Does Darwinism really have an answer as to where “cats and dogs” come from?

Isn’t Darwinism no more than a guess, and a terribly bad one at that?

Darwin, in the ‘Origin of Species’ first suggested that it was the Creator who made a “form, or several forms” from which all other life derives. Doesn’t that sound like the Designer? Nowadays, Darwinists will say, “Once you have replication, then NS can take over. Origin of life questions are a separate matter.” Well, let’s look at ‘origin of life’ questions: without replication the wrong-headed notions of a Richard Dawkin don’t apply, and we run right into……Intelligent Design arguments that in no way can be surmounted. Let’s face it, Fred Hoyle, a life-long atheist, a committed naturalist, thought NDE pointless.

On the other hand, ID is not an assertion of “naturalism/purpose” over and against “non-naturalism/purposelessness”, it suggests that we’re dealing with “machinery”. The difference between Darwinists and IDers is that IDers know that complexity can’t be arrived at randomly. And anyone who has ever tried to write a program (and, of course, even Bill Gates says that DNA is a software program of a sophistication that we can’t comprehend) knows that randomness can be programmed in, but that randomness in no way could EVER bring about a more advanced program.

“Chair” is an abstraction. Does that mean that chairs don’t exist?

EJ Klone: “But you are leaping from that to say that because something is understandable, that it contains intelligence, thus it was the result of ID.”

Does software code contain “intelligence”? Is it the result of ID?

EJ Klone: “So there is no way to distinguish between nonintelligent and intelligent causes… because everything’s intelligently caused, even the nonintelligent?”

No, I’m saying that the “laws of nature” are the product of intelligence. Since they follow regularities, snowflakes and basalts show “complexity”; but they don’t show “specificity”. Hence, using CSI, one wouldn’t draw a “design inference” regading them.

EJ Klone: “I think the given (insight/technological application) is true, the conclusion (intelligent design) is true, but the chain of reasoning connecting the two in this way doesn’t hold up.”

You might want to explain this a little bit more.

As to the designer, I think Dembski would say that we don’t need to know who the Designer is before we make a “design inference.”

JT75: “I agree, but the “different paradigm” is a philosophical one of naturalism vs. non-naturalism (of different varieties). It is the belief that there is an underlying rationality and purpose to nature that helps guide further biological inquiry, but this assumption is a philosophical one that may help the scientist but need not be assumed by him.”

If we were to find a spaceship, and we presumed that it was intelligently designed, is that a “philosophical” paradigm? If SETI receive electro-magnetic signals—as in “Contact”—representing a pattern, would we be guilty of imposing the paradigm of naturalism vs. non-naturalism on that perceived pattern if we were to infer the pattern represented intelligence? I think the answer to both questions is “no”.

I agree, but the “different paradigm” is a philosophical one of naturalism vs. non-naturalism (of different varieties). It is the belief that there is an underlying rationality and purpose to nature that helps guide further biological inquiry, but this assumption is a philosophical one that may help the scientist but need not be assumed by him. In its scientific role as an aspect of mathematical information theory, ID makes a purposeful interpretation of nature more plausible than its denial. But in and of itself the diffusing of naturalism, although incredibly benenficial for the theist, is not a biologically based alternative to Darwinism. ID makes most of its headway as a valid critique of Neo-Darwinism, but it lacks postitive answers to similar questions (like ‘where do cats and dogs come from’?). Darwinism has a biological answer for this question, I believe it is mistaken; but ID has no answer at all that is not another criticism of ND or a repetitive appeal to a common Design.

But what makes you think that snowflakes and basalts are absent of intelligence? The kind of intelligence they manifest is a kind of “crystallized” intelligence; i.e., the “Laws of Nature.” If we can figure out quantum mechanics, then, per force, logic must reside in the forces examined. Logic—devoid of an intelligent agent—is a contradiction.

You are quite right that logic does not exist outside of an intelligent agent, but your logic is still wrong.

I think you are still equivocating. (I’ll use two different emphases to demonstrate) Logic is an abstraction, not a physical thing. You are saying that nature behaving in a logical fashion means that logic resides in the natural forces involved.

Similarly, as I pointed out before, you were equivocating between two definitions of intelligence/intelligent. The first, that living things are understandable, i.e. intelligent, is indisputable. But you are leaping from that to say that because something is understandable, that it contains intelligence, thus it was the result of ID.

The “intelligence” you are ascribing to snowflakes are the result of natural regularity. Anyone who’s read Dembski’s work knows that natural regularities are distinct from intelligent causes, and are weeded out by the explanatory filter. So, you are saying that any and all natural regularities can be inferred to be due to intelligent causation? So there is no way to distinguish between nonintelligent and intelligent causes… because everything’s intelligently caused, even the nonintelligent?

Let me feed your words back again and reiterate:

I’m simply suggesting that it is quite clear that if biological systems can facilitate the intellectual workings of us humans, then the presence of intelligence—independent of its source!!—in those same systems is axiomatic.

What you are saying, with this logic, is that if anything is understandable or provides insight into the way the universe operates, then it must have been intelligently caused. All I’m saying is that this logic does not pan out.
I think the given (insight/technological application) is true, the conclusion (intelligent design) is true, but the chain of reasoning connecting the two in this way doesn’t hold up.

Heh, before we get too carried away with nitpicky details, I seem to remember Bill Dembski saying something to the effect of, ID doesn’t require positing a designer. I can’t seem to find the quote, does anyone remember it?

I’ve already lost a response due to the server having problems. I’ll try again.

Darwinists use the canard that since we’re unable to know anything about the Designer—unless we point Him out to them—then we can’t possibly infer intelligence. But, of course, if an alien craft were found, without knowing anything about them, we could possibly figure out, let’s suppose, the anti-gravity propulsion system the craft used.

The article that I posted here is but one of manye examples of scientists using the intelligence present in microbiological structures to solve real-world problems. Since intelligence is required to solve problems, then it is apparent that in using biological systems to solve nanostructure problems must, per force, involve a sort of concretized intelligence contained in those biological systems. It seems the heighth of inanity to say, “I studied this biological system in order to solve a problem I was having in the lab”, and then say, “But the biological system has nothing to do with intelligence.”

While Dembski’s work is, indeed, primarily mathematical, it is used to infer design, and, hence, the presence of intelligence. This isn’t biology. No. But that doesn’t lessen its biological significance. The Design Inference permits us to approach the biological complexity we find in plant and animal life with a paradigm that is very different from the prevailing one. And, if true—and it certainly appears to be true—is an aid to scientific exploration of biotic forms.

No, I’m saying that snowflakes and basalts won’t help you build a nanopump.

PaV: I’m simply suggesting that it is quite clear that if biological systems can facilitate the intellectual workings of us humans, then the presence of intelligence—independent of its source!!—in those same systems is axiomatic.

EJ Klone: “The same logic should work when it comes to natural regularities, but it doesn’t. I just don’t think you’re making a good argument.”

But what makes you think that snowflakes and basalts are absent of intelligence? The kind of intelligence they manifest is a kind of “crystallized” intelligence; i.e., the “Laws of Nature.” If we can figure out quantum mechanics, then, per force, logic must reside in the forces examined. Logic—devoid of an intelligent agent—is a contradiction.

PaV: If the Intelligent Designer designed the universe, and the Designer’s intelligence is beyond anything we could possibly comprehened (sic)(emphasis mine)

EJ Klone: “How do you know that the same designer(s) made biological systems and the universe? What is your evidence that any of these designers possess intelligence “beyond anything we could possibly comprehend”?”

Are you asking me to defend an hypothetical with evidence?

I do believe that mathematical information theory is science (although I don’t know what function “raw” does in the above quote). What Dembski has shown is that when you deal with biological information as quantified information you can reveal that it has all the traits that we normally associate with rational intention. But what he has done is draw the biological into the realm of the informational, deduced his conclusions, then reintroduced these conclusions into their original biological context. In doing so he makes metaphysical naturalism/materialism an implausible interpretation of the system. But his work, the analysis itself, does not deal directly with biological objects (like the work of Behe), but rather mathematical abstractions from these objects. There is nothing illegitimate in this process but it does emphasize the fact that this part of the ID paradigm belongs to the realm of mathematics and not biology proper. No worries, it still invalidates the underlying assumptions of materialism, which is what it is intended to do, but I don’t think it is an alternative ‘biological’ paradigm since it is not a science of the same type. That would be like saying General Relativity is an alternative to Plate Tectonics.

in the case of life on earth we can infer some level of expertise in biochemistry and systems engineering as well as time and location in the past such that it doesn’t violate temporal or spatial causality”

It seems that what you are pointing out is that ‘if we think that biochemical systems were designed, then the Designer must at least have knowledge of biochemistry and systems engineering, as well as other characteristics that don’t violate our ideas of causality, etc.’ While this is true it does not seem like an inference but rather that which is entailed already in the notion of Intelligent Designer (that He/it is intelligent and has all the traits/characteristics/attributes that would enable Him/it to be the cuase of such things without these traits/characteristics/attributes involving contradictions).

Are you saying that we cannot learn how to solve problems from observations of natural regularities? I think that is the claim you are making, and it is false. Take stone arches, for instance, from which people can become inspired to build artificial arches based on the same concept. The world is replete with examples of designs inspired by nature. (Even with no organisms involved) So it seems you are left with that big question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_arch
I’m simply suggesting that it is quite clear that if biological systems can facilitate the intellectual workings of us humans, then the presence of intelligence—independent of its source!!—in those same systems is axiomatic. The same logic should work when it comes to natural regularities, but it doesn’t. I just don’t think you’re making a good argument.

On the characteristics of the designer:
No, I’m saying that intelligence can be discovered independent of any discovery of the who the Designer is.
and
If the Intelligent Designer designed the universe, and the Designer’s intelligence is beyond anything we could possibly comprehened (sic)(emphasis mine)
How do you know that the same designer(s) made biological systems and the universe? What is your evidence that any of these designers possess intelligence “beyond anything we could possibly comprehend”?

certainly some characteristics of the designer(s) can be inferred from the designed object such as minimum capabilities required – possibly more but not necessarily so
Nice to see someone agrees with me.
It may not be cessary to conclude that the designer(s) had complete expertise concerning all designs – some achievements could be accidental, others could have been mistakes. But in essence, I think that’s correct.