Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Finally the truth about ID! — And now in paperback

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

I’m informed that simple blockquotes are dangerous when trying to stay in Google’s good graces. I’m also informed that providing a comment in front of a blockquote, which thus constitutes new material, is a way of keeping Google happy. Hence this comment. The blockquote below is self-explanatory.

Not in Our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Design Is Wrong for Our Schools (Paperback)
by Eugenie C. Scott (Adapter), Glenn Branch (Adapter)

Book Description: An accessible, multifaceted critique of the latest incarnation of creationism-“intelligent design”-from a team of legal, education, religion, and science experts More than eighty years after the Scopes trial, creationism is alive and well. Through local school boards, politicians, strategic court cases, and well-funded organizations, a strong movement has developed to encourage the teaching of “intelligent design” as a viable theory alongside evolution in science classes. Now, in Not in Our Classrooms, parents and teachers, as well as other concerned citizens, have a much-needed tool to argue against teaching intelligent design as science. In clear and lively essays, a team of experts describe not only the history of the intelligent design movement and the lack of scientific support for its claims, but also the religious, legal, and pedagogical problems that proposals to teach this idea in the public schools bring in their wake. Not in Our Classrooms is essential reading for anyone concerned about the teaching of this religious theory as science in the classrooms of our public schools.

Comments
On the other hand — to repeat what I’ve already said many times — there’s no good reason to hobble theology with teleological metaphysics. The marriage of Scripture with Aristotle, the grand innovation of Maimonides and Aquinas, is already crumbling. Once you concede that Galileo and Newton were right about physics, the game is already over. Teleology has already been rejected. But if you reject it there, why not reject it everywhere? You don’t need it.
That is an assertion that begins and ends with you (i.e., Carlos).obrienr
September 23, 2006
September
09
Sep
23
23
2006
09:51 PM
9
09
51
PM
PDT
Tom, It would seem that idnet has a point. Just because the total sum of the details relating to the execution of a plan exceed the details in the plan design itself does not at all remove the requirement for a plan design in the first place. A simple analogy would be a battle plan. The battle plan consists of troop movements, setup of equipment, surveillance of the enemy, etc. Now, of course the actual movements and actions of individual soldiers are not all detailed in the plan. But that does not mean that a plan is unnecessary. In other words, for global results to happen, than a global design must exist.Ekstasis
September 23, 2006
September
09
Sep
23
23
2006
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT
So called "self-organising" of the human nervous system, and many other biological systems, is a pre-programmed organisation based on feedback loops. This form of design is more adaptable and requires more foresight and intelligence to create than fully programmed outcome systems.idnet.com.au
September 23, 2006
September
09
Sep
23
23
2006
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT
todd,
I don’t know how termites or the genotype cause arms to grow to be the same length. I assume such things are according to genetic plans.
The genetic information accounts only in part for what emerges. There is more complexity in the colony and the mound than in the termite genome. The complexity emerges from the interactions of relatively simple individuals. Perhaps things have changed, but last I heard, biologists could not explain why your arms grow to be the same length.Tom English
September 23, 2006
September
09
Sep
23
23
2006
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT
Tom, I'm afraid I don't get what you're driving at where my comments are concerned. I don't know how termites or the genotype cause arms to grow to be the same length. I assume such things are according to genetic plans. I fail to see how this is relevent to asking how one can assuredly state life arose as a result of stochastic natural forces when direct observing such an thing is impossible and inferences based on observation are shaped by the epistemology of the investigator.todd
September 23, 2006
September
09
Sep
23
23
2006
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT
Todd,
Whether they truly ’self organize’ or not says nothing about the information contained within their DNA - that which PRECEDED their formation.
