A “cost” is a “goal”

_{February 1, 2013

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In the phys.org news “Researchers solve biological mystery and boost artificial intelligence” is cited a research about “The Evolutionary Origins of Modularity” (in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, Jan. 30, 2013).

The researchers have simulated “25,000 generations of evolution within computers” and believe to have discovered why biological systems show modularity.

They say:

“Researchers have discovered why biological networks tend to be organized as modules – a finding that will lead to a deeper understanding of the evolution of complexity. […] As it turned out, it was enough to include a “cost of wiring” to make evolution favor modular architectures. […] Once you add a cost for network connections, modules immediately appear. Without a cost, modules never form.”

What means to program a “cost” in a computer simulation of evolution? In two words, it is to write a set of instructions that says: “if the digital organism behaves or develops X then reward it with a bonus; differently if it fails X then punish it”. In one word, a “cost” is a “goal”.

Darwinists always said that evolution works because of a “cost of unfit” only. Today they add a “cost of wiring” to get modules. I suspect tomorrow they will add a “cost of blindness” to get eyes, the day after tomorrow they will add a “cost of immobility” to get legs … and so on.

Also, Darwinists always said that evolution is blind and has no goal. But each “cost” is a “goal”. So, what they call “deeper understanding of the evolution of complexity” seems to me simply additional contradictions of their theory.

Comments

billmaz @87:
The universe and its laws could have been created by God with the algorithms in place to evolve intelligent life.
True. But there is no evidence the laws of the universe lead to life (indeed there is plenty of contrary evidence). However, if we are talking about first created life being infused with information adequate to subsequently develop into life as we currently see it, that is a different story. I think that might be what Joe was referring to? Personally, I'm not too convinced about front loading as an explanation for the development of all life as we see it. Perhaps some aspects, yes, but I don't think we need to resort to front loading to reconcile design with the alleged evolutionary history, as the latter is not particularly clear anyway.
The tinkerer issue is the problem with ID.
How is this a problem?Eric Anderson_{February 6, 2013
February
02
Feb
6
06
2013
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT}

billmaz as to:
There is no way of proving where those laws came from.
I beg to differ: Only God can provide a coherent basis for the finely tuned 'higher dimensional' physical laws; https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N3rreCPgeJUrQRPt3WNoeYTdHPcVEUOHDBDXrDlWgzU/edit As to:
The tinkerer issue is the problem with ID.
Actually the 'inept' tinkerer is a severe problem for 'botton up' Darwinian evolution. Whereas the evidence, as David Tyler pointed out in his post today, clearly indicates 'top down' frontloaded design,,, Reappraising speciation in fossil gastropods - February 5, 2013 - David Tyler Excerpt: The morphologies (investigated during a geological interval of c. 1.6 Ma) can be described as examples of micro-evolutionary change. The Melanopsis gastropods are all members of the same genus. Whilst morphologies change, there are no evolutionary novelties. Indeed, there is no evidence here for anything more than multiple phenotypes emerging from the same genotype. The situation fits well with the concept of phenotypic plasticity,,, http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2013/02/05/reappraising_speciation_in_fossil_gastrobornagain77_{February 5, 2013
February
02
Feb
5
05
2013
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT}

Joe, I have no problem with your point. The universe and its laws could have been created by God with the algorithms in place to evolve intelligent life. But that would be no different than saying God created all the laws of the universe, quantum mechanics and all. There is no way of proving where those laws came from. The tinkerer issue is the problem with ID.billmaz_{February 5, 2013
February
02
Feb
5
05
2013
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT}

Bill Maz 72- 1- Your "physics based source of directed evolution" could be on par with Mike Gene's "front-loaded evolution". So it wouldn't necessarily dispense with ID, but it may dispense with a tinkerer 2- With the proper software there wouldn't be any need to constantly infuse information- and my stance is we are governed by software, ie real genetic programking wit real genetic algorithms. THAT is part of the new vitalism.Joe_{February 4, 2013
February
02
Feb
4
04
2013
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT}

More likely the agency behind it; or if physical light is a continuum with spiritual light, the spiritual pole, i.e God.Axel_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

You gad it!Axel_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT}

Did someone say photons are watching me?Mung_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT}

Is there a methodology one could adopt to be able to live life purely from free will? How does one even know or recognize free will when one looks inside himself? How does one avoid constant second guessing whenever one tries to make a decision?
Do you believe as you wish, or as you must? Do you react as you wish, or as you must? Do you interpret as you wish, or as you must? The former demonstrates free will, the latter demonstrates mechanism.William J Murray_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT}

Eminent physicist John Wheeler says he has only enough time left to work on one idea: that human consciousness shapes not only the present but the past as well Wheeler believes that consciousness created the universe and is still doing so.William J Murray_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT}

This is a better video, Bill. The one I had been looking for. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_voTiCTqv4QAxel_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

But you were questioning God's micromanaging, weren't you, Bill? This behaviour of light surely implies, not merely the level of micromanagement that only a creator-god would be capable of, but also a theistic God.Axel_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT}

Thanks Axel. The video is mind-blowing. As for photons as a mode of following our every move, I never argued that God, if He wanted to, couldn't do whatever He wanted. By definition, He is omnipotent. He doesn't even need photons. He could just will it, I presume. My question was whether there was evidence of His interfering in the doings on earth. Bornagain's allusion to quantum mechanics is fine. I already said that God can and probably should be invoked in creating the laws of the universe. My question is after He did that, is there any evidence that He continues to inject information into the genome in ways that cannot be explained by quantum mechanics or any other physical laws.billmaz_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT}

Here is one of the videos, Bill on the latest physical findings relating to the Shroud of Turin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEvRqrhudU BA, what you wrote concerning past states being affected by present choices resonates with the eternal (as per some NDEs, all time existing concurrently!), and hence numinous status of our free will; a divine attribute. Does it not?Axel_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT}

What is your opinion of the latest findings on the Shroud, Bill? Re your #72: 'In other words, I have a problem with the idea that a designer is constantly infusing new information into the system in order to create new species. It implies a designer who is always watching our development and adding new information as needed. Do your really believe that?' If light, by whatever agency or of its own action, is always on hand to track every human being on the planet (hits the Observer at its own absolute speed, whatever speed he might be travelling in the same direction), how could that not imply either its own omniscience and omnipotence, or that of an agency governing it? timothya, re your post #65 'Quite evidently, individual organisms have a range of genetically determined strategies to achieve survival. No such long-term strategies exist for any species as a whole, at least until humans evolved the ability to conserve cultural knowledge.' Your use of the term, 'genetically-determined strategies' seems a very cheeky cop-out, to avoid the concept of Intelligent Design. A 'strategy' is an intelligent design; indeed a rather sophisticatedly pivotal one.Axel_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT}

Well billmaz, I disagree with you (and many other people here on right here on UD) in that I find God has left a fingerprint on life with 'non-local', beyond space and time, quantum information/entanglement now being found in molecular biology on a massive scale (in every DNA and protein molecule), whereas I also hold that Christ offers a very credible reconciliation of General Relativity and Quantum mechanics, (as witnessed on the Shroud of Turin by the 'singularity'), thus substantiating, in rather dramatic fashion Christ's claims about Himself. I certainly don't hold following the evidence where it leads to be 'childish'. I call it dealing with reality on reality's own terms!bornagain77_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT}

Thank you William J Murray for you incisive comment. If you agree that most of us do not live our lives with a true expression of our free will, then that opens up all sorts of questions. Is it possible to live life that way, ever? Is there anyone living or dead who has lived life that way, (perhaps other than the Buddha or Christ)? Is there a methodology one could adopt to be able to live life purely from free will? How does one even know or recognize free will when one looks inside himself? How does one avoid constant second guessing whenever one tries to make a decision? We live like "automatons" as you put it for a reason. In Ernest Becker's book The Denial of Death, he makes an argument that living like automatons is an adaptive trait which allows us to function in our physical world without being constantly paralyzed by the "wonder" of it all, without living in constant amazement at the incredible beauty and awesome terror of our physical world. So most of us would probably not be prepared to really "open our eyes" and live "willfully" because that would entail really seeing the world in all its beauty and horror.billmaz_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT}

Thank you bornagain77 for your impressive comments and documentation. I have followed you for some time throughout the blogs and have been impressed by the breadth and depth of your knowledge. I have followed the NDE literature for decades. I am convinced that it is real. I have even met several patients in the operating room (I was trained as an anesthesiologist in my previous life) who had out of body experiences in previous surgeries, including seeing not only what was happening in their operating room but in others next door. I even have a sister-in-law who has had out of body experiences on a regular basis since childhood, when she almost died from an allergic reaction to tetracycline. She has even "traveled" across continents to "see" what my brother was doing at that particular moment and then call him immediately after to describe to him exactly where he is seated, what book he is reading, what the room looks like and what coffee he is drinking. So I am convinced. I have also followed the literature, as an interested amateur, on quantum mechanics, black holes, time dilation, etc. I am convinced that the material universe cannot be all there is, and that there is an eternal energy or spirit which survives this physical world. Having said all that, I have problems with the particulars of religion(s). They seem childish, intended for a specific period of human history and for guiding the masses toward a moral life. All of which is fine. But I can't use the Bible or the Koran, or any other historical document either as a literal guide to life or as a component of scientific research which, by its very nature, can only try to describe the physical universe. We are in a black box. We can't see outside of it. Even if we find an infinite number of universes they are still physical objects, not spiritual. So my problem with ID is that it conflates the spiritual world with the physical. There is no evidence in any other scientific specialty that God interferes with our world of the physical. So to include God, or a Designer, in our understanding of the evolution of species is to inject a source of information which we will never be able to prove or even test for. It is simply deus ex machina, no matter how ID proponents try to deflect that conclusion. In my post above, I have quoted Dembski saying he cannot fathom of a designer who is part of this physical world, that it is a question of philosophy and theology. So you can understand how mainstream biologists can't allow themselves to infuse religion and philosophy into their studies since they have no tools by which to prove these ideas one way or another. And saying that there is no better way to explain complexity isn't enough. There may be no better way now, but there is already literature which tries to inject quantum mechanics, directed mutations, etc. into evolution. We may discover that God created a universe which has built into it the quantum laws needed to drive evolution, information, etc. toward a directed goal. As in my comment to Joe above, I would tend to believe that idea more than a God constantly infusing new information into our development to create new species or better organisms. Because if God decided to do that, then we would have to ask why He doesn't introduce Himself into all the other things going on in our physical world, which opens up a whole Pandora's box.billmaz_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT}

Thank you Joe for the documentation and clarification. Question: How would adaptive or directed mutation, which has been even been hypothesized to involve quantum mechanics,Bill Maz: Adaptive Mutations and Quantum Mechanics fit into your synthesis? In other words, what if we find that there is a physics-based "directed" evolution in which mutations are not random but directed in such a way as to involve the generation of new mutations and adaptations and new speciaton, a universe that has the quantum rules in it which, in essence, direct the eventual evolution of intelligent species?I understand these are hypothetical ideas and that, even if directed mutations do occur, it hasn't yet been shown to involve heritable traits that are passed on to future generations. But if the only difference between evolutionists and ID proponents is the source of the drive to new information, then if we find a physics based source of directed evolution we can dispense with ID. In other words, I have a problem with the idea that a designer is constantly infusing new information into the system in order to create new species. It implies a designer who is always watching our development and adding new information as needed. Do your really believe that?billmaz_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT}

billmaz, thanks for your heartfelt response. Please forgive my 'thinking the worse' of your intentions. I tend to 'assume the worst' because that is usually the level of argumentation that I have to deal with from materialists.,,, billmaz, the important thing to realize in all this is that free will is shown, by quantum mechanics, to take on a MOST foundationally important role in our best understanding of reality. I hold this finding to completely negate any doubt as to 'if' there is a God. This finding is simply completely inexplicable to any atheistic/materialistic position (no matter how convoluted it may be), whereas to the Theistic position, ESPECIALLY the Christian Theistic position, this finding is to be completely expected. According to mainstream Christian Theism, our eternal destiny is determined by our free will choice to accept Christ's atoning sacrifice for our sins, or to face God's perfect justice and holiness on our own merits. (For me, looking over my life filled with regrettable mistakes, the 'choice' is not even close) Thus while I agree with you that many of our choices seem to be on the verge of automatic in many instances, that in no way, shape, or form, negates the fact that God has left this most important of free will choices, of where we each will choose to spend eternity, (either in loving communion with God through Christ, or separated from Him,) completely and freely in our hands. As to supporting evidence,,, It is very interesting to note that we have two very different ‘eternities of time’ revealed by our time dilation experiments. One ‘eternity’ is found for being deeper in a gravitation well and another ‘eternity’ is found for accelerating towards the speed of light: Time dilation Excerpt: Time dilation: special vs. general theories of relativity: In Albert Einstein's theories of relativity, time dilation in these two circumstances can be summarized: 1. --In special relativity (or, hypothetically far from all gravitational mass), clocks that are moving with respect to an inertial system of observation are measured to be running slower. (i.e. For any observer accelerating, hypothetically, to the speed of light, time, as we understand it, will come to a complete stop). 2.--In general relativity, clocks at lower potentials in a gravitational field—such as in closer proximity to a planet—are found to be running slower. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation i.e. As with any observer accelerating to the speed of light, it is found that for any observer falling into the event horizon of a black hole, that time, as we understand it, will come to a complete stop for them. — But of particular interest to the ‘eternal framework’ found for General Relativity at black holes;… It is interesting to note that entropic decay (Randomness), which is the primary reason why things grow old and eventually die in this universe, is found to be greatest at black holes. Thus the ‘eternality of time’ at black holes can rightly be called ‘eternalities of decay and/or eternalities of destruction’. Entropy of the Universe - Hugh Ross - May 2010 Excerpt: Egan and Lineweaver found that supermassive black holes are the largest contributor to the observable universe’s entropy. They showed that these supermassive black holes contribute about 30 times more entropy than what the previous research teams estimated. Roger Penrose – How Special Was The Big Bang? “But why was the big bang so precisely organized, whereas the big crunch (or the singularities in black holes) would be expected to be totally chaotic? It would appear that this question can be phrased in terms of the behaviour of the WEYL part of the space-time curvature at space-time singularities. What we appear to find is that there is a constraint WEYL = 0 (or something very like this) at initial space-time singularities-but not at final singularities-and this seems to be what confines the Creator’s choice to this very tiny region of phase space." i.e. Black Holes are found to be ‘timeless’ singularities of destruction and disorder rather than singularities of creation and order such as the extreme order we see at the creation event of the Big Bang. Needless to say, the implications of this ‘eternality of destruction’ should be fairly disturbing for those of us who are of the ‘spiritually minded' persuasion! Matthew 10:28 “Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. Further notes: Albert Einstein - Special Relativity - Insight Into Eternity - 'thought experiment' video http://www.metacafe.com/w/6545941/ Please note the 3:22 minute mark of the following video, when the 3-Dimensional world ‘folds and collapses’ into a tunnel shape around the direction of travel as a 'hypothetical' observer moves towards the ‘higher dimension’ of the speed of light, with the ‘light at the end of the tunnel’ reported in very many Near Death Experiences: (Of note: This following video was made by two Australian University Physics Professors with a supercomputer.) Approaching The Speed Of Light - Optical Effects - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5733303/ What would it be like to be in a higher dimension? Near Death Experience – The Tunnel, The Light, The Life Review – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4200200/ 'In the 'spirit world,,, instantly, there was no sense of time. See, everything on earth is related to time. You got up this morning, you are going to go to bed tonight. Something is new, it will get old. Something is born, it's going to die. Everything on the physical plane is relative to time, but everything in the spiritual plane is relative to eternity. Instantly I was in total consciousness and awareness of eternity, and you and I as we live in this earth cannot even comprehend it, because everything that we have here is filled within the veil of the temporal life. In the spirit life that is more real than anything else and it is awesome. Eternity as a concept is awesome. There is no such thing as time. I knew that whatever happened was going to go on and on.' Mickey Robinson - Near Death Experience testimony 'When you die, you enter eternity. It feels like you were always there, and you will always be there. You realize that existence on Earth is only just a brief instant.' Dr. Ken Ring - has extensively studied Near Death Experiences 'Earthly time has no meaning in the spirit realm. There is no concept of before or after. Everything - past, present, future - exists simultaneously.' - Kimberly Clark Sharp - NDE Experiencer The NDE and the Tunnel - Kevin Williams' research conclusions Excerpt: I started to move toward the light. The way I moved, the physics, was completely different than it is here on Earth. It was something I had never felt before and never felt since. It was a whole different sensation of motion. I obviously wasn't walking or skipping or crawling. I was not floating. I was flowing. I was flowing toward the light. I was accelerating and I knew I was accelerating, but then again, I didn't really feel the acceleration. I just knew I was accelerating toward the light. Again, the physics was different - the physics of motion of time, space, travel. It was completely different in that tunnel, than it is here on Earth. I came out into the light and when I came out into the light, I realized that I was in heaven.(Barbara Springer) --------- ,,,As well, as with the scientifically verified tunnel for special relativity, we also have scientific confirmation of extreme ‘tunnel curvature’, within space-time, to a eternal ‘event horizon’ at black holes; Space-Time of a Black hole http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0VOn9r4dq8 As well, as with the tunnel being present in heavenly NDE's, we also have mention of tunnels in hellish NDE testimonies; A man, near the beginning of this video, gives testimony of falling down a 'tunnel' in the transition stage from this world to hell: Hell - A Warning! - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4131476/ The man, in this following video, also speaks of 'tumbling down' a tunnel in his transition stage to hell: Bill Wiese on Sid Roth – video http://vimeo.com/21230371 billmaz, you may say you don't believe in Near Death Experiences are real, but if so, you would fail to realize just how strong the evidence for NDE's are: Quantum Entangled Consciousness - Life After Death - Stuart Hameroff - video http://vimeo.com/39982578 Near-Death Experiences: Putting a Darwinist's Evidentiary Standards to the Test - Dr. Michael Egnor - October 15, 2012 Excerpt: Indeed, about 20 percent of NDE's are corroborated, which means that there are independent ways of checking about the veracity of the experience. The patients knew of things that they could not have known except by extraordinary perception -- such as describing details of surgery that they watched while their heart was stopped, etc. Additionally, many NDE's have a vividness and a sense of intense reality that one does not generally encounter in dreams or hallucinations.,,, The most "parsimonious" explanation -- the simplest scientific explanation -- is that the (Near Death) experience was real. Tens of millions of people have had such experiences. That is tens of millions of more times than we have observed the origin of species (or origin of life), which is never.,,, The materialist reaction, in short, is unscientific and close-minded. NDE's show fellows like Coyne at their sneering unscientific irrational worst. Somebody finds a crushed fragment of a fossil and it's earth-shaking evidence. Tens of million of people have life-changing spiritual experiences and it's all a big yawn. Note: Dr. Egnor is professor and vice-chairman of neurosurgery at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/near_death_expe_1065301.htmlbornagain77_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT}

A few more comments about free will: It is my view that "free will" only applies to will, not to actions, consequences, or in many cases individual decisions. It is my responsibility to organize my mind and beliefs in a manner that gives me the best chance for making good decisions in any given situation, including those which are problematical. IOW, I must willfully choose what I believe to be true of myself and the world, and willfully construct an interpretive/reactive system that serves my intent even when I am on "autopilot", so to speak. I agree with billmaz in spirit that many people do not seem to do this; they simply adopt whatever "seems" true to them as their beliefs, and simply react however they happen to react. Most people, IMO, either do not understand, or do not have the capacity, to change how they think, what they believe, and how they interpret/react. They are, for all intents and purposes, exactly what materialist believe: biological automatons, or as I like to call them, NPCs (non-player characters).William J Murray_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT}

H'mm: were made in China el cheapos not designed? (Just for argument -- signs that point to design per reliable induction are separate from evaluating the quality of such in light of robustness constraints vs over optimisation and brittleness -- tradeoffs. But then I love my Victorinoxes AND my el cheapo knockoffs for different jobs. We must also reckon with deteriorated and damaged designs as a challenge.) KFkairosfocus_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT}

Bill Maz- Please read the following: So here it is AGAIN- Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution: Intelligent Design is NOT Anti-Evolution In order to have a discussion about whether or not Intelligent Design is anti-evolution or not we must first define “evolution”. Fortunately there are resources available that do just that. Defining “evolution”:

Finally, during the evolutionary synthesis, a consensus emerged: “Evolution is the change in properties of populations of organisms over time”- Ernst Mayr page 8 of “What Evolution Is”

Biological (or organic) evolution is change in the properties of populations of organisms or groups of such populations, over the course of generations. The development, or ontogeny, of an individual organism is not considered evolution: individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are ‘heritable' via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportions of different forms of a gene within a population, such as the alleles that determine the different human blood types, to the alterations that led from the earliest organisms to dinosaurs, bees, snapdragons, and humans. Douglas J. Futuyma (1998) Evolutionary Biology 3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc. Sunderland MA p.4

Biological evolution refers to the cumulative changes that occur in a population over time. PBS series “Evolution” endorsed by the NCSE

Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations) UC Berkley

In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next. Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

Evolution- in biology, the word means genetically based change in a line of descent over time.- Biology: Concepts and Applications Starr 5th edition 2003 page 10

Those are all accepted definitions of biological “evolution”. (Perhaps OgreMKV will present some definitions that differ from those. Most likely I will only comment on any differences if the differences are relevant.) With biology, where-ever there is heritable genetic change there is evolution and where-ever you have offspring that are (genetically) different from the parent(s) you have descent with modification. Next I will show what Intelligent Design says about biological evolution and people can see for themselves that Intelligent Design is not anti-evolution:
Intelligent Design is NOT Creationism (MAY 2000) 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."- Dr Michael Behe
Dr Behe has repeatedly confirmed he is OK with common ancestry. And he has repeatedly made it clear that ID is an argument against materialistic evolution (see below), ie necessity and chance. Then we have: What is Intelligent Design and What is it Challenging?- a short video featuring Stephen C. Meyer on Intelligent Design. He also makes it clear that ID is not anti-evolution. Next Dembski and Wells weigh in:
The theory of intelligent design (ID) neither requires nor excludes speciation- even speciation by Darwinian mechanisms. ID is sometimes confused with a static view of species, as though species were designed to be immutable. This is a conceptual possibility within ID, but it is not the only possibility. ID precludes neither significant variation within species nor the evolution of new species from earlier forms. Rather, it maintains that there are strict limits to the amount and quality of variations that material mechanisms such as natural selection and random genetic change can alone produce. At the same time, it holds that intelligence is fully capable of supplementing such mechanisms, interacting and influencing the material world, and thereby guiding it into certain physical states to the exclusion of others. To effect such guidance, intelligence must bring novel information to expression inside living forms. Exactly how this happens remains for now an open question, to be answered on the basis of scientific evidence. The point to note, however, is that intelligence can itself be a source of biological novelties that lead to macroevolutionary changes. In this way intelligent design is compatible with speciation. page 109 of "The Design of Life"
and
And that brings us to a true either-or. If the choice between common design and common ancestry is a false either-or, the choice between intelligent design and materialistic evolution is a true either-or. Materialistic evolution does not only embrace common ancestry; it also rejects any real design in the evolutionary process. Intelligent design, by contrast, contends that biological design is real and empirically detectable regardless of whether it occurs within an evolutionary process or in discrete independent stages. The verdict is not yet in, and proponents of intelligent design themselves hold differing views on the extent of the evolutionary interconnectedness of organisms, with some even accepting universal common ancestry (ie Darwin’s great tree of life). Common ancestry in combination with common design can explain the similar features that arise in biology. The real question is whether common ancestry apart from common design- in other words, materialistic evolution- can do so. The evidence of biology increasingly demonstrates that it cannot.- Ibid page 142
And from one more pro-ID book:
Many assume that if common ancestry is true, then the only viable scientific position is Darwinian evolution- in which all organisms are descended from a common ancestor via random mutation and blind selection. Such an assumption is incorrect- Intelligent Design is not necessarily incompatible with common ancestry.- page 217 of “Intelligent Design 101”
That is just a sample of what the Intelligent Design leadership say about biological evolution- they are OK with it. And the following is from “Uncommon Descent”:
9] “Evolution” Proves that Intelligent Design is Wrong The word “evolution” can mean different things. The simplest meaning is one of natural history of the appearance of different living forms. A stronger meaning implies common descent, in its universal form (all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor) or in partial form (particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor). “Evolution” is often defined as descent with modifications, or simply as changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population. None of those definitions can prove ID wrong, because none are in any way incompatible with it. ID is a theory about the cause of genetic information, not about the modalities or the natural history of its appearance, and is in no way incompatible with many well known patterns of limited modification of that information usually defined as “microevolution.” ID affirms that design is the cause, or at least a main cause, of complex biological information. A theory which would indeed be alternative to ID, and therefore could prove it wrong, is any empirically well-supported “causal theory” which excludes design; in other words any theory that fits well with the evidence and could explain the presence or emergence of complex biological information through chance, necessity, any mix of the two, or any other scenario which does not include design. However, once we rule out “just-so stories” and the like, we will see that there is not today, nor has there ever been, such a theory. Furthermore, the only empirically well-supported source of functionally specific, complex information is: intelligence. To sum it up: no definition of evolution is really incompatible with an ID scenario. Any causal theory of evolution which does not include design is obviously alternative to, and incompatible with, ID. However, while many such theories have indeed been proposed, they are consistently wanting in the necessary degree of empirical support. By contrast, design is an empirically known source of the class of information – complex, specified information (CSI) — exhibited by complex biological systems.
They go on to say:
10] The Evidence for Common Descent is Incompatible with Intelligent Design ID is a theory about the cause of complex biological information. Common descent (CD) is a theory about the modalities of implementation of that information. They are two separate theories about two different aspects of the problem, totally independent and totally compatible. In other words, one can affirm CD and ID, CD and Darwinian Evolution, or ID and not CD. However, if one believes in Darwinian Evolution, CD is a necessary implication. CD theory exists in two forms, universal CD and partial CD. No one can deny that there are evidences for the theory of CD (such as ERVs, homologies and so on). That’s probably the reason why many IDists do accept CD. Others do not agree that those evidences are really convincing, or suggest that they may reflect in part common design. But ID theory, proper, has nothing to do with all that. ID affirms that design is the key cause of complex biological information. The implementation of design can well be realized through common descent, that is through implementation of new information in existing biological beings. That can be done gradually or less gradually. All these are modalities of the implementation of information, and not causes of the information itself. ID theory is about causes.
And finally there is front loaded evolution (Mike Gene) and a prescribed evolutionary hypothesis (John Davison)- both are ID hypotheses pertaining to evolution. Mutations are OK, differential reproduction is OK, horizontal gene transfer is OK. With Intelligent Design organisms are designed to evolve, ie they evolve by design. That is by “built-in responses to environmental cues” ala Dr Spetner’s “non-random evolution hypothesis” being the main process of adaptations. As Dembski/ Wells said Intelligent design only has an issue with materialistic evolution- the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms. (Also known as the blind watchmaker thesis) Intelligent Design is OK with all individuals in a population generally having the same number and types of genes and that those genes give rise to an array of traits and characteristics that characterize that population. It is OK with mutations that may result in two or more slightly different molecular forms of a gene- alleles- that influence a trait in different ways and that individuals of a population vary in the details of a trait when they inherit different combinations of alleles. ID is OK with any allele that may become more or less common in the population relative to other kinds at a gene locus, or it may disappear. And ID is OK with allele frequencies changing as a result of mutation, gene flow, genetic drift, natural and artificial selection, that mutation alone produces new alleles and gene flow, genetic drift, natural and artificial selection shuffle existing alleles into, through, or out of populations. IOW ID is OK with biological evolution. As Dr Behe et al., make very clear, it just argues about the mechanisms- basically design/ telic vs spontaneous/ stochastic. Now we are left with the only way Intelligent Design can be considered anti-evolution is if and only if the only definition of evolution matches the definition provided for materialistic evolution. However I cannot find any source that states that is the case. So the bottom line is Intelligent Design says “evolved, sure”. The questions are “evolved from what?” and “how did it evolve?”.Joe_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT}

BM: Sorry to be cryptic. C2 is second century, Christian era [thanks Mung], 101 - 200 AD. from shortly after the last apostle to the time of the Church Fathers Tertullian [Lawyer, North Africa] and Irenaeus [Bishop of what is now Lyons, France; seems to have been in Anatolia and under the teaching of Polycarp, a disciple of John in his old age]. The latter wrote a major work, c. 180 AD, Against Heresies. He remarked on the so-called Gospel of Judas in this:
Others [of the heretics] again declare that Cain derived his being from the Power above, and acknowledge that Esau, Korah, the Sodomites, and all such persons, are related to themselves. On this account, they add, they have been assailed by the Creator, yet no one of them has suffered injury. For Sophia was in the habit of carrying off that which belonged to her from them to herself. They declare that Judas the traitor was thoroughly acquainted with these things, and that he alone, knowing the truth as no others did, accomplished the mystery of the betrayal; by him all things, both earthly and heavenly, were thus thrown into confusion. They produce a fictitious history of this kind, which they style the Gospel of Judas. (1.31.1)
What was recently published by Nat Geog -- nb there is a debate on the soundness of the translation -- seems to fill this bill more or less. Gnosticism is a weird syncretism in various forms of Platonic ideas vulgarised, magic, elements of Judaism, a notion of a cascade of emanations and beings, and an admixture of hostility to the covenantal God of the OT. The idea is to escape the prison of the flesh with secret knowledge that allows you to pass the various heavenly realms and beings. Utterly different from the C1 NT, which is strongly hebraic and historical in focus. And of course, it is said that the Simon Magus confronted by the apostles was a leading founder of what we now call Gnosticism. Sorry on lack of a detailed exposition. KFkairosfocus_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT}

Influence and "the muck of life" doesn't compromise free will, it just informs and contextualizes it. That said, I don't believe everyone has free will.William J Murray_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
08:11 PM
8
08
11
PM
PDT}

Box @ 49 posted this:
Why would any part of the ‘individual system’ be interested in ‘surviving’? Why would any atom, electron or whatever be interested in the continuation of the (non-existent) whole? In the naturalistic view on organisms I see nothing that is interested in the continuation of life. Tell me, in naturalistic terms, what you mean by an ‘individual system’.
Sorry to be obscure, I used the term "individual system" in the context of the original post. I meant an individual organism (which is clearly also an individual system). Quite evidently, individual organisms have a range of genetically determined strategies to achieve survival. No such long-term strategies exist for any species as a whole, at least until humans evolved the ability to conserve cultural knowledge.timothya_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
07:57 PM
7
07
57
PM
PDT}

I am not hiding in the weeds, Bornagain. Please try to assume the best in me rather than the worst. I just don't want any of us to accept responsibility for everything we do, regardless of subconscious forces that we know nothing about. It is a very courageous thing to accept responsibility for every action that you take. There are profound implications in all that you speak of, I admit. But it is foolish, and I may say, childish, to accept that every decision you make is truly free. You have to know yourself very well, in and out, before you accept such responsibility. I hope you do. I, for one, don't. I don't think that every one of my past and future decisions are freely taken without all sorts of nefarious or positive forces from my subconscious, the societal forces, my religious background, by knowledge of science, etc. having all sots of effects on my decision. Maybe in great decisions in which we have a lot of time and effort to devote you can say that the decision was freely taken, but I think in the daily function of life, our will is expressed not purely but filled with the muck of life, bad or good, pulling us this way or that, and making a farce of all of our so-called free will. Tell me that you haven't made wrong decisions in your life that you would take back if given the option. Why did you make those decisions? Were you really fully conscious and rational in your decision-making? Did you really invoke your free will? Did not other forces - your loved ones maybe, or your parents' will, or your friends' peer pressure, or something you saw in a movie - influence you? Be real. I admire your devotion to the ideal, but life is not ideal. And, if God does exists, He never meant it to be ideal. Think about it. If we are here to learn a lesson, we are not meant to know the truth from the start. What good would it do if we knew everything from the beginning? We are meant to learn it first hand. We would never learn anything if we were given the truth to begin with. And yet, if we all attain the consciousness of the Buddha, we could truly express our free will. But not many of us have reached that stage. If you have, I applaud you.billmaz_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PDT}

billmaz; Once again, I suggest you read the faq this site offers. It addresses the comments made by Dembski; it addresses your "bad design = no design" argument; it addresses your your claim that science cannot investigate the non-physical; furthermore, because some ID proponents use ID theory to advance arguments that certain things are designed doesn't mean that ID theory is inherently about those things, any more than mathematics is inherently about calculating the amount of fuel that is required to send a payload into orbit. Because some ID proponents use ID theory in their arguments about god doesn't mean ID theory is inherently about god, any more than just because some evolutionists use evolution to argue for atheism doesn't mean evolutionary theory is inherently about atheism. I didn't mean to suggest that you were planting red herrings and straw men deliberately, but the very things you have posted have been posted here many, many, many times , so many times that a faq was put up just for that very purpose - to educate people that were getting misinformation and bad arguments from the internet and other sources.William J Murray_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT}

Bill you state: "had free will and if Christ knew about it beforehand, why didn’t He stop it,,,," Your really having trouble with the entire concept of free will aren't you? i.e. To prevent someone from doing what they freely want to do is to circumvent free will! As to the rest of your post, so what if material states may influence what choices I choose to make? The fact that quantum mechanics has shown free will to take precedence over material states means that I am not a complete victim of material states and restores free will to its rightful, and I might add, common sense place in the grand scheme of things. It seems you have chosen to try to 'hide in the weeds' from the truly profound implications that are wrapped up in all this. Pity!bornagain77_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
05:22 PM
5
05
22
PM
PDT}

billmaz: C2 = Second Century AD. It's not likely it was written by Judas. It's like finding a 2nd Century AD document written by Jesus.Mung_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT}

Well if a cost is a goal, maybe Van Till is right in that organisms receive gifts and that's how they evolve.Mung_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply