“You have lost your mind”

_{Granville Sewell

August 16, 2008

Intelligent Design}

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

In a Dec 21, 2005 American Spectator article, Jay Homnick wrote:

It is not enough to say that design is a more likely senario to explain a world full of well-designed things…Once you allow the intellect to consider that an elaborate organism with trillions of microscopic interactive components can be an accident…you have essentially “lost your mind”.

How has it happened that a majority of our intellectuals have lost their minds? I think I can explain. When one becomes a scientist, one learns that science can now explain so many previously inexpliable phenomena that one comes to expect that nothing will escape the explanatory power of our science forever (though the big bang, quantum mechanics and the fine-tuning of the laws of physics are beginning to raise doubts). When one becomes a biologist, or a paleontologist, one discovers many things about the origin and development of life, such as the long periods involved and the similarities between species, that give the impression of natural causes (“this just doesn’t look like the way God would have created things”). When one studies history (especially the history of religion), one may become overwhelmed by the misery and confusion of the human condition, and wonder, why is it so hard to see evidence of the hand of God in human history?

But notably absent from any list of reasons why intellectuals reject Intelligent Design is any direct scientific evidence that natural selection of random mutations or any other unintelligent process can actually do intelligent things. Bill Dembski’s “specified complexity” arguments and my second law arguments (which are similar, see the footnote here ) are just attempts to state in more “scientific” terms what is obvious to non-scientists like Jay Homnick: “you idiots, unintelligent forces cannot do intelligent things.” However strong may be the philosophical, psychological and religious reasons why many of our greatest minds reject ID, the argument for ID is still crystal clear to the unindoctrinated mind: once you allow yourself to seriously consider the possibility that the human body and the human mind could be entirely the products of unintelligent forces, “you have lost your mind.”

Comments

BTW Jack- The vast majority (95%+) of the fossil record is of marine inverts- pretty much as expected knowing what we do of the fossilization process. The bad part for you is that in that vast majority universal common descent is absent! The ONLY thing you could point to in that part of the record is slight variations of the alleged original. So Jack, anyone wanting to use any part of the fossil record as evidence for UCD has to explain why UCD is absent in marine inverts.Joseph_{August 22, 2008
August
08
Aug
22
22
2008
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT}

To claim that what seems designed was in fact designed is rational. To claim that what seems designed may not have been designed is at least reasonable. To claim that what seems designed could not have been designed is insane.allanius_{August 21, 2008
August
08
Aug
21
21
2008
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT}

If memory serves me correct, he supported the idea that a Whale developed out of a land creature. Though it was not through random mutation and natural selection!!PannenbergOmega_{August 19, 2008
August
08
Aug
19
19
2008
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT}

I believe Dr. Dembski has commented on the subject of Whale Evolution here at Uncommon Descent.PannenbergOmega_{August 19, 2008
August
08
Aug
19
19
2008
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT}

The sequence of fossils, with the various progression of features from pure land-dwelling to those of modern whales, and the times and areas they lived in, are not pure speculation.
There are only a small handfull of alleged fossils in the alleged sequence. However there should be thousands. The speculation is in making the link to what we observe in the fossil record to common descent. What is missing is the genetic data that demonstrates such a transformation is possible. Any hypothesis has to take that into account. Fossils are good but a biological theory requires biological evidence.
Any hypotheses about this sequence needs to take this evidence into account - do you think aliens popped in every 10 millions years or so and planted the next creature in the sequence?
First to understand the fossil record one has to know HOW it was formed. The allged 10 million years may not be that at all. And there is still the matter of thousands of missing intermediates. Ya see Jack, fossil sequences only exist in the minds of the people who desperately need them. And anyone who calls Pakicetus a "whale" is very desperate.Joseph_{August 19, 2008
August
08
Aug
19
19
2008
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT}

The sequence of fossils, with the various progression of features from pure land-dwelling to those of modern whales, and the times and areas they lived in, are not pure speculation. Any hypotheses about this sequence needs to take this evidence into account - do you think aliens popped in every 10 millions years or so and planted the next creature in the sequence? - and did this with all the other sequences that are found all over the world. It's pretty hard to entertain that seriously if you start thinking about the evidence we have that spans millions of years and thousands of species.Jack Krebs_{August 19, 2008
August
08
Aug
19
19
2008
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT}

Wikipedia has a nice overview of whale evolution.
Too bad no one knows whether or not the transformations required (for a whale to evolve from a land mammal) are even possible. IOW any article on whale evolution is pure speculation based on the assumption that it occurred. There is no way to test the premise.Joseph_{August 19, 2008
August
08
Aug
19
19
2008
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT}

If we say that UCA is wrong (not saying it is, just speculating) then what could be right?
Alien colonization. And yes that may just push the "problem" back, however science can only work with what it has. And right now we have the diversity of living organisms on this planet to work with.Joseph_{August 19, 2008
August
08
Aug
19
19
2008
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT}

Thanks for your thoughtful and respectful reply, Jerry. I don't know whether I will have time to reply - I go back to work at school full-time tomorrow - but I appreciate you taking the time to explain what you think, and I appreciate your willingness to be clear about how you don't know, and that you think that the study of genomes might provide answers.Jack Krebs_{August 18, 2008
August
08
Aug
18
18
2008
08:01 PM
8
08
01
PM
PDT}

Hmm. If we say that UCA is wrong (not saying it is, just speculating) then what could be right? Was it Special Creation? With the different "Kinds" of organisms just popping into existence? Quantum Events?PannenbergOmega_{August 18, 2008
August
08
Aug
18
18
2008
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT}

hippopotamus to whale is no more correct than chimp to man, in that all four are creatures living now, and therefore one to not evolve into the other. However it is true that chimp:human::hippo:whale in the sense that the chimp is our closest living relative, and that we share a common ancestor, and similarly for the hippopotamus and the family of whales. The differences in the analogy, though, is that we are in the same family as chimps, and our last common ancestor was about 6 milion years ago, while whales and hippopatami are in the same order (or perhaps superorder), with a last common ancestor more like 60 million years ago. Wikipedia has a nice overview of whale evolution.Jack Krebs_{August 18, 2008
August
08
Aug
18
18
2008
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PDT}

By the way I thought the latest was hippopotamus to whale?
Diverged sister groups. IOW as the chimp is allegedly with humans, the hippo is to the whale. chimp:human::hippo:whale Is that right JK?Joseph_{August 18, 2008
August
08
Aug
18
18
2008
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT}

Jack Krebs, The term "several" could mean hundreds or even thousands or maybe less. If you do not like the word then suggest another. I do not know the exact number or the magnitude. For example, take Carnivora which includes a lot of animals. It may be possible in the near future to show that there is little difference between all of the members in terms of their genomes and by examining the genomes to hypothesize some original gene pool that could have given rise to each species within this order. In other words all the species of Carnivora have devolved from an original gene pool. Maybe this is nonsense but future genome mapping will give a clearer idea. Please don't take this specific example as what I believe because it is speculative but only used to indicate what may show up in the future after examining the genomes of this order. To say that there could have been a gene pool to devolve into all the mammalian orders is more problematic but the proof will be in the pudding of analyzing genomes and highlighting the differences in terms of morphology and capability and the likelihood that micro evolution could have led to each family, genera and species. Science is a long way from that but is one way where it is headed. If you read Denton then you will get why saying one class evolved into another is very problematic. There are hard lines between the classes that don't seem to lend to any transitional approaches. And by micro evolution, I mean all the processes that produces a gamete that leads to changes from one generation to the next over time. I believe the most common process within micro evolution is just the reshuffling of genes or other genomic elements due to sexual reproduction and recombination. The Altenberg conference is discussing lots of variations on these basic processes. The gene pool changes very little with such processes but does change. In addition minor mutations can enter the gene pool and may in time cause changes but there is no evidence that there has ever been major changes due to this process. Macro evolution is the addition of some major complex functional capability to a gene pool usually in the form of some type of system. These changes seem to be beyond the capability of the accumulation of small changes produced by micro evolution. Some examples are wings, radar within bats, the oxygen delivery system of birds, the blood pressure system of giraffes, eyes, nervous systems, digestive systems, hormone systems etc. If one got down to listing them there would probably be hundreds and many would have appeared after the Cambrian but like the eyes many may have appeared there first. It would make an interesting discussion to list them all and even then it would probably not scratch the surface of all that have appeared. I use the term appeared because maybe some did evolve through micro evolution but most systems seem problematic. So I do not think amphibians to reptiles or reptiles to mammals or dinosaurs to birds are likely through micro evolution and how they first appeared is a mystery. Within birds, once the first gene pool appeared then maybe all subsequent birds could have evolved through micro evolution but I have no idea if this is true or not till the genomes are mapped and compared and that is at least a generation away. But it will happen. The next 20-50 years should be very interesting but I personally believe the information will support the devolving of most species from gene pools that may be long gone as opposed to the creation of even more complicated gene pools from less complicated ones that Darwinian processes require. Some of your specific questions "Was the evolution of prehensile tails in New World monkeys, for instance, an example of a change in functional complexity, or not? How could one tell?" I do not know but most likely will be explained by comparative genomes and how likely each could have flowed from an original gene pool or if a minor mutation could have led to different tails or if the prehensile tail is within the potential of the old world monkey's genome. "Pakicetus to the modern whale" My guess not but that could change with new information. The whale has several unique systems that would have to evolve and it will be necessary to examine the genomes of all the sea mammals to see how close they are to each other and how easy it is for one the differences to come from a common gene pool in the past. By the way I thought the latest was hippopotamus to whale? "pre-hominid to man" We could have a lot of fun speculating on this. I have no specific opinions on this and some of my opinions are religiously oriented so not appropriate for a science discussion. But man seems to have represented large changes from the other hominids. How can this be explained and is there enough time to get all these changes with normal micro evolution. "Getting to ID” by lack of evidence doesn’t tell us much about what ID is. It could just as much some some broad impersonal force that creates a push for life in the universe as it could be some theistic entity, which makes all the talk about purposelessness and atheism sort of irrelevant. There is no reason that the “ID” force behind evolution might not be as “purposeless” and non-theistic as gravity or quantum dynamics. I’m not saying that is the case, I am just saying that I would think that based on the kind of reasoning you have mentioned, one should acknowledge this possibility." It could be a lot of things but one uses one's reason to sort through them and come to a conclusion. So I think that whatever the mechanism for change it is a mystery and should not be part of the science curriculum and neither should other speculative mechanisms such as gradualism. So I do acknowledge the possibility. Why I chose to put faith in one mechanism over another is just that, faith but is no different between those who put faith in other mechanisms such as gradualism. Either way it should not be part of the science curriculum. Jack, Darwinian macro evolution is not good science and as such should be excluded from the science curriculum. So should ID which is also speculative.jerry_{August 18, 2008
August
08
Aug
18
18
2008
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT}

FYI: I get to ID via the data, evidence and observations. That is I have observed what intelligent agencies are capable of, as well as what nature, operating freely is capable of. I then take those observations and combine that with other data and evidences to the same. IOW I arrive at a design inference based on experience and deduction. That inference can be refuted by actually demonstrating that nature, operating freely, can put together complex, organized systems that rely on specified coding and combinatorial logic. As for the distinction between micro & macro: evolution, biological n. 1) “microevolution”—the name used by many evolutionists to describe genetic variation, the empirically observed phenomenon in which exisiting potential variations within the gene pool of a population of organisms are manifested or suppressed among members of that population over a series of generations. Often simplistically (and erroneously) invoked as “proof” of “macro evolution”; 2) macroevolution—the theory/belief that biological population changes take (and have taken) place (typically via mutations and natural selection) on a large enough scale to produce entirely new structural features and organs, resulting in entirely new species, genera, families, orders, classes, and phyla within the biological world, by generating the requisite (new) genetic information. Many evolutionists have used “macro-evolution” and “Neo-Darwinism” as synonymous for the past 150 years. BTW what makes you think that gravity is "purposeless"? In terms of ID gravity was a specifically designed parameter. One more thing- How can we test the premises that reptiles evolved from amphibians, pre-hominid to man and Pakicetus to modern whales? My bet is that these "tests" will rely heavily on one's presuppositions.Joseph_{August 18, 2008
August
08
Aug
18
18
2008
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT}

Thanks for the explanation, Jerry. You write,
By the way I believe that gradualism works in micro evolution and explains most of the life forms we see on the planet but that it fails miserably for macro evolution or the origin of any new functional complexity. This distinction should be made emphatically in any biology curriculum. The world appears as if someone dropped several different types of organisms with their gene pools into the world at various times and then allowed natural processes to work on these gene pool to produce the appropriate variations we see throughout the world.
Can you be more specific about where the dividing line between what you see as micro and macro evolution. The word "several" usually mean somewhere less than ten, which isn't very many. Do you think that the Cambrian was the last design event, in which a number (more than several, perhaps) of different types or organisms were created and that everything since then has been micro-evolution? Do you see the evolution from amphibian to reptile as micro evolution, or is it one of the several design events.? How about pre-hominid to man? Or Pakicetus to the modern whale? If by micro evolution you mean within a species, or even a genus, or even a family, you are talking about many more than several. So what are your thoughts on where the dividing line between micro and macro is, and criteria can we use to tell? Related to this question is the criteria by which one can distinguish "macro" changes in "functional complexity." Have there only been several of these events also? What are some examples of changes in functional complexity and some of whatever you would call everything else? Was the evolution of prehensile tails in New World monkeys, for instance, an example of a change in functional complexity, or not? How could one tell? You also write,
One gets to ID by the lack of evidence for anything else and the incredibly complexity that had to develop in the changes that did occur and the complete lack of any naturalistic mechanism that could explain the new complexity.
"Getting to ID" by lack of evidence doesn't tell us much about what ID is. It could just as much some some broad impersonal force that creates a push for life in the universe as it could be some theistic entity, which makes all the talk about purposelessness and atheism sort of irrelevant. There is no reason that the "ID" force behind evolution might not be as "purposeless" and non-theistic as gravity or quantum dynamics. I'm not saying that is the case, I am just saying that I would think that based on the kind of reasoning you have mentioned, one should acknowledge this possibility.Jack Krebs_{August 18, 2008
August
08
Aug
18
18
2008
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT}

Jack Krebs, My position is that we do not know how macro-evolution occurred (I believe it has occurred extensively over the last 3.8 billion years). But It is a mystery just how it occurred. Universal Common Descent is possible but there is no proof or evidence for it. Also it is possible that there were intelligent design events in history. The likelihood for this is as great as universal common descent through any naturalistic process as far as I can determine. There is no specific evidence for either. One gets to ID by the lack of evidence for anything else and the incredibly complexity that had to develop in the changes that did occur and the complete lack of any naturalistic mechanism that could explain the new complexity. If evidence for a mechanism for macroevolution appears then it will have to be considered seriously. As of now no mechanism has appeared especially gradualism. That is why I have been drawn to ID. Again, the mechanism for evolution is a mystery. And because there is no mechanism for macro evolution then any science standards for biology should state this. Otherwise the standards are not science but propaganda. I also agree that anything that suggests a young earth is ideological also and should be eliminated from any science standards. By the way I believe that gradualism works in micro evolution and explains most of the life forms we see on the planet but that it fails miserably for macro evolution or the origin of any new functional complexity. This distinction should be made emphatically in any biology curriculum. The world appears as if someone dropped several different types of organisms with their gene pools into the world at various times and then allowed natural processes to work on these gene pool to produce the appropriate variations we see throughout the world. In other words life looks like a top down phenomena and not a bottom up phenomena that is predicted by Darwin and the latest version of his theory.jerry_{August 18, 2008
August
08
Aug
18
18
2008
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT}

Jack, There is evidence for UCD (universal common descent). However that SAME evidence can also be used for Universal Common Design. And until one can make a distintion between the two either discuss both or neither. Heck right now the ONLY "evidence" for the evolution of the eye/ vision system is that we observe various types of eyes/ vision systems, some more simple and others more complex and since we "know" that the original population(s) didn't have them they must have evolved.
I presume they would explain that discontinuities they believe exist by special acts of creation.
I wouldn't. For all we know the inhabitants of this planet are descended from some ancient alien civilization from a doomed system. And "designed to evolve" explains the discontinuities AND is OK with common descent.
However since that would no more “objectively testable” (according to how I understand Joseph) than common descent, I presume Joseph would believe that we just cannot talk about the history of life in science class.
Leave history for history classes. And unless one can confirm the history one is discussing, it really isn't history, it is a "just so" story. As for "life only comes from life" I hold the position that "life" is one of the (at least) four fundamental properties which also include energy, matter and information. Living organisms arise from the combination of those 4 being in the same place at the same time. Also universal common descent comes in many flavors- for example "designed to evolve" (Dr Behe) vs "evolved via an accumulation of genetic accidents" (Dr Dawkins).Joseph_{August 18, 2008
August
08
Aug
18
18
2008
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT}

FYI: I haven't been discussing whether common descent is true. I've been discussing the meaning of the phrase "life comes only from life," trying to find out whether, for those of you here, that phrase necessarily endorses the idea of common descent. I've found out that it doesn't. One of my interests is in what people believe if they don't accept common descent. Both Jerry and Joseph believe, it appears, that there is very little reason to consider common descent as a position supported by evidence. I presume they would explain that discontinuities they believe exist by special acts of creation. However since that would no more "objectively testable" (according to how I understand Joseph) than common descent, I presume Joseph would believe that we just cannot talk about the history of life in science class. Am I correct about my understanding of your positions, Jerry and Joseph?Jack Krebs_{August 18, 2008
August
08
Aug
18
18
2008
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT}

Jack Krebs, Universal common descent may be indicative of reality, but until someone can come up with a way to objectively test the premise it doesn't belong in a science classroom. Heck here it is the 21st century and we still don't even know whether or not the transformations required by UCD are even possible via any amount of accumulated mutations. IOW those who do accept UCD do so not because of science but because of personal convictions.Joseph_{August 18, 2008
August
08
Aug
18
18
2008
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT}

Jack Krebs, But if scenario 2 and 2a are possibilities (and we know that 2a is on the horizon) and nothing in the fossil records contradicts scenario 2 from ever happening and nothing supports known discontinuities in life forms arising naturally, then one can say that common descent is very far from a proven concept and in fact is at best speculation. One can hold it but then one has to admit that it is faith based and not evidence based. Is anything I have just said logically wrong?jerry_{August 18, 2008
August
08
Aug
18
18
2008
03:00 AM
3
03
00
AM
PDT}

As a said earlier, I believe the phrase common descent refers to a chain of biological parent-child relationships. None of the scenarios you mention are really pertinent to the general idea, given the caveat that I provided that common descent refers to a chain after life has started: the original cell might have been divinely created, but if all subsequent life came into existence by being born of a previous organism, that we would call that common descent. As has become clear to me through this conversation, the phrase "life comes from life" is not all equivalent to the idea of common descent: common descent is one way one can understand "life comes from life" but there are also meanings of "life comes from life" that deny common descent. This is what I now understand.Jack Krebs_{August 17, 2008
August
08
Aug
17
17
2008
09:26 PM
9
09
26
PM
PDT}

Jack Krebs, Three scenarios and all could be independent and have happened. And are not meant to be exhaustive. 1. Life originated more than once through some abiogensis process. I believe that some scientists hold this as the only thing that makes sense. This is an example of multiple life forms not coming from life. 2. Some intelligence in the past takes a life form and manipulates its gametes so that it forms a substantially different life form from the parent. Thus, life comes from life but is it really common descent? 2a. Somebody at MIT does the same thing as 2. Is this common descent? As we know, 2a may happen in the near future. In fact it has already happened with single celled organisms. And if 2 and 2a are common descent then what meaning does the concept have other than all life forms use similar elements in its genome? Does common descent then have any meaning at all in the discussion of evolution?jerry_{August 17, 2008
August
08
Aug
17
17
2008
09:18 PM
9
09
18
PM
PDT}

That's true, Dave. I see from this discussion that if you take the phrase past this old meaning, it can support almost anything about new life coming into being.Jack Krebs_{August 17, 2008
August
08
Aug
17
17
2008
09:11 PM
9
09
11
PM
PDT}

Jack It states that living things come only from living things. It's called the law of biogenesis. I didn't make it up. It's like a really old law of biology and it doesn't really support anything in particular as much as it disputes spontaneous generation. DaveScot_{August 17, 2008
August
08
Aug
17
17
2008
08:09 PM
8
08
09
PM
PDT}

Jack:
Am I correct in concluding that “life comes only from life,” given the start of life on earth, is a statement in support of common descent?
No. We know that first life came from somewhere. If first life came from non-terretrial life, or even God life, then even the first biological life came from life. If, however, Adam and Eve popped into existance via the same designer that popped the first organism into existance, it would in no way nullify the conclusion that "life comes from life". So life comes from life either means that biology procreated all biology, or that non-biology (as we understand biology) popped biology into existance one or more times. In both cases life comes from life. That said, the only "life comes from life" that we have observed is biology procreating. As such, based upon the "this is all we have observed" premise, we must be equally prepared to conclude that biological life is the product of the procreation (including asexual reproduction) of biological life. We can even narrow that down and say that life on earth only comes from life on earth. (We only know that this cannot be the ultimate case because we know that the earth did not always exist.) However, to the extent that the statement "we have not directly observed the process of speciation" is valid, we can also state that species A only comes from species A. As such, I think this whole line of reasoning is just a bit weak. The bottom line is that something that we have not observed must have happened. The question remains to be, what.bFast_{August 17, 2008
August
08
Aug
17
17
2008
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PDT}

I see. So if one believed in special creation - the independent creation de novo of different creatures over time, with no common descent link to other creatures,you would still consider that as "life from life" because the creator is a living God. Am I understanding you correctly?Jack Krebs_{August 17, 2008
August
08
Aug
17
17
2008
07:39 PM
7
07
39
PM
PDT}

Jack Am I correct in concluding that “life comes only from life,” given the start of life on earth, is a statement in support of common descent? Yes. But it's also a statement in support of kinds created by a living God.DaveScot_{August 17, 2008
August
08
Aug
17
17
2008
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT}

I mean life in teh sense of living physical organisms, as are studied in biology. And I've already acknowledged that the first life may have been created de novo. The issue I am trying to get clear on is this: once life has began, irrespective of how that happened, is the phrase "life comes only from life" (which has been a topic on several threads recently) equivalent to accepting common descent?Jack Krebs_{August 17, 2008
August
08
Aug
17
17
2008
07:28 PM
7
07
28
PM
PDT}

You see "the phrase" life comes from life is convoluted. Does "life" in this case mean life as in living "things"- that is things which must be of a material reality? If so then the statment is false.. because I beleive there was a time when life did not exist but matter was present- then life had "a beginning"- a design after creation or as part of creation... so in this case the statmeent is false. If by life you mean spirit or even perposiveness as in intelligence then the answer is probably yes.. life always comes from life because life is the prime reality... In this case life is realy being used as an implicit vehical for spirit and or intelligence.Frost122585_{August 17, 2008
August
08
Aug
17
17
2008
07:09 PM
7
07
09
PM
PDT}

Perhaps we here at Uncommon Descent should begin exploring alternatives to Universal Common Ancestry. It doesn't have to be right, but a little brainstorming couldn't hurt.PannenbergOmega_{August 17, 2008
August
08
Aug
17
17
2008
06:52 PM
6
06
52
PM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply