theological one. It's a shame really, there is a whole lot of fascinating ideas on both sides of this controversy.

I think one reason arguments for an intelligent designer (from either fine-tuning or complexity) are rejected is because they are purely based on subjective impressions of complexity and teleology. We have no other universes from which to make a comparative argument.

Ok, there is another fascinating concept tossed aside without a second look. Do you know that teleos is from the Koine Greek? It's the same word we get telescope from. Did it occur to you before you dismissed teleology that there might be a remotely Christian concept in there? You know what... never mind it's like pulling teeth to get you guys to actually look at what we are supposed to be talking about here anyway.

Never said he did.

You never described anything remotely resembling Intelligent Design either so we're even.

Here's my philosophical problem with this: Biology is a hard science. Like all the hard sciences, it seeks to find natural causes to natural effects. All the hard sciences must operate on a methodological naturalism in order to remain cogent as disciplines.

Do you know who else separated hard sciences from from soft sciences. John Dewey, aka father of modern public education and avoid atheist who rejected faith in God as unproven and outmoded. Do you realize that you are echoing the arguments of atheists when you heap this kind of ridicule and mock satire on other Christians. I don't think you do, I really don't think you realize that none of this is about science.

Again, if we ask 4 - 2 = x, we ask a mathematical question. And in asking a mathematical question, we expect a mathematical answer. We expect that x = 2, not x = God. Certain God is the underlying principle that allows mathematical axioms to remained fix (such that 1 will always equal 1) and that allows causal relationships to occur (such that we can move along the plotted line in time). But the mathematical answer to the question is not God.

No one is using a 2 + 2 = God argument. I wish just once one of you guys actually argued against Intelligent Design or Young Earth Creationism.

So too in science. In scientific investigation, we study natural effects- individual facts. And in assembling these facts, we should look for general natural laws and systems (a theory) that makes sense of all the facts. Certainly we can say with Isaac Newton that gravity, a fundamental law of the physical world, is caused by God. Certainly. But when asking why objects fall at such and such a rate given such and such an amount of mass, we don't just say 'God does it.' Certainly God allows gravity to operate in a consistent way, because God is a God of order. But we posit a general theory of universal gravitation as a natural law of the universe, as a natural set of laws operating as a system (a theory) that explains the most facts (individual instances of objects attracting).

There is nothing in the etymology or epistemology of science that excludes God as a possible, probable or definite cause. Absolutely nothing!

Let's try this even though you are obviously locked down with this. Jesus was the Son of God, worked miracles without precedent even by Biblical standards, raised from the dead and ascended bodily into heaven.

Question: Is there a shred of evidence for any of what I just said? Assume for a minute that neither of us are Christians, or atheists and we have never heard that there was such a thing as creationism or evolution. What kind of evidence would you expect for the above series of statements?

Why? Why must Christians force scientists to reject their vocational goal to find natural causes to natural effects?

Christians don't care about Biology, genetics or geology. Not a single creationist has tried to get scientists to jump through their theological hoops. Apologetics, it might interest you to know, was a normal Greek word for the defense (Apology) of someone who is accused of a crime in court.

What planet do you life on? Creation science is not in a position to suggest, much less demand that scientists do anything. How is it remotely conceivable that they 'forced' scientists to do anything? That is not only stupendously wrong, it's not even a good attempt at hyperbole.

Regardless, all this talk about science and complexity is really just smashing the OP into the general young earth vs. theistic evolutionary mold. My simple point was that the Intelligent Design movement has adapted two, mutually contradictory arguments for the existence of God- one of which I greatly respect, even if I have problems with it, and the other of which I find highly problematic.

It's called syllogistic logic and it has absolutely nothing to do with evidence. You set up you strawman argument, used it for a tackling dummy, tore it to shreds and set it on fire. Neither Intelligent Design nor evolution were discussed.

That's my problem with, the problem you have with Intelligent Design. You have no clue what Intelligent Design is or why it cannot possibly be a Godofthegaps argument.

 

[shernren]

No it's not and I really get sick of these pedantic dismissals that grossly distort Behe's argument. Irreducible complex systems are pretty much molecular machines, actually they are most often enzymes. I know this because I read their literature. Irreducibly complex means at a bare minimum what it takes for one of these molecular machines to do it's job.
...
That's my problem with, the problem you have with Intelligent Design. You have no clue what Intelligent Design is or why it cannot possibly be a Godofthegaps argument.

Actually, I'd agree that ID is not a Godofthegaps argument. It's a Designer-of-the-gaps argument, and it's more historical accident than scientific necessity that most ID supporters happen to be Christians. In any case:

1. Most irreducibly complex systems are not enzymes. They are protein complexes or whole organs, but rarely is a single enzyme ever considered IC. Here's a representative list of IC systems from Behe:

Other examples of irreducible complexity abound, including aspects of protein transport, blood clotting, closed circular DNA, electron transport, the bacterial flagellum, telomeres, photosynthesis, transcription regulation, and much more.

http://www.veritas-ucsb.org//library/behe/MM.html

None of these involve just a single enzyme.

2. Behe is quite conflicted about whether or not ID is actually a God-of-the-gaps argument. On the one hand, he tries to say:

In concluding, it is important to realize that we are not inferring design from what we do not know, but from what we do know. We are not inferring design to account for a black box, but to account for an open box. A man from a primitive culture who sees an automobile might guess that it was powered by the wind or by an antelope hidden under the car, but when he opens up the hood and sees the engine he immediately realizes that it was designed. In the same way biochemistry has opened up the cell to examine what makes it run and we see that it, too, was designed.

But he can't make the analogy stick: for have we ever seen any known designer design a biological system, and have we ever seen any known biological system that is un-designed, and if we have never seen either of these how can we possibly draw formal analogies to say that all life is designed? On the other hand, he seems far more confident when he says:

the fundamental mechanisms of life cannot be ascribed to natural selection,
and therefore were designed.

(emphasis and formatting added)

Not NS, therefore design: a classic argument from ignorance.

 

[mark kennedy]

Actually, I'd agree that ID is not a Godofthegaps argument. It's a Designer-of-the-gaps argument, and it's more historical accident than scientific necessity that most ID supporters happen to be Christians. In any case:

No it's not, it's normal theistic reasoning making logical inferences from irreducibly complex systems.

Rom. 1:20

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:​

Maybe you would like to tell me what the invisible things are and how they are evident.

1. Most irreducibly complex systems are not enzymes. They are protein complexes or whole organs, but rarely is a single enzyme ever considered IC. Here's a representative list of IC systems from Behe:

The protein hexokinase is an enzyme.

For example, the first of many steps necessary for the conversion of sugar to biologically-usable forms of energy is carried out by a protein called hexokinase. (Molecular Machines, Behe)​

Enzymes are three-dimensional biological catalysts, globular protein molecules that are only produced in living organisms.Enzyme Properties​

Other examples of irreducible complexity abound, including aspects of protein transport, blood clotting, closed circular DNA, electron transport, the bacterial flagellum, telomeres, photosynthesis, transcription regulation, and much more.

http://www.veritas-ucsb.org//library/behe/MM.html

You just love trying to make Creationists look like fools by pointing out fundamental mistakes and you pull a major SNAFU like this?

See what I mean? Let's see if some of the basic Biology can make it into one of these discussions:

None of these involve just a single enzyme.

Horsefeathers, none of these discussions ever focus on what Intelligent Design is or how basic biology relates. You just contradicted me and you were obviously wrong. I don't know if you were trying to derail the thread or you are just so hopelessly biased that you have lost all sight of what the issues are.

2. Behe is quite conflicted about whether or not ID is actually a God-of-the-gaps argument. On the one hand, he tries to say:

In concluding, it is important to realize that we are not inferring design from what we do not know, but from what we do know. We are not inferring design to account for a black box, but to account for an open box. A man from a primitive culture who sees an automobile might guess that it was powered by the wind or by an antelope hidden under the car, but when he opens up the hood and sees the engine he immediately realizes that it was designed. In the same way biochemistry has opened up the cell to examine what makes it run and we see that it, too, was designed.

Did you read his essay? I only ask because you just quoted him out of context and ran off on this tangent:

But he can't make the analogy stick: for have we ever seen any known designer design a biological system, and have we ever seen any known biological system that is un-designed, and if we have never seen either of these how can we possibly draw formal analogies to say that all life is designed? On the other hand, he seems far more confident when he says:

the fundamental mechanisms of life cannot be ascribed to natural selection,
and therefore were designed.

(emphasis and formatting added)

Not NS, therefore design: a classic argument from ignorance.

Romans 1:20-22

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,​

You should really think about what you are saying before you call the inference of an Intelligent Designer from Biology as ignorance.

Irreducible Complexity is a fundamental principle in molecular biology, there are probably as many molecular machines as there are functions in a cell. Behe is simply talking about one example but you don't seem interested in what he actually said, just that he concluded an inference of a designer, much like Natural Theology used to do, from irreducibly complex systems. None of this comes out in these discussions and you just called the intellectual and philosophical thoughts of a Molecular Biologist an argument from ignorance making some convoluted point about proteins and enzymes and it was based on two things only. One was taking Behe out of context and two making Natural Selection and Natural Theology mutually exclusive, both are hopelessly flawed non sequitur fallacies, your conclusion does not follow your reasoning.

 

[shernren]

Here's a simple question with no room for personal attack:

How do you know that an irreducibly complex system must be designed instead of evolved?

 

[mark kennedy]

Here's a simple question with no room for personal attack:

How do you know that an irreducibly complex system must be designed instead of evolved?

What are you asking me for, I'm a young earth creationist.

 

[shernren]

What are you asking me for, I'm a young earth creationist.

If you don't even know that, how can you know enough about Intelligent Design to defend it as you did just two posts ago? This is an honest question.

 

[mark kennedy]

If you don't even know that, how can you know enough about Intelligent Design to defend it as you did just two posts ago? This is an honest question.

How do you tell the difference between a granite cliff face and Mount Rushmore. How do you tell the difference between a watch and a stone? Molecular machines are highly specific and irreducibly complex. The real question is how these machines could be assembled from naturally occuring principles and forces. Darwinism assumes naturally occuring random events accumulating serendipitously, this flies in the face of everything molecular biology is discovering about molecular machines.

Darwin believed in blending of characteristics with no real insight into how traits are inherited on a biochemical level. Intelligent Design has been defined, described and defended by Molecular Biologists, Mathematicians and Philosphers across the academic spectrum. They conclude an Intelligent Designer and you will find that most people have a simular concept about things needing God to get things started.

I asked you an honest question as well, you never answered me:

Romans 1:20

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:​

What are those 'invisible things' and how are they 'understood by the things that are made'. You can't seem to accept that Intelliegent Design ascribes to God what only God can accomplish.

My thing is that the human brain could not be created from a ape brain by any known genetic mechanism. That is not Intelligent Design as presented by Behe or the others. There is not Godofthegaps argument here just a reasonable question of the functional cause of irreducibly complex systems.

 

[shernren]

The real question is how these machines could be assembled from naturally occuring principles and forces.

So, because these machines
could not have been assembled from naturally occurring principles and forces,
they must have been designed by God?