How does the genotype, contained in individual cells, causes arms on opposite sides of the body to grow to be the same length? How do African termites, blind and individually stupid, collectively build elaborate mounds that are, proportional to their size, larger than any human structure? Did you know that identical twins can be discriminated by fingerprints and retinal scans?Tom English
September 23, 2006
September
09
Sep
23
23
2006
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT
PeterZ:
Funny that… Somehow every dictionary I’ve checked lists “change over time”, worded one way or another, as a definition of evolution…
I don't contest that evolutionists have that lame (useless) definition for evolution whenever it pleases them. My point is that such a defiition is NOT what darwinists have in mind when they think of evolution, NOR is what everyone else has in mind. To make a distinction between that, it's important to give the proper names since "change over time" says nothing about the type of change. For example, if an unhealthy baby is born from healthy parents, is that evolution? If a baby is born with less fingers, did he "evolved" when compared with his parents?Mats
September 23, 2006
September
09
Sep
23
23
2006
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT
Tom, By useful information I mean datum organized in such a way to have meaning. In context of the conversation, I think it obvious I'm referring to abiogenesis - which is a requirement if the materialist view of reality is true - when saying 'created'. And your 4th question gets to the my point - our observations are shaped by the theoretic framework we bring to the table. Philosophy precedes observation and is dependent upon apriori reasoning.todd
September 23, 2006
September
09
Sep
23
23
2006
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT
Tom wrote,
Here are some examples of biological self-organization in Wiki (ignore the last one)
I think the last one is why the preceding ones beg the question. Whether they truly 'self organize' or not says nothing about the information contained within their DNA - that which PRECEDED their formation.todd
September 23, 2006
September
09
Sep
23
23
2006
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT
Joseph,
Please read “In the Beginning was Information” by Werner Gitt and “No Free Lunch” by Wm. Dembski. Then if you have specific questions about those please ask. However don’t expect anyone to put in a post what it took others to do in a book.
1. I asked Todd merely to select a rigorously defined form of information. He did not have to write a definition, let alone a book. By the way, are you telling me that Todd would have chosen a definition from one of the two books you named? If so, how do you know? 2. If Todd uses the term useful information, then he had best be able to say what he means by it. The term does not occur in Bill Dembski's writings at designinference.com. Specific question: Where is the term defined in No Free Lunch? As for the Gitt book, useful information occurs as a label in a figure on p. 117. The term usable information also occurs on that page and in the introduction to the chapter on "The Quality and Usefulness of Biblical Information." Gitt does not give a rigorous definition.Tom English
September 23, 2006
September
09
Sep
23
23
2006
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT
Tom English: 1. Please select a rigorously defined form of information. 2. Please give a rigorous definition of what it means for information of that form to be useful. (To my knowledge, there exists no such definition.) Please read "In the Beginning was Information" by Werner Gitt and "No Free Lunch" by Wm. Dembski. Then if you have specific questions about those please ask. However don't expect anyone to put in a post what it took others to do in a book.Joseph
September 23, 2006
September
09
Sep
23
23
2006
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT
Carlos, quoting his friend:
...in the academic humanities, a certain postmodern cynicism had settled, and it was no longer fashionable to really be moved or inspired by a work of art or literature. Everything had to be theorized or analyzed. In the sciences, on the other hand, it was OK to say, “wow! that’s really amazing!”
Very true. How odd, then, that so many in the humanities criticize science for draining the wonder from things -- "unweaving the rainbow", in Keats' memorable phrase.Karl Pfluger
September 23, 2006
September
09
Sep
23
23
2006
12:31 AM
12
12
31
AM
PDT
Regarding the existence of self-organization in biology: The Wiki article on self-organization gives examples of biological self-organization. Camazine's Self-Organization in Biological Systems (2001) is an entire book devoted to the topic. Consider that, whatever representation you use, it takes many more bits to describe in detail the phenotype of a human neonate than it takes to describe the genotype. The genotype does not specify routing of capil*laries, axons, and dendrites, for instance. Self-organization of the retina is particularly interesting.Tom English
September 22, 2006
September
09
Sep
22
22
2006
09:30 PM
9
09
30
PM
PDT
Regarding the existence of self-organization in biology: The Wiki article on self-organization gives examples of biological self-organization. Camazine's Self-Organization in Biological Systems (2001) is an entire book devoted to the topic. Consider that, whatever representation you use, it takes many more bits to describe in detail the phenotype of a human neonate than it takes to describe the genotype. The genotype does not specify routing of capillaries, axons, and dendrites, for instance. Self-organization of the retina is particularly interesting: http://vpl.usc.edu/research/development.htmlTom English
September 22, 2006
September
09
Sep
22
22
2006
09:22 PM
9
09
22
PM
PDT
Regarding the existence of self-organization in biology: The Wiki article on self-organization gives examples of biological self-organization. Camazine's Self-Organization in Biological Systems (2001) is an entire book devoted to the topic. Consider that, whatever representation you use, it takes many more bits to describe in detail the phenotype of a human neonate than it takes to describe the genotype. The genotype does not specify routing of capillaries, axons, and dendrites, for instance. Self-organization of the retina is particularly interesting.Tom English
September 22, 2006
September
09
Sep
22
22
2006
09:21 PM
9
09
21
PM
PDT
Regarding self-organization in biology: Here are some examples of biological self-organization in Wiki (ignore the last one). There is also a 2001 book by Scott Camazine, Self-Organization in Biological Systems. Consider that it takes many more bits to describe in detail the phenotype of a human neonate than are present in the genotype. The genotype does not specify routing of capillaries, axons, and dendrites, for instance. Self-organization of the retina is particularly interesting.Tom English
September 22, 2006
September
09
Sep
22
22
2006
08:42 PM
8
08
42
PM
PDT
Neo Darwinists define evolution as a change in the allele frequency of a population over time. So if something such as the average height of a population changed over time, then that would be an example of evolution. This is a basic genetics definition. They say that over time these allele frequency changes could lead to what we refer to as macro-evolution in some of the populations. I don't think ID has any problem with this definition but instead says that there are many observations of two populations separated by time with substantially different allele frequencies and no obvious path on how these frequencies changed to indicate how one population evolved into the other. What we would call the mechanism is unknown. Genetic drift, natural selection acting on rm just does not seem to get it done. So in some cases, ID postulates the help of an intelligence and tries to estimate the possibility of a possible mechanist path. This does not stop science from trying to find other mechanisms than intelligence . However, it seems the intelligent thing to do is to admit that there may be some for which it may be fruitless to find a non-intelligent based mechanism. Keep on investigating but be open to the possibility of continued failure in some areas. Right now what is mandated out is the possibility of an intelligent input some place. This is tantamount to saying there is no other intelligence in existence because if such an intelligence did exist, it never did anything which is the same thing as not existing as far as our planet is concerned.jerry
September 22, 2006
September
09
Sep
22
22
2006
08:40 PM
8
08
40
PM
PDT
todd, Is it possible to observe the creation of useful information in the inanimate physical universe without injecting our own intelligence? 1. Please select a rigorously defined form of information. 2. Please give a rigorous definition of what it means for information of that form to be useful. (To my knowledge, there exists no such definition.) 3. Please give a rigorous definition of what it means for information of the form you choose to be created. 4. Please give explicit guidelines on how we humans can design and conduct experiments without "injecting our own intelligence." Then, and only then, will we have a basis for substantive discussion of science.Tom English
September 22, 2006
September
09
Sep
22
22
2006
08:26 PM
8
08
26
PM
PDT
Stephen, I think I largely agree with Mats, I just find his wording imprecise, therefore diminishing the point he was trying to make.todd
September 22, 2006
September
09
Sep
22
22
2006
07:17 PM
7
07
17
PM
PDT
"… I agree Mats’ point is weakened by saying evo isn’t change over time." We now enter the slippery sliding world of the definition of evolution. Certainly evolution is a fact if evolution just means 'change over time'. But saying 'Change over time is a fact!', while true, does not prove that Man came from Microbes from Molecules, which most of the time is what is really meant by evolution.StephenA
September 22, 2006
September
09
Sep
22
22
2006
06:52 PM
6
06
52
PM
PDT
Avocationist I agree that's not too bad (the unmoved mover paragraph). Has a certain poetry to it.DaveScot
September 22, 2006
September
09
Sep
22
22
2006
05:53 PM
5
05
53
PM
PDT
Smidlee, Please keep in mind we are only referring to carbon based life forms. "Frosty" is a special case, not quite sure he qualifies as biological. Certainly a good example of ID, though.Jack Golightly
September 22, 2006
September
09
Sep
22
22
2006
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT
Peter, What kind of change over how much time? ... is more the point, though I agree Mats' point is weakened by saying evo isn't change over time. Both agree life changes over time, but YECers are constrained by scriptural literalism and IDers tend to let evidence and logic speak for itself - bringing a sharp divide over the 'how much' time part of evolution. IDers are hung up on the logic which says life and the information which maintains and propigates it is a product of undirected physical forces. Is it possible to observe the creation of useful information in the inanimate physical universe without injecting our own intelligence?todd
September 22, 2006
September
09
Sep
22
22
2006
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT
Carlos: "a lawful and mechanistic concept of nature, a nature that consisted of nothing other than matter-in-motion. From thence, Galileo and Newton replaced Ptolmey and Aristotle." The concept of "law" in nature was derived from the view that there was a Lawgiver. Newton was a zealous theist. Today, many want the law without the Lawgiver. They want the inheritance while denying the father that gave it to them.mike1962
September 22, 2006
September
09
Sep
22
22
2006
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT
"Not in Our Classrooms" is essential reading for those interested in how to set up and defeat a strawman.Joseph
September 22, 2006
September
09
Sep
22
22
2006
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT
ID theorists and Creationists agree with “change over time”, which is not evolution but genetic variation within a fixed gene pool. To call it “evolution” is misleading.
Funny that... Somehow every dictionary I've checked lists "change over time", worded one way or another, as a definition of evolution...PeterZ
September 22, 2006
September
09
Sep
22
22
2006
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT
Poor bedraggled Carlos, that the fire goes up because it wants to be closer to where it belongs, in the sky, and rocks fall because they want to be closer to where they belong, in the earth. Everything that exists has its own place where it belongs, and motion is the result of things trying to get where they belong. And everything moves, except for the Unmoved Mover. Oh, dear, this is a sad admission, but I rather like it. Not that I ascribe little egos to inanimate things-that isn't necessary- but really, isn't that pretty much what is indeed going on? Everything does and goes and falls exactly where it belongs according to the laws of nature, chemistry, motion. If it weren't true, would we have the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Every inanimate thing does exactly what it should at all times. And doesn't everything move? Have we gotten to the bottom of this vibrating universe? I'll keep the unmoved mover, too, until and unless I can get a better understanding. After all, it sounds very like the philosophies of Tao and many other ancient intuitions.avocationist
September 22, 2006
September
09
Sep
22
22
2006
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT
Carlos,
ID supporters, unlike YECs, are fine with the fact of evolution but disagree as to the cause.
Actually, IDers are not "fine" with the "fact" of evolution. First of all it's important to define terms. ID theorists and Creationists agree with "change over time", which is not evolution but genetic variation within a fixed gene pool. To call it "evolution" is misleading. Secondly, some IDers are sympathetic to common descent while other are not.
But the principle argument for intelligent design seems to be, “there are features of complex biological phenomena that methodological naturalism just cannot explain, which is why we need to posit an Intelligence.”
The principle argumenet for ID is that there are features in the universe and the biological realm that are best explained as the result of inttelligence, as opposed to an unguided process.
In other words, “chance and necessity cannot bear the explanatory load.”
Not only those forces are not adequate causes, but, based on experience , a more adequate cause is available: intelligence.
If that’s true, then sure, positing some designer, however intelligent, begins to look like a prudent way of moving forward. But the argument for ID assumes, from what I’ve seen, that biology is stuck in a rut without it — because, according to that argument, we won’t be able to explain what we want to explain without some designer. To which I respond, considering what we’ve learend over the past two decades about development, regulatory genetics, and paleontology, “ya wanna bet?”
So by this we can assume that you are hoping that the future will provide the evidence that unguided forces are able to generate complex specified information systems? So until then, we should take what we have. Based on evidence, the only source for such systems is inteligenceMats
September 22, 2006
September
09
Sep
22
22
2006
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT
Carlos, I enjoy your posts, so I hope you stick around. I continue to see that that the NDE-ists treasure is the ID-ists trash (also vice-versa). These two groups share opposite assumptions not only about what the evidence shows, but also about what it is, in many cases. Hugh Ross tells about one scientist's comment to other scientists about the silliness of not accepting NDE. He said something like, "Of course we evolved, I mean, here we are!" This is the timbre of many science writers, I've noticed. Which is true? Behe's (et al here) assertion that there are no papers, or Carlos' (et al in the science writers' community) insistence that there is an abudance of papers. Is there no intersection of what both camps would consider evidence?kvwells
September 22, 2006
September
09
Sep
22
22
2006
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT
"What wealth of examples in biology? Physics, chemistry, yes, there are some examples, snow flakes, crystals etc. But not biology." What about Frosty the Snowman? (jk)Smidlee
September 22, 2006
September
09
Sep
22
22
2006
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply