The Scope of Intelligent Design

[perfessor]

There is currently a thread seeking a working definition for evolution; another seeking to identify the indicators for "design". My questions here seek to clarify some scope for Intelligent Design Theory (it is just a theory, right? ):

So, according to the theory:
1. Are some things designed, or is everything designed? Is it enough to show that some features - say, eyeballs and flagella, are designed? Or does the theory state that all features are designed? If the former, then the theory is easier to prove but limited in scope. If the latter, then a single counterexample shoots it out of the water.

2. Does the theory allow for multiple designers? Not trying to be facetious here - but why only one designer? If we look at, say, paintings by Picasso and Norman Rockwell, we can pretty much tell that there were (at least) two designers. Likewise, if we compare octopus eyes and human eyes; or kangaroos and deer; or chlorophyll and hemoglobin, do we not see indications that at least two designers were vying for the commission?

What do some of the proponents of ID say?

[ST88]

1. Are some things designed, or is everything designed? Is it enough to show that some features - say, eyeballs and flagella, are designed? Or does the theory state that all features are designed? If the former, then the theory is easier to prove but limited in scope. If the latter, then a single counterexample shoots it out of the water.

"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

Highlighting added.

Does this mean that the logic is a generalized "from one to many"? Because some features appear to be designed, all features must be designed.

Are there some features which appear not to be designed? Are all the designs that are proposed as intelligent the designs which are the most confusing?

I would think that the people promoting ID, if this is their logic, are trying to fix scientific progress to a specific point in time -- this one -- and are then pointing to how many things there are that we just don't know. What's the rush? Why not wait for things to become explained and explainable? The "half an eye" argument looks downright silly nowadays. How many half-an-eyes will there be in 100 years?

[Jose]

Because some features appear to be designed, all features must be designed.

They don't actually say this, as near as I can tell. They seem to be starting from the premise that they can sneak this into the curriculum if they stick to "demonstrating" that some things are too complicated for them to think they could have evolved. OK...so let's pretend the eye is such a thing, even though we know it isn't. What are the implications of ID, as they present it?

Well, when did the eye, as we know it, show up? That is, when was it created? We'd have to go back to the first fish. Once eyes had been created, then, well....the rest is evolution.

The same goes for arms and legs, organs, enzymes... We end up with disparate dates for different things, and normal, everyday, garden-variety evolution linking them. Birds still evolved from maniraptors, humans and chimps are still evolutionary cousins from a commmon ancestor, all the mammals evolved from a little shrew-like beast--because none of these things involve the creation of new, "irreducibly complex" things! They are all just changing the relative sizes and shapes of the parts.

Do True Christians really want ID in the schools, since it forces God into just a few creative moments, and leaves the rest to evolution?

[Gollum]

Do True Christians really want ID in the schools, since it forces God into just a few creative moments, and leaves the rest to evolution?

Just to add to Jose's comment ...

This is called the "God of the Gaps"

It's the contention that, as science finds naturalistic explanations for previously unexplained phenomena, the areas that are unexplained shrink and God's actions are limited to "the gaps" that are still unexplained.

Adrian Barnett has written an interesting article on the subject (though not one that's going to be very popular with the ID or creationist crowd.)

[bdbthinker]

I just wanted to state something about the "eye argument".

I don't think it's far fectched at all that somewhere in our evolutionary history, a creature developed light-sensitive cells. Then, of course, those light sensitive cells became more complex because the animals who had them were more sucessful in reproducing than the ones without them.

Also, if you are familiar with caves, you'll know that cave fish don't have eyes. They never developed light sensitive cells because they did not need them. Or, as some scientists argue, if they were eyed fish who got caught in the caves, the no-eye gene mutation was allowed to flourish since having eyes provided no reproductive benefit in darkness.

It's not as crazy as some creationists would have you believe

[Jose]

Also, if you are familiar with caves, you'll know that cave fish don't have eyes. They never developed light sensitive cells because they did not need them. Or, as some scientists argue, if they were eyed fish who got caught in the caves, the no-eye gene mutation was allowed to flourish since having eyes provided no reproductive benefit in darkness.

The cave fish (and crickets) are also fun because they illustrate that evolution doesn't always progress toward increasing complexity. As Gould pointed out, it looks like evolution goes inexorably from simple to complex because it started at zero, so there was no place to go but up. With a cave fish, we're starting with a fish, which evolves to a less-complex form.

Not only are eyes not needed in the dark, they can get infected. Mutations that result in failure of eye development are not selected against in caves (because eyes are not needed), but they can even be selected for!

The creationist argument, of course, is that this doesn't count as evolution because it's just loss of structures, not gain of structures. We should remind ourselves that "evolution" is "change" --and works by microevolution. What changes occur depend on what mutations there are, and what selective pressures there may be. Gains, losses, sideways changes...it's all the same basic processes at work.

[entspeak]

The problem with ID is that it isn't science. It is a philosophy... one that opposes the philosophy of methodological naturalism which is used in evolution theory to be exact. What's interesting is that everyone talks about evolution vs intelligent design as if the two are mutually exclusive. The fact is, evolution does not automatically rule out a designer. It might just be that the program for design is complex.

[YEC]

All things are designed.

There is just one designer.

What are your reasons for these just so statements. I think that if design theory is to gain any ground, reasons not just answers must be proffered.

The extreme complexity of lifes interacting building blocks demonstrates this to be true.

The simularity of life shows us it was one creator....just for the record the creators name is Jesus Christ.

[Jose]

All things are designed.

There is just one designer.

<snip>

The extreme complexity of lifes interacting building blocks demonstrates this to be true.

The simularity of life shows us it was one creator....just for the record the creators name is Jesus Christ.

No, the data indicate that the similarity of life results from common descent. The complexity simply reflects the fact that there has been a very long time for evolution to occur.

The extreme complexity argument of the ID fans is very silly--and if true, would undermine your second statement. It is silly because (a) it ignores the data that exist, and (b) it pretends that there can never be scientific answers to questions about genetic inheritance. It undermines your claim of similarity indicating there was one creator because ID posits that the complexity was created--but allows (and, I think, requires) that slight changes to Complex Things occur through normal genetic mechanisms. The eye, to use their famous example, would have been created about 400 million years ago, and has been following evolutionary modification through normal genetic mechanisms ever since. ID is a very strange theory, since it blends a requirement for evolution with the refusal to consider the possibility of evolution for a few things they claim are inherently impossible to understand. Weird.

[YEC]

All things are designed.

There is just one designer.

<snip>

The extreme complexity of lifes interacting building blocks demonstrates this to be true.

The simularity of life shows us it was one creator....just for the record the creators name is Jesus Christ.

No, the data indicate that the similarity of life results from common descent. The complexity simply reflects the fact that there has been a very long time for evolution to occur.

The extreme complexity argument of the ID fans is very silly--and if true, would undermine your second statement. It is silly because (a) it ignores the data that exist, and (b) it pretends that there can never be scientific answers to questions about genetic inheritance. It undermines your claim of similarity indicating there was one creator because ID posits that the complexity was created--but allows (and, I think, requires) that slight changes to Complex Things occur through normal genetic mechanisms. The eye, to use their famous example, would have been created about 400 million years ago, and has been following evolutionary modification through normal genetic mechanisms ever since. ID is a very strange theory, since it blends a requirement for evolution with the refusal to consider the possibility of evolution for a few things they claim are inherently impossible to understand. Weird.

Sily???? I think not my evo friend. Just what existing data does it ignore? You mentioned it is there so please present it.

Your problem is still not furnishing a reasonable explaination of how complex building blocks that require multiple interacting functions to exist....arrived.

Sure, you migth want to say that the functions had other purposes prior...but still have failed to demonstrate this in action above a coloring book level....So far all I have seen is the assumption that it has occured. You know, the evo version of ...god did it.

[YEC]

I just wanted to state something about the "eye argument".

I don't think it's far fectched at all that somewhere in our evolutionary history, a creature developed light-sensitive cells. Then, of course, those light sensitive cells became more complex because the animals who had them were more sucessful in reproducing than the ones without them.

How did they develope this light sensitive cell? Your speculative assumption is that this cell did actually develope...somehow....then became more complex because the animals who had them were more sucessful??? How is that?
As this eye was evolving..how big was the change that allowed this better eye to be sucessful? What changed? How many mutations were required to produce said change?

You need more than an assumption to convince someone that what you are saying is so,

Also, if you are familiar with caves, you'll know that cave fish don't have eyes. They never developed light sensitive cells because they did not need them. Or, as some scientists argue, if they were eyed fish who got caught in the caves, the no-eye gene mutation was allowed to flourish since having eyes provided no reproductive benefit in darkness.

It's not as crazy as some creationists would have you believe

Would you care to back up that last statement with some sort of reference? I have never heard that argument presented by an evo.

To be honest I think it goes against the evo theory....or are you saying that the original fish was blind and the ones that grew up in the caves never developed eyes?