Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Monday, August 20, 2007

Intelligent Design is Not anti-evolution

As the title of this post says, intelligent design is not anti-evolution.

Also intelligent design does not say the an irreducibly complex system could not evolve.

Irreducible complexity is an argument against blind watchmaker-type processes. If the IC system were designed (design being a mechanism) to evolve, as ID front loading would have it, then the "evolving" part is still there but the blind watchmaker is replaced with design, ie planning.

Intelligent design does not say that CSI cannot evolve. Again it is all about the mechanism. If CSI were designed to evolve, as ID front loading would have it, then the "evolving" part is still there but the blind watchmaker is replaced with design, ie planning.


As Dr Behe put it:

Intelligent design is a good explanation for a number of biochemical systems, but I should insert a word of caution. Intelligent design theory has to be seen in context: it does not try to explain everything. We live in a complex world where lots of different things can happen. When deciding how various rocks came to be shaped the way they are a geologist might consider a whole range of factors: rain, wind, the movement of glaciers, the activity of moss and lichens, volcanic action, nuclear explosions, asteroid impact, or the hand of a sculptor. The shape of one rock might have been determined primarily by one mechanism, the shape of another rock by another mechanism.

Similarly, evolutionary biologists have recognized that a number of factors might have affected the development of life: common descent, natural selection, migration, population size, founder effects (effects that may be due to the limited number of organisms that begin a new species), genetic drift (spread of "neutral," nonselective mutations), gene flow (the incorporation of genes into a population from a separate population), linkage (occurrence of two genes on the same chromosome), and much more. The fact that some biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent does not mean that any of the other factors are not operative, common, or important.



With CSI it all about origins. IOW once it is shown that CSI can originate via mindless/ blindwatchmaker-type processes, ID is neatly falsified.

That is because until that point in time every experience and observation says CSI only comes from an intelligent source, that is a source which can create counterflow. Therefore with that experience and observational data in hand we would predict that every time we observed CSI and didn't know the cause an intelligent agency will be found responsible.

So by finding CSI arising without agency involvement a central tenet of ID is removed and ID falls.

8 Comments:

  • At 9:11 PM, Blogger CJYman said…

    Hey Joe,

    Whenever you are writting about intelligence, you equate it with counterflow. I'd like to know what you mean by counterflow and how it is connected necessarily to intelligence. THX.

     
  • At 9:58 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hey CJYman!

    Thanks again for the tip on information. I found the references in Gitt's and Spetner's books.

    On to counterflow and how it relates to intelligence:

    Explaining the I in ID (this blog)

    which will lead you to:

    Counterflow:

    Del Ratzsch presents this term in his writing on design in Nature, Design and Science. Counterflow refers to things running contrary to what, in the relevant sense, would (or might) have resulted or occurred had nature operated freely. When agents redirect, restrain or constrain nature, they leave counterflow marks. Ratzsch goes on to say that counterflow can be injected into initial states, processes, or results (p.7). Counterflow is important in identifying agent activity in a given structure.

    Del Ratzsch distinguishes between primary and secondary counterflow marks. Primary counterflow characteristics can be found in the following ways (pp.10-11):

    Parts vs. Systems: Individual components of the system may exhibit counterflow, or it may be only as a whole system that counterflow can be identified in a particular structure.

    Surface vs. Deep: There may be obvious counterflow properties, or more subtle and complicated properties, such as medium-run sequence probabilities.

    Direct vs. Indirect: Recognition can be immediate or more inferential

    Synchronic vs. Diachronic: Counterflow can be evident over time (diachronically) or all at once (synchronically)

    Hard vs. Soft: Soft counterflow recognition required knowledge of relevant valuations. Hard required only familiarity with nature’s normal flow.

    Secondary marks of counterflow include: Complicated development, complex structures, coordination of components, adjustment of means to end, interlocking functions, extreme improbability, purposelike behaviors, and others (p.12).


    If you haven't read that book (Nature, Design and Science) I highly recommend it. I would even say it is a must-have, definitely a must-read, for anyone interested in or participating in, this debate.

     
  • At 8:43 PM, Blogger CJYman said…

    Hello Joe,

    Thank you for the info. It is definitely something worth thinking about. I have heard of Del Ratzsch before. Does this book of his approach the subject from the vantage of philosophy of science?

    And you're welcome for the "informative" tip. I find information and the modern scientific theories surrounding it to be some of the most interesting fields out there. Information processing systems are truly "out of this universe" ... at least out of our laws of physics.

     
  • At 8:17 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Does this book of his approach the subject from the vantage of philosophy of science?

    Yes it does.

    It is a good read and also handy to have around.

     
  • At 12:54 PM, Blogger Hermagoras said…

    Joe,

    Hermagoras here. I wanted to respond to a comment you made at Dembski's blog, but I'm banned there. You wrote:

    "Here is a simple test:

    Creation Science is against universal common descent

    Intelligent Design accepts universal common descent."

    But you wrote this on an intelligent design blog called "Uncommon Descent." Further, the owner of that blog, Dr. Dr. Dembski, does not accept common descent. Is he then a Creation Scientist?

    Hermagoras

     
  • At 3:06 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Intelligent Design is Not Creationism:

    "Scott refers to me as an intelligent design "creationist," even though I clearly write in my book Darwin's Black Box (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think "evolution occurred, but was guided by God." Where I and others run afoul of Scott and the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is simply in arguing that intelligent design in biology is not invisible, it is empirically detectable. The biological literature is replete with statements like David DeRosier's in the journal Cel: "More so than other motors, the flagellum resembles a machine designed by a human" (1). Exactly why is it a thought-crime to make the case that such observations may be on to something objectively correct?"

    Again Intelligent Design accepts universal common descent.

    That does not mean that all IDists have to.

    Intelligent Design's acceptance of UCD depends on the scientific validity of the idea.

    IDists, unlike ID, can think for themselves.

    Here is another article with the same title:

    Intelligent Design is Not Creationsim:

    "By contrast, ID holds that there are tell-tale features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by a designing intelligence. The theory does not challenge the idea of evolution defined as change over time, or even common ancestry, but it disputes Darwin's idea that the cause of biological change is wholly blind and undirected."

    However IDists are free to challenge any and all ideas as we see fit.

    So a non-acceptance of UCD does not make one a Creation Scientist, just a person with an open and objective mind.

    I don't accept UCD but I also don't accept Genesis.

     
  • At 10:22 AM, Blogger Hermagoras said…

    Joe,

    I asked a question about Dembski and UD and you responded by quoting Behe and Meyer. Ho hum.

    I'm aware that ID people are quick to distance their position from creationism (when needed -- just as they are quick to find common cause with creationism at other times). But you didn't answer my question. Isn't there anything odd about writing "Intelligent Design accepts universal common descent" on an ID blog called "Uncommon Descent"?

    I think it would be better to say that ID is indifferent to common descent rather than that it accepts common descent.

     
  • At 12:53 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I asked a question about Dembski and UD and you responded by quoting Behe and Meyer.

    To show that ID is OK with universal common descent.

    And why would you think that I could answer a question about Dembski?

    I'm aware that ID people are quick to distance their position from creationism (when needed -- just as they are quick to find common cause with creationism at other times).

    Are you also aware that Creationists are also quick to distance themselves from ID?

    Why do you think that is?

    Isn't there anything odd about writing "Intelligent Design accepts universal common descent" on an ID blog called "Uncommon Descent"?

    No. As a matter of fact DaveScot, one of the blog's authors, accepts universal common descent.

    At least that is what he has stated on that blog.

    I think it would be better to say that ID is indifferent to common descent rather than that it accepts common descent.

    You may have a point. ID would only accept UCD if it was scientifically valid, but it does not deny the premise

    However it is obvious that Creation is NOT indifferent to UCD. Creation does deny the premise.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home