ID/Creationism challenge

[Halfcentaur]

I am arguing the points for sake of clarity. As to Intelligent Design, I accept what I regard as the central claim of ID, however that appears to be entirely unrelated to what people argue about on this forum and elsewhere. I don't think I've seen anyone clearly define what they mean by ID in the many discussions here. If you'd like to present one then I'd be happy to clarify my position regarding it. I assume that would still be regarded as on topic.

I was just curious, it seemed you didn't have a horse in the race for either side, but you were merely trying to keep the argument clear and concisely worded.

 

[sphenisc]

I was just curious, it seemed you didn't have a horse in the race for either side, but you were merely trying to keep the argument clear and concisely worded.

Thank you for that.

 

[sphenisc]

What do you regard as the central claim of ID?

Generally speaking the central claim of ID that I've seen espoused by IDers is that life was designed, and that while evolution does occur on some level, there are certain things that could not have come about by anything other than deliberate design.

Of course, this is where the problem is, because they get very vague on what these concepts are. Indeed, when they pick something and it is then shown that we do know exactly how such a feature evolved, they either deny it or fall back on something else. Usually this results in undefined terminology on their part (see: Specified complexity or the ever nebulous "information") which means that we can't actually argue with them because they haven't decided what the hell it is they are arguing for yet.

I used to frequent (and do dip into still) a specifically evolution V creationism/intelligent design forum where one member and administrator mentioned "flinkywisty" as a way to highlight how useless most ID arguments are. He stated that in the same way that IDers and Creationists like to throw around the term information, he would instead state that it's obvious something didn't evolve because it didn't demonstrate flinkywisty. He never actually explained what it was, which made the entire discussion utterly worthless (which was of course, the point) because you can't debate with someone who doesn't define their terms. If we allow IDers and Creationists to constantly redefine terms as they see fit ("kind" is another favourite of the creationist crowd) then discussion becomes impossible because they can always fall back on "that isn't what I mean at all".

Intelligent Design^WP is the proposition 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."

I (naively) regard the claim as unremarkable and uncontroversial. The computer I'm typing on is a feature of the universe, and best explained (at least proximately) by an intelligent cause, the workers at DELL. I think Rolfe is an intelligent cause and pretty well every day there are living things which show features which are best explained by her activities.
But I do understand that other people seem to read it differently. I'm just not sure why; whether it's interpreting "best" as meaning "ultimately" or something else. I'm not not even sure that there is a consistent alternative interpretation, some regard it as Creationism-lite for example. Either way I'm wary of stating yay or nay without clarification of how the term is being used.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Intelligent Design^WP is the proposition 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."

I (naively) regard the claim as unremarkable and uncontroversial. The computer I'm typing on is a feature of the universe, and best explained (at least proximately) by an intelligent cause, the workers at DELL. I think Rolfe is an intelligent cause and pretty well every day there are living things which show features which are best explained by her activities.
But I do understand that other people seem to read it differently. I'm just not sure why; whether it's interpreting "best" as meaning "ultimately" or something else. I'm not not even sure that there is a consistent alternative interpretation, some regard it as Creationism-lite for example. Either way I'm wary of stating yay or nay without clarification of how the term is being used.

Sounds to me like you're just co-opting by literalistic interpretation a derived summary of a set of pseudo-scientific assertions. What you regard as the central claim of these assertions is not Intelligent Design (with caps), it's just a description of something self-evident. But Intelligent Design is not that central claim, it's the whole set of assertions that (post hoc) have been boiled down to that central claim.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Intelligent Design^WP is the proposition 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."

Intelligent design, every time I have seen it in relation to evolution, is the belief that God (supposedly an undefined designer, but it's always god) meddled with evolution in order to make life as we know it, because life as we know it could not have come about purely through evolution.

That this idea is nonsense doesn't seem to bother IDers.

I (naively) regard the claim as unremarkable and uncontroversial.

Based on what you write below, I can understand why, but you seem to have missed the point about Intelligent Design with capital letters. Intelligent Design is literally and completely, the attempt to put a thin veneer of science onto creationism, by blithely dismissing the fact of common descent and insisting on some poorly defined and illogical boundaries that could not be crossed by evolutionary means (normally this refers purely to mutations and natural selection, conveniently ignoring or just blindly ignorant of the many other methods of evolution) without any evidence whatsoever for this. They then assert, completely seriously, that because these boundaries that they just made up exist, some great intelligent designer came and fiddled about a bit with life.

The computer I'm typing on is a feature of the universe, and best explained (at least proximately) by an intelligent cause, the workers at DELL. I think Rolfe is an intelligent cause and pretty well every day there are living things which show features which are best explained by her activities.

This is true, but irrelevant. As I stated above, Intelligent Design is just rebranded creationism. In fact, using the wikipedia article you yourself linked to:

It is neo-creationism, a form of creationism restated in non-religious terms. It is also a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one which deliberately avoids specifying the nature or identity of the intelligent designer. Its leading proponents—all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank—believe the designer to be the Christian God.

Intelligent design was developed by a group of American creationists who revised their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings such as the United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguillard ruling, which barred the teaching of "creation science" in public schools as breaching the separation of church and state.

But I do understand that other people seem to read it differently. I'm just not sure why; whether it's interpreting "best" as meaning "ultimately" or something else.

It's somethign else.

Ever hear of The Wedge Document? It's a document produced by The Discovery Institute, who are the leading lights (if you can abuse the term so roughly) of the Intelligent Design movement and it details their plans for what Intelligent Design as a concept is and what it's designed to do. Using the above linked Wiki page, which quotes the document:

which describes a broad social, political, and academic agenda whose ultimate goal is to "defeat scientific materialism" represented by evolution, "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions"

Maybe a larger quote from the document itself:

Alongside a focus on the influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidences that support the faith, as well as "popularize" our ideas in the broader culture.

Intelligent Design is literally an attempt to push creationism onto schools through the back door by appearing to agree with science while at the same time attempting to destroy it in favour of theism. Specifically Christian theism.

See why people get so pissed at IDers yet?

I'm not not even sure that there is a consistent alternative interpretation, some regard it as Creationism-lite for example.

See above.

Either way I'm wary of stating yay or nay without clarification of how the term is being used.

The term is only ever used one way. There are variations within the class of people called (their own words from the first publishing of the dispicable faux-science book Of Pandas and People "cdesign proponentsists" (read the sorry story here) but they are all people who are attempting to redefine science to fit their own theology.

Whilst the single quote you took from the Wiki page does seem reasonable, afterall as you say, computers are in the universe and designed, dog breeds are part of life and "designed" by humans via selective breeding and so on, the actual meaning of the words, as with many things to do with creationists, is something far more sinister.

More information on Intelligent Design:

TalkDesign

The Wedge Strategy document in full. (In case you're wondering, antievolution.org is a pro-evolution website owned by Wesley R. Elsberry, a Christian evolution proponent and Marine Biologist and a very very nice man.

 

[Philosaur]

Your problem seems to be with my P1 rather than the rest of my argument. You haven't really specified why, other than presenting conclusions based on it you appear to feel uncomfortable with, a relatively common behaviour in this thread. Do you have an alternative method for identifying evidence which you'd prefer?


Nah, I think the difference is thaiboxerken had some. [It wasn't intended as a definition.]

I don't know what you didn't intend as a definition, so I'll soldier on...

To be precise, my problem is that I find your definition of "evidence" to be much, much too liberal. Your premise P1 is merely a formalization of your definition of evidence. I was attempting to demonstrate how your definition leads to conclusions which seem absurd, or which are at least monumentally unhelpful in deciding any real-world problem. (Not that I generally worry about people poisoning my Coke...)

And maybe I shouldn't be uncomfortable with the conclusions I presented. After all, if I understand that for this particular thread, "evidence" for a theory just means a statement which doesn't exclude that theory, then what's the harm? I can agree to your terminology for the sake of this discussion.

The OP asked for someone to provide evidence of ID, and "Life exists" is what you provided. The more I think about it, the more I hope you give this same answer the next time the question comes up outside the microcosm of this thread.

 

[Philosaur]

Not for "Hitler as the inventor of shoes", for "Hitler invented shoes."
The former presupposes the existence of an inventor of shoes, which means that the existence of shoes provides no further evidence, the latter doesn't.

You have fun dissecting that...

Perhaps, but that's because you've altered the form of the argument.

No, I just tried to imagine it in another context. Sometimes that is informative.

Ugggh!! Invalid syllogism, and wrong pronoun, and well poisoning.

I'll apologize for the wrong pronoun--faulty assumption on my part due to your avatar pic.

As for the rest, I stand by it. You admitted that in another context, you might not accept your own definition of evidence. But right now you're going through contortions to defend a completely neutered definition. I think that's a little dishonest.

In my opinion, there is nothing formally wrong with your argument, except in your symbolization of P1--there is no "is-evidence-for" operator in any system of formal logic I know of. As I've said, the problem I have is with your definition of "evidence".

My maintaining my position would be dogged if you'd presented an argument which contradicts mine.
The only point I can see which does is "It doesn't even do that. It merely shows that a true proposition doesn't exclude any argument which entails that proposition." I would describe something not excluded, as being favoured over something which is excluded.
Other than that, where do you think you've presented a case which should change my mind?

I'll provisionally agree with your definition of "favored". But do you not see that it--just like your definition of "evidence"--dilutes the term to homeopathic levels?

 

[sphenisc]

Sounds to me like you're just co-opting by literalistic interpretation a derived summary of a set of pseudo-scientific assertions. What you regard as the central claim of these assertions is not Intelligent Design (with caps), it's just a description of something self-evident.

Okay, so I 've got Wikipedia's claim and I've got yours. Why should I prefer yours over Wiki's? It at least provided references.

But Intelligent Design is not that central claim, it's the whole set of assertions that (post hoc) have been boiled down to that central claim.

If it's been boiled down to that central claim then that's what it is. I don't see the distinction your drawing.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Okay, so I 've got Wikipedia's claim and I've got yours. Why should I prefer yours over Wiki's? It at least provided references.

If it's been boiled down to that central claim then that's what it is. I don't see the distinction your drawing.

That's because you're engaging in pedantry and deliberately avoiding the fact the ID is creationist pseudo-science invented to make creationism more palatable to an increasingly skeptical world, not a soft observation that some stuff is designed/affected by intelligent beings.

 

[sphenisc]

Intelligent design, every time I have seen it in relation to evolution, is the belief that God (supposedly an undefined designer, but it's always god) meddled with evolution in order to make life as we know it, because life as we know it could not have come about purely through evolution.

That this idea is nonsense doesn't seem to bother IDers.

And all the swans I've seen are white. That doesn't make it part of the definition.

Based on what you write below, I can understand why, but you seem to have missed the point about Intelligent Design with capital letters. Intelligent Design is literally and completely, the attempt to put a thin veneer of science onto creationism, by blithely dismissing the fact of common descent and insisting on some poorly defined and illogical boundaries that could not be crossed by evolutionary means (normally this refers purely to mutations and natural selection, conveniently ignoring or just blindly ignorant of the many other methods of evolution) without any evidence whatsoever for this. They then assert, completely seriously, that because these boundaries that they just made up exist, some great intelligent designer came and fiddled about a bit with life.

If you can find an ID proponent who agrees with you I'd find the claim more convincing. Otherwise it has the appearance of a, very widely held, strawman.

This is true, but irrelevant. As I stated above, Intelligent Design is just rebranded creationism. In fact, using the wikipedia article you yourself linked to:

Indeed the first two sentences demonstrate, to my eyes, an almost Biblical level of internal contradiction. It doesn't help clarify the situation any.

Ever hear of The Wedge Document? It's a document produced by The Discovery Institute, who are the leading lights (if you can abuse the term so roughly) of the Intelligent Design movement and it details their plans for what Intelligent Design as a concept is and what it's designed to do. Using the above linked Wiki page, which quotes the document:

It certainly details what ID is designed to do. It is entirely uninterested in what ID is, It is treated as little more than a means to an end as far as I can see.

Maybe a larger quote from the document itself:

Both quotes describe the way ID is intended to be used. They don't describe what ID is. The ID movement is a different thing from the ID...let's called it "conjecture".

Intelligent Design is literally an attempt to push creationism onto schools through the back door by appearing to agree with science while at the same time attempting to destroy it in favour of theism. Specifically Christian theism.

See why people get so pissed at IDers yet?

But previously it was " Intelligent Design is literally and completely, the attempt to put a thin veneer of science onto creationism...".No mention of schools before. This seems to be another example of meaning-creep. The definition expands to provide scope for a new attack. Which again makes me suspicious that I'm looking at a strawman.

The term is only ever used one way.

Yet you've used it two different ways in this one post.

There are variations within the class of people called (their own words from the first publishing of the dispicable faux-science book Of Pandas and People "cdesign proponentsists" (read the sorry story here) but they are all people who are attempting to redefine science to fit their own theology.

Sure, now how that's help me work out what the term means?

Whilst the single quote you took from the Wiki page does seem reasonable, afterall as you say, computers are in the universe and designed, dog breeds are part of life and "designed" by humans via selective breeding and so on, the actual meaning of the words, as with many things to do with creationists, is something far more sinister.

Do you have an qualms about appealing to the "actual" meaning of the words and "sinister" creationists? Doesn't it smack of an appeal to motives fallacy?

More information on Intelligent Design:

TalkDesign

The Wedge Strategy document in full. (In case you're wondering, antievolution.org is a pro-evolution website owned by Wesley R. Elsberry, a Christian evolution proponent and Marine Biologist and a very very nice man.

Thanks for the links - will take a bit of time to look through them. Apologies for abruptness of responses - heading off for the weekend.

 

[chipmunk stew]

@sphenisc,

If you follow the link of Wikipedia's citation of the quote you take as ID's central claim, you will find that when it says "certain features of the universe and of living things", it's not talking in general terms. It makes very specific claims about features covered by the claim.

The cited quote directs you to "For more information see Center Director Stephen Meyer's article "Not By Chance" ", which makes the following statements:

" intelligent design is not a religious-based idea, but instead an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins-one that challenges strictly materialistic views of evolution ."

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

It goes on to touch on all the points commonly associate with ID (irreducible complexity, fine tuning etc.)

Contrary to your literalistic interpretation, the central claim of ID is specifically referring to the origin of life, the entire history of observed and inferred life, and the origin and cosmological development of the universe, not just known tinkering by known intelligent beings (humans).

 

[Dinwar]

If you can find an ID proponent who agrees with you I'd find the claim more convincing. Otherwise it has the appearance of a, very widely held, strawman.

What was the court case where this was proven? The term "Creationism" was replaced with "Intelligeng Design" in textbooks, and obviously so (there were significant errors, indicating it was a "Find: Replace All" thing rather than re-working the textbook to remove Creationism). So yeah, ID is, and has been proven to be, Creationism in disguise.

You appear to be entirely ignorant of the ID movement's history. I mean no offense here--I'm just stating that before you advocate for the idea you really should learn what they're about. The court case I mentioned is a great place to start; it shows that the movement demonstrably started as a dishonest attempt to force Creationism into the classroom. Not a promising start to an ostensibly scientific theory.

Both quotes describe the way ID is intended to be used. They don't describe what ID is. The ID movement is a different thing from the ID...let's called it "conjecture".

Not our problem. ID always has the exact same flaws, whether it's the religious form or some attempt to convince yourself that it's not religion. First, it NEVER presents an actual designer for consideration, which leaves this at the level of "What if this is all a dream?" arm-chair philosophy, which is not science. You're dealing with paleontologists and geologists here--we're trained to reject any idea that lacks a mechanism (look at what happened to Wagner), which means EVEN IF YOU ARE RIGHT a significant number of people studying evolution will reject ID. Second, ID typically rests on the idea of irreducibly complex structures. However, each time they porpose a structure as irreducibly complex it's shown to be in fact entirely possible to develop that structure in incrimental steps. In other words, ID rests on personal incredulity.

But previously it was " Intelligent Design is literally and completely, the attempt to put a thin veneer of science onto creationism...".No mention of schools before. This seems to be another example of meaning-creep.

You appear to be totally ignorant of the history of this movement. I would suggest looking into it.

Do you have an qualms about appealing to the "actual" meaning of the words and "sinister" creationists? Doesn't it smack of an appeal to motives fallacy?

No. Creationists (and, by extension, the major advocates of ID) have openly stated that they are attempting to convert the USA into a theocracy. They will do whatever it takes to do so. If they convince people to teach ID, they will then convince people to teach Creationism, then to teach Biblical Literallism, and so on, until we live in a theocracy. This is not a Slippery Slope fallacy--it's what they stated they will do. Thus, we can assume going in that what these people are advocating as science is, at minimum, horribly mangled by biases and that if there's any grain of truth there it's burried deep. It is a major error to assume that people are honest after they've openly stated they are not.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

You appear to be totally ignorant of the history of this movement. I would suggest looking into it.

Exactly what I was thinking.

Sphensic, have you looked into this before, and what kind of exposure do you have to the ID movement?

 

[Halfcentaur]

What was the court case where this was proven? The term "Creationism" was replaced with "Intelligeng Design" in textbooks, and obviously so (there were significant errors, indicating it was a "Find: Replace All" thing rather than re-working the textbook to remove Creationism). So yeah, ID is, and has been proven to be, Creationism in disguise.

I don't recall the name of the case off hand, the book in question was "Pandas and People".
It was Dover vs ******, I don't recall.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I don't recall the name of the case off hand, the book in question was "Pandas and People".

Kitzmiller V Dover.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Kitzmiller v. Dover^WP

 

[Halfcentaur]

Ah, thanks.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I don't think she is ignorant of ID history, our that it's just Creationism in a tuxedo. It's my opinion that she's a wedger, trying to convince people that ID s science.

 

[Philosaur]

I don't think she is ignorant of ID history, our that it's just Creationism in a tuxedo. It's my opinion that she's a wedger, trying to convince people that ID s science.

...Ugggh!! Invalid syllogism, and wrong pronoun, and well poisoning. ...

Apparently she's a he.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

No. Creationists (and, by extension, the major advocates of ID) have openly stated that they are attempting to convert the USA into a theocracy. They will do whatever it takes to do so. If they convince people to teach ID, they will then convince people to teach Creationism, then to teach Biblical Literallism, and so on, until we live in a theocracy. This is not a Slippery Slope fallacy--it's what they stated they will do. Thus, we can assume going in that what these people are advocating as science is, at minimum, horribly mangled by biases and that if there's any grain of truth there it's burried deep. It is a major error to assume that people are honest after they've openly stated they are not.

One possible correction to your otherwise accurate summary: If you're talking about what is said in the Discovery Institute's Wedge Document, that was not said openly. The Discovery Institute never intended for that document to become public; it was leaked (or stolen, according to one of the DI's co-founders). The leaked document was marked "Top Secret" and "Not For Distribution."

Although it is true that the perpetrators of the intelligent design movement stated their anti-science and political goals quite explicitly in that document, you over-estimate their honesty by saying they did so openly.

Similar dishonesty was shown by pro-ID members of the Dover school board. In the words of the presiding judge, a church-going Christian and conservative Republican:

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

With regard to the original topic of this thread:

The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.

That legal decision was not appealed.

ETA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District