Debate: Darwinism vs. Intelligent Design

[Ratatoskr]

There is going to be a debate at my university here in Norway, with a Paul A. Nelson from the Discovery Institute, and on the other side of the table professor Bernt Walther from the dep. of Molecular Biology.

Here is the intro:

Could the theory of intelligent design challenge the hegemony of Darwinism?

The theory of intelligent design (ID) is presented as an alternative to natural explanations for evolution. The conservative think tank in the United States called The Discovery Institute is seen as the centre for the American ID-movement. Its proponents claim that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

ID deliberately does not try to identify or name the specific agent of creation – it merely states that one or more must exist. Nevertheless, the concept is widely held as a creation of Christian right-wingers. It is claimed that ID is just creationism with a new name, after the latter being deemed unconstitutional in American public school science curricula.

Still traditional science may have a thing or two to explain. How could anything as complex as the human brain, for instance, be a result of mere coincidences? And wouldn’t ID be the most constructive direction in which to move when facing the frontiers of common scientific knowledge?

Is ID taken seriously by Norwegian scientists? Should it be taken seriously, or should it be viewed, as it is by most scientists, as pseudoscience or mere junk science? Is ID nothing more than nonsense propaganda from American Christian conservatives, or could the theory lead to the greatest paradigm shift since the days of Darwin himself?

There was also a netmeeting with Nelson in the newspaper Dagbladet. Link to the article, the questions and answers are at the bottom, in english.

So, do you think I can expect an interesting debate?

 

[HeyLeroy]

As long as the professor doesn't get too 'dry' in his presentation, yes.

ID'ers tend to go for the gutshots, appealing to an emotional response, as they have no scientific basis for their claims.

Keep us posted, please!

 

[The Atheist]

...or could the theory lead to the greatest paradigm shift since the days of Darwin himself?

Step right up folks! The great debate - in the blue corner, weighing in at 92lbs, the challenger, IDiot "Intelligent Design" Christian. IDiot's attack will consist of a flurry of lightweight jabs, relying on no evidence whatsoever.

In the red corner, the all-time heavyweight champion of evolution, Doctor Charles "Killer Chuck" Darwin! Weighing in at a finely-tuned 312lbs, Darwin is now unchallenged for over a century. He has easily brushed aside all challengers to date, backed by all true scientific opinion (and not a few true Scotsmen), Darwin is the strong odds-on favourite to hold his crown.

[Prediction - First Round KO to Darwin, in a new record time.]

Supporting bout Benny Hinn, tag-teaming with "The Amazing Psychic Surgeons" vs James Randi and "The US Olympic Heavyweight Boxing Team".

Please don't tell me anyone pays to listen to/watch this rubbish.

 

[CFLarsen]

A few suggestions, if I may....


If he, at any time, in any way, attacks Evolution, point out that, if he wants to argue that ID is correct, he can't do it by attacking another theory. ID does not magically (use that word!) become true if Evolution turn out to be false (which it isn't). ID has to stand on its own.

Ask him what/who this designer is. He will, being who he are, answer that ID doesn't concern itself with that. Point out that ID isn't science, then. If a theory is to be considered scientific, it cannot possibly set limits to what questions we ask, especially about what causes things. Science is all about finding out what causes things. Setting limits to this reveals that ID is a religious idea, not a scientific one.

Point out that the stated goal of the Discovery Institute is to replace science with religion. Print it out as evidence.

Do not get technical with him. Not that you couldn't counter his claims, but the audience will most likely not understand a fine technical point. Stick to the Big Issues.

I co-wrote an editorial with other skeptics for WeekendAvisen about ID. If you want it, send me an email at editor@skepticreport.com

 

[HeyLeroy]

TA, they can be pretty charismatic. I share your laughter at their position, but they're winning hearts and minds. Not winning winning, but a lot of fence-sitters are being persuaded that they should be given the chance.

I joined this forum almost a year ago because I thought I was attending a 'lecture' which was actually a sermon. I was the only atheist there, and I felt like I was a bit-player in Children Of The Corn 2005.

My first thread *sniff*

there's this and this and this, too.

Mattafact, check out talkorigins.org, if you haven't already.

(ETA) What CFLarsen just said. Up there.

 

[DeviousB]

Ask him what/who this designer is. He will, being who he are, answer that ID doesn't concern itself with that. Point out that ID isn't science, then. If a theory is to be considered scientific, it cannot possibly set limits to what questions we ask, especially about what causes things. Science is all about finding out what causes things. Setting limits to this reveals that ID is a religious idea, not a scientific one

Then again, he may just say that he doesn't know.

Much of modern physics uses constants that can't be derived from any theory. That's not to say that they won't be, or that we shouldn't try
[*]; but QED does not seek to explain the fine structure constant, it just accepts it.

Even Darwinism doesn't concern itself with abiogenesis, per se ( http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB090.html ). If you ask a biologist how does Darwinism explain the origin of life, he should answer along the lines that Darwinism concerns itself with the origin of species and the origin of life is a different field. He hasn't limited what questions can be asked, he has limited what phenomena his theory seeks to explain. IDers are perfectly entitled to do the same.

We should take the greatest care not to start in on IDers/creationists with the same logical fallacies we have laughed at them for over the years. On another thread I saw someone actually suggest we challenge the theory of intelligent design with the fact that men have nipples! WTF?!

[* Actually, the anthropomorphic principle pretty much does say we shouldn't try. You cosmologists! *nudge* Always horsing around!]

 

[The Atheist]

TA, they can be pretty charismatic. I share your laughter at their position, but they're winning hearts and minds. Not winning winning, but a lot of fence-sitters are being persuaded that they should be given the chance.

Yeah, I agree entirely - I've had a lot of people approach me about ID. They've all gone away shaking their heads at how they even entertained the idea.

Start off by pointing out how intelligent norovirus, influenza and bilharzia are, then work forward from there. Or maybe how intelligent it is to create an entire universe, then use only 0.0000R/1% of it. Fence-sitters are usually pretty susceptible to strong argument, so argue strongly! Point out that ID is the last hope of religion trying to justify its existence in the 21st century. It's a feeble and flawed attept to try and enable christianity to produce an alternative to the already known.

 

[Darat]

Then again, he may just say that he doesn't know.

Much of modern physics uses constants that can't be derived from any theory. That's not to say that they won't be, or that we shouldn't try
[*]; but QED does not seek to explain the fine structure constant, it just accepts it.

Even Darwinism doesn't concern itself with abiogenesis, per se ( http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB090.html ). If you ask a biologist how does Darwinism explain the origin of life, he should answer along the lines that Darwinism concerns itself with the origin of species and the origin of life is a different field. He hasn't limited what questions can be asked, he has limited what phenomena his theory seeks to explain. IDers are perfectly entitled to do the same.

We should take the greatest care not to start in on IDers/creationists with the same logical fallacies we have laughed at them for over the years. On another thread I saw someone actually suggest we challenge the theory of intelligent design with the fact that men have nipples! WTF?!

It may be too subtle for a live debate but "ID" has to postulate a designer else it isn't intelligent design - so the designer is part of the ideas of ID, following through the claims of ID also provides you with some properties of that designer - for instance the designer is exempt from the concepts behind ID.... . But as I say in a live debate situation they can just wriggle out of it.

I have found the best argument to use with people who only have a passing acquaintance with the ideas behind ID is to introduce the paradox that underlies ID - i.e. "it's turtles all the way down" - it really does seem to get people thinking about the inherent problems in creationism-in-a-new-dress.

 

[Ratatoskr]

As I mentioned, it's mainly a debate between Nelson and the professor. I'll try to sneak in a few points you've made if they don't come up earlier.
Since this is a discussion arranged by the student community I expect about 99% of the audience to support the professor.

About how the ID's can be charismatic you can clearly see it in his responses mentioned earlier.

Like this one:

humans and animals..

so why were humans sellected to be ever so complicated? why are we the only species that own a potential to rule the planet because of our intelligence?
Innsendt av: James Cagney jr.

James,

My dog rules me. Really. He makes me feel terribly guilty for not taking him for a walk in the forest preserve, and for not feeding him promptly at 5:30 pm every night.

I think it's a reasonable hypothesis that our civilization is actually run by the cats, dogs, goldfish, and guinea pigs.

THEY, not us, are the most highly-evolved forms of life. ;-)

Paul, servant of Beau (golden retriever)

Paul Nelson

 

[CFLarsen]

Then again, he may just say that he doesn't know.

In which case, it should be pointed out that he is flat-out lying. The Discovery Institute is a Christian-founded organization. There is absolutely no doubt that the "intelligent designer" they propose is the Christian god.

Much of modern physics uses constants that can't be derived from any theory. That's not to say that they won't be, or that we shouldn't try
[*]; but QED does not seek to explain the fine structure constant, it just accepts it.

Constants are measured. It's not just values that scientists make up.

The intelligent designer is an assumption.

Even Darwinism doesn't concern itself with abiogenesis, per se ( http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB090.html ). If you ask a biologist how does Darwinism explain the origin of life, he should answer along the lines that Darwinism concerns itself with the origin of species and the origin of life is a different field. He hasn't limited what questions can be asked, he has limited what phenomena his theory seeks to explain. IDers are perfectly entitled to do the same.

The difference is, as Darat points out, ID presupposes an Intelligent Designer. Not just a "designer", but an intelligent one.

 

[Darat]

...snip..

Constants are measured. It's not just values that scientists make up.


...snip...

Claus the term "constant" may be confusing you - several values in the (quite successful) theories physics uses are inserted into the equations because they make the theory "work" (i.e. predict what we can observe) they are not derived either from first principles or from observations - they are arbitrary. These values are often referred to as constants.

ETA and to satifsy your insatiable appitate for evidence, see: http://universe-review.ca/R15-12-QFT.htm

Go down to the section introduced with:

...snip...

However, the Standard Model contains 26 free parameters:

3 coupling constants + 2 Higgs parameters + 2 x [3 generations x (2 fermions masses) + 4 CKM parameters] + 1 instanton§

For massless neutrinos and no leptonic mixing angles, there are still 19 free parameters. With so much arbitrariness, the Standard Model should be considered only as the first approximation to the true theory of subatomic particles, i.e., it is an effective theory to be explained by more fundamental theory.

Following is a list of subjects that the Standard Model fails to explain. Either it is not in the formulation or it is just plugged into the theory without explanation of its origin.​

...snip...

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus the term "constant" may be confusing you - several values in the (quite successful) theories physics uses are inserted into the equations because they make the theory "work" (i.e. predict what we can observe) they are not derived either from first principles or from observations - they are arbitrary. These values are often referred to as constants.

There's no question that some constants are arbitrary in the way that we guess, but they derive from other constants that are not. And when they are later confirmed by other observations and experiments, then we can hardly say they are arbitrary. We can make a guess, but it is an educated guess, and it doesn't remain a guess.

What I mean is, we don't start with an assumption. That's the (well, one of them) difference between science and ID.

"Educated guess, which is later confirmed" is a better expression than "arbitrary".

 

[DeviousB]

In which case, it should be pointed out that he is flat-out lying. The Discovery Institute is a Christian-founded organization. There is absolutely no doubt that the "intelligent designer" they propose is the Christian god.

This confuses DI with ID. The 'theory' of ID should be discredited because of its own failings, not because of who advances it (Ad Hominem).

Constants are measured. It's not just values that scientists make up.

The intelligent designer is an assumption.

Constants have to be measured, as they cannot be determined from theory. In fact the cosmological constant was just made up, it was introduced by Einstein to allow GE to predict a universe at static equilibrium. After the discovery that the universe was expanding, the 'constant' was discarded, only to return again in the 90's.

The intelligent designer is more than an assumption (or should that be less), it is a speculative argument from igorance. It is quite possible to argue against it on those grounds.

The difference is, as Darat points out, ID presupposes an Intelligent Designer. Not just a "designer", but an intelligent one.

Yes, one of the central claims of ID is that certain structures cannot be explained by a chance/selection mechanism because of their interrelatedness and/or complexity. Their alternative explanation is that an intelligent designer (as opposed to a mechanistic design process) is the only alternative explanation.

It can be argued that in fact the structures are explainable by Darwinism. It might be argued that even if what they say is true, it is not evidence for an intelligent designer (as you rightly pointed out, ID doesn't become right if Darwinism turns out to be wrong). It should be argued that the theory of ID cannot make any particular prediction (other than the "you'll never explain this!" ones), and so is not a worthwhile scientific pursuit. It shouldn't be argued that they can't prove design because they can't produce the designer, this is a fallacy.

 

[Darat]

There's no question that some constants are arbitrary in the way that we guess, but they derive from other constants that are not.

No Claus I'm afraid that just isn't the case there are several values/constants that are just what they are to make the theory "work" - physicists have no idea why those values are needed and they are not derived from other constants. (See the link I gave.)

And when they are later confirmed by other observations and experiments,
then we can hardly say they are arbitrary. We can make a guess, but it is an educated guess, and it doesn't remain a guess.

Nope you've missed the point - there are values/constant that are totally and utterly arbitrary in the theories they are used in. In other-words the value could be anything, it has no specific value because the physicists have no idea, not a theory or anything as to what it should be - therefore they plug in a value that gives them the result they want again have a look at the link I gave.

As that article explains it is one of the reasons we know our current theories are incomplete because they cannot be entirely derived from "first principles".

What I mean is, we don't start with an assumption. That's the (well, one of them) difference between science and ID.

I agree with this - the theories that use these types of constants came about as an attempt to explain observations (or from other theories that did) - the theories did not come from an assumption of what the values should be. ID starts with the concept of God (generally Christian variety) [their constant] and then tries to find a way to describe the world that requires their constant - i.e. God.

"Educated guess, which is later confirmed" is a better expression than "arbitrary".

Nope the correct term is arbitrary since we are talking about mathematics - see the article I linked to.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

This confuses DI with ID. The 'theory' of ID should be discredited because of its own failings, not because of who advances it (Ad Hominem).

Going to disagree with you on this point. It's been shown (and "proved" in a court of law) that ID is nothing more then re-dressed creationism; so to argue against ID you can use all the arguments against creationism. However in a debate it would be necessary to explain why ID = creationism and then it would be appropriate to introduce if you like the "character" of the DI into the debate to help explain this.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Enjoy the debate about something which there is obviously no controversy.

 

[DeviousB]

I agree with this - the theories that use these types of constants came about as an attempt to explain observations (or from other theories that did) - the theories did not come from an assumption of what the values should be. ID starts with the concept of God (generally Christian variety) [their constant] and then tries to find a way to describe the world that requires their constant - i.e. God.

No argument here. But the point is that ID in itself doesn't actually advance a specific designer. It has been (rather intelligently ) designed to appear naturalistic, while 'begging the question' of just who does everyone think this designer must be? My money's on aliens!

If we resort to 'ad hominem' and 'poisoning the well' arguments to attack the ID theory we will be undermining the science we are seeking to protect. As for the IDers themselves, their motives, backgrounds, statements and past dealings are fair game. Fire away!

 

[Darat]

Enjoy the debate about something which there is obviously no controversy.

I'm afraid you are very wrong - there is much controversy regarding ID and evolution. For instance in the USA there are regular attempts to get creationism taught as part of the science curriculum which causes huge amounts of controversy. (For an example see the Dover Court Trail transcripts.)

 

[Darat]

No argument here. But the point is that ID in itself doesn't actually advance a specific designer. It has been (rather intelligently ) designed to appear naturalistic, while 'begging the question' of just who does everyone think this designer must be? My money's on aliens!

If we resort to 'ad hominem' and 'poisoning the well' arguments to attack the ID theory we will be undermining the science we are seeking to protect. As for the IDers themselves, their motives, backgrounds, statements and past dealings are fair game. Fire away!

I do understand what you are saying and agree to a certain extent however we can't forget that ID is in fact creationism, to allow the ID proponents (such as the DI) to avoid having to face that fact is wrong. So I do think it is right whenever debating with a proponent of ID to make sure the "audience" is aware that it's a new word for creationism.

 

[DeviousB]

Going to disagree with you on this point. It's been shown (and "proved" in a court of law) that ID is nothing more then re-dressed creationism; so to argue against ID you can use all the arguments against creationism. However in a debate it would be necessary to explain why ID = creationism and then it would be appropriate to introduce if you like the "character" of the DI into the debate to help explain this.

Yes, I recognise the weakness in my argument. Ken Miller's demonstration that several ID 'texts' were just creationist texts after a search/replace operation is pretty damning. I would defend my point by arguing that the purpose of this in the trial was to demonstrate that the IDers were seeking to sneak creationism in through the back door. The actual 'science' of ID, KM demolished quite ably with science of his own.

I'm not say don't go after these guys. Just like in the courts, every motive, every fact and every assumption should be shown for what it is. I am just worried that in our detestment of their attempt to introduce supernaturalism to science we don't hand them any ammunition.