Unanswered Questions Concerning Intelligent Design.

[Furrowed Brow]

One of the stock evolutionary rhetorical retorts to intelligent design is to ask the question who designed the designer? I say rhetorical because I’ve never seen a pro Ider offer an answer. So would any proponent of intelligent design care to take a stab at any of the following questions. (Or would anyone else care to play devil’s advocate). However, the proponents of ID say it is a science, and not a religion. That Intelligent Design does not necessarily imply God. So any answer requiring God is off bounds.

1) Who designed or how was the designer designed?
2) From where or from what did does the intelligent designer draw their intelligence?
3) From where or from what muse did the intelligent designer get their design aesthetic?
4) By what manner, mechanism or method does the intelligent designer ensure the universe follows their design?
5) If intelligent design were true - does that mean only one designer, or could there be more than one? (Explain your answer).

[Fisherking]

So does a theory have to be logical to be considered science?

[QED]

This would be a good example http://www.ideationtriz.com/Zlotin_Zusm ... Design.pdf and illustrate how intelligent design can function without invoking God.

There are many different motives for people to try and find alternatives to natural selection, some more rational than others. The ones cited in this paper (the enigmas) do not seem particularly convincing as there are even contradictions in the text -- which strikes me overall as being founded on too literal a search for "intelligence" in the evolutionary process and as a vehicle for launching a novel analytical methodology. But it is, nonetheless, a proposal for a source of "individual natural intelligence" which might be functionally equivalent to that found in the "free market economy" of natural selection.

This is what seems to be missing in the battle over ID as fought on religious grounds -- intelligence is a property that some people mistakenly ascribe exclusively to living, thinking, agencies like Man. This is of course a nonsense as it is easy to point to countless other kinds of natural intelligence equally capable of making apparent decisions in the face of "sense data" (an apt description of virtually any system based around feedback). It seems to me to be mostly a matter of mistaken appearances and mistaken literalism in language that creates the confusion upon which religiously motivated proponents of ID base their arguments. If it is admitted that there are natural sources of apparent intelligence other than man, then the Religiously inspired arguments for ID become moot.

[McCulloch]

If logic is a requirement to be considered science, we should rule out the theory of evolution as science. Some science is logical, some is not.

At the risk of bringing in a true Scotsman, any science that is not logical, is not science.

A. J. Hoover via J. Ankenburg:
"Hasty Generalization—basing a general statement on too small a sample; building general rules from accidental or exceptional situations. (Microevolution is evidence of macroevolution; origin of life experiments in the laboratory can be extrapolated to the actual evolution of life in the primitive oceans, alleged transitional forms [Archaeopteryx, Semouria, etc.] prove evolution.)

Going from the specific to the general is a valid mode of thinking. One must recognize the risk of hasty generalization but on the other hand, without some form of generalization, very little progress would ever be made. Interesting how almost all generalizations based on evolutionary theory that can be tested end up being valid.

Begging the Question (petitio principii)—reasoning in a circle, using your conclusion as a premise, assuming the very thing to be proved as proof of itself. (Natural selection; paleoanthropology; geologic record.)

The geological record is not something to be proven by evolution, it is a fact used as evidence in evolution. Geology does not use evolution to determine its dating.

Misuse of Authority—attempting to prove a conclusion by appealing to a real or alleged authority in such a way that the conclusion does not necessarily follow. (All competent scientists declare evolution is a fact!)

The fact that virtually all competent biologists agree with the conclusion of evolution does not prove evolution. It never has and it never will. It does, however, shift the burden of proof somewhat.

Misuse of Analogy—trying to prove something by improper use of a parallel case. (Hominid fossils prove evolution.)

???

Chronological Snobbery (argumentum ad futuris)—attempting to refute an idea merely by dating it, usually dating it very old. (Creationism was refuted long ago.)

How long creationism has been refuted has nothing to do with the truth of its refutation. But scientists do get tired of refuting the same things over and over again, as if the creationists who keep bringing the same points up do not do their homework. Kind of like Pascal's wager. I wish I had a dollar for each time some dewy-eyed believer tries to use Pascal's wager as if it is a new and valid proof.

Argument to Future—trying to prove something by appealing to evidence that might be turned up in the (unknown) future. (As science progresses, proof of evolution will eventually be forthcoming.)

I agree with you. This kind of non-evidence is as bad as the believer who claims that we non-believers will find out the real truth on judgment day or some other unknown future date. A pox on anyone using this kind of argument in debate!

Poisoning the Wells—attempting to refute an argument by discrediting in advance the source of the evidence for the argument. (Creationists are “know-nothings” opposed to modern science; they get their arguments mostly from the book of Genesis.)

Your accusation would have a bit more merit if you could point to anyone in the forefront of the ID (Creationist) movement who was not a Biblical literalist.

Appeal to Force (argumentum ad baculum)—substituting force or the threat of force for reason and evidence. (Evolutionists’ intimidation of creationist students and professors.)

When is this done?

Appeal to the People (argumentum ad populum)—trying to establish a position by appealing to popular sentiments instead of relevant evidence. (Everybody believes in evolution, therefore it must be true.)

I must have missed this one being used in any of the scientific journals.

The Fallacy of Extension—attacking an exaggerated or caricatured version of your opponent’s position, i.e., to attack a “straw man.” (Creationism is only the religious doctrine of a small but vocal minority.)

I agree that this is a serious fallacy when used. Would you like me to point to a few Creationist straw man versions of evolution? Your courts seem to have ruled that creationism is, in fact, religion, so how is it a straw man to point that out?

Hypothesis Contrary to Fact—arguing from “what might have been,” from a past hypothetical condition. (The fossil record.)"

Evolution is an attempt to explain the fossil record and other factual evidence.

A simple design theory could go like this:

1. Question- Is the car in my driveway intelligently designed?
2. Hypothesis- Assume that the car in my driveway exibits characteristics and similarities to cars in my neighborhood I've observed to be designed. If it does, conclude it is designed. If it does not conclude it was not designed.
3. Method-examine 50 cars known to be designed in my neighborhood.
4. Results -ect. ect.
5. Conclusion-ect.

A simple design theory could go like this:

1. Question- Is the universe intelligently designed?
2. Hypothesis- Assume that the universe exhibits characteristics and similarities to other universes known to have been designed.
3. Method-examine 50 universes known to be designed.
4. Results -ect. ect.
5. Conclusion-ect.

Good luck with that. As my sadistics prof said, it is hard to generalize from a sample set of one.

[Fisherking]

McCulloch, I do not really disagree with your reply. Evolutionist presupposes there is no God and Creationism presupposes there is. The same data is used for both, but how it is interpreted depends on the starting postulate.

[Cathar1950]

McCulloch, I do not really disagree with your reply. Evolutionist presupposes there is no God and Creationism presupposes there is. The same data is used for both, but how it is interpreted depends on the starting postulate.

I think your wrong here.

Evolutionist do not presupposes there is no God.

[Confused]

A simple design theory could go like this:

1. Question- Is the car in my driveway intelligently designed?
2. Hypothesis- Assume that the car in my driveway exibits characteristics and similarities to cars in my neighborhood I've observed to be designed. If it does, conclude it is designed. If it does not conclude it was not designed.
3. Method-examine 50 cars known to be designed in my neighborhood.
4. Results -ect. ect.
5. Conclusion-ect.

True. But the scientific method starts with facts. Known observations that then are linked to a hypothesis about the causation etc... If you want to apply the scientific method, you must apply it within the realms of science. You may start with something like your hypothesis but tell me, what is the natural observations you wish to explain?

Yes, logic is used to a degree, but it is not the primary method of proof. Deductive logic can lead you in the direction of forming your hypothesis to the causation of a natural fact, but it cannot, alone, lead you to a causation You must also find methods in the form of verifiable and reliable experimentation that yields your hypothesis as valid and reliable. Your example above is more inductive logic, which isn't a strong form for science. You cannot use a hypothesis as your initial observation without proof that such hypothesis is a known fact that is observable in nature. That is one of the defining differences between hard science and soft science. Psychology/Psychiatry often use deductive reasoning, as does theoretical physics. But they start with a observation. Then move on to a hypothesis. Science insists on explaining the natural.

Can you define an intelligent design or an intelligent designer in scientific terms. Or must you resort to the supernatural or metaphysical in order to define it? Can we say an intelligent designer designed the universe? Science doesn't attempt to. That would be something beyond the scope not only of nature, but of the scientific method.

[Confused]

McCulloch, I do not really disagree with your reply. Evolutionist presupposes there is no God and Creationism presupposes there is. The same data is used for both, but how it is interpreted depends on the starting postulate.

Here is where I see the failure of communication. Evolution is scientific theory. It presupposes nothing outside the realm of science. God is outside of science, hence, God cannot be included or rejected in any presupposition. He simply isn't relative to it.

Can the presuppositon you propose be tested by the means of science? No, we cannot test for God. Therefore, He cannot be a factor in any data of science because He isn't natural. He is supernatural/metaphysical. He cannot be explained in terms of naturalism.

[Cathar1950]

I think it is part of the YEC and other Creationist's myths that evolution is somehow non-Christian, anti-Christian and atheistic.
This is not part of the theory of evolution.
Evolution might be a reason for some atheism but there are plenty of Christians that see evolution as the means to God's creation. No one owns it nor does it take a commitment to atheism. The charge is false and unrelated related to the theory or the evidence.
It is a weird wedge issue that is more anti-science and anti-modernism, even reactionary.
The statement that "Evolutionist presupposes there is no God" is false because it is not true and the many varied ideas of God are not relevant.

Now Depending on what you mean by creation, I am not sure they need to believe in God or gods for there to be creation. Certainly the Platonic, Hebrew, Jewish/Christian/Muslim God is not the only myths of creation.
Now it is is true that YAC would believe or presuppose God by definition and agenda. But there is no issue concerning God or gods in evolution.
I my many years in school learning the scientific method it seem the practice is more process then a list or formula. Like Maslow's hierarchy you can go up and down in jump. The so called stages of death or depression are not in any given order.
They have a number of things in common such as falsifiability, experience and objectivity in the forms of more then one observation, agreement and reproduction of results even if it is with other indicators.
Some one that believes the bible has no contradictions will not see contradictions and you can not prove it wrong because in their belief system it would be impossible. Any other possibility exists he would have to be wrong by definition and this alone takes it out of the realm of science. You can use scientific means to study beliefs and believers.

[Fisherking]

McCulloch, I do not really disagree with your reply. Evolutionist presupposes there is no God and Creationism presupposes there is. The same data is used for both, but how it is interpreted depends on the starting postulate.

Here is where I see the failure of communication. Evolution is scientific theory. It presupposes nothing outside the realm of science

.

orgin of species?

Can the presuppositon you propose be tested by the means of science? No, we cannot test for God. Therefore, He cannot be a factor in any data of science because He isn't natural. He is supernatural/metaphysical. He cannot be explained in terms of naturalism.

I could ask the same thing of the naturalists though. I will use the format from the above statement.
Can the naturalists presuppposition (orgins of life are purely natural) be tested? No, we cannot test that there is no God. Therefore, naturalism cannot be a factor in any data of science. Naturalism is purely natural and cannot explain origin of species(as evolution attempts)

I never said we can test for God, I am saying creationism can be just as "scientific" evolutionism in interpreting what is assumed/not known (origin of species). I said creation scientists presuppose there is a God and interpret the data likewise. Evolutionism is built upon the presupposition that life was not designed by God and interpret the data likewise. God cannot be explained in terms of naturalism, I agree. I think where the confusion lies is the difference between operational science and origin science. Evolution is origins science. http://www.sandpoint.net/tknapp/bias.htm

[Confused]

McCulloch, I do not really disagree with your reply. Evolutionist presupposes there is no God and Creationism presupposes there is. The same data is used for both, but how it is interpreted depends on the starting postulate.

Here is where I see the failure of communication. Evolution is scientific theory. It presupposes nothing outside the realm of science

.

origin of species?

Can the presuppositon you propose be tested by the means of science? No, we cannot test for God. Therefore, He cannot be a factor in any data of science because He isn't natural. He is supernatural/metaphysical. He cannot be explained in terms of naturalism.

I could ask the same thing of the naturalists though. I will use the format from the above statement.
Can the naturalists presuppposition (orgins of life are purely natural) be tested? No, we cannot test that there is no God. Therefore, naturalism cannot be a factor in any data of science. Naturalism is purely natural and cannot explain origin of species(as evolution attempts)

I never said we can test for God, I am saying creationism can be just as "scientific" evolutionism in interpreting what is assumed/not known (origin of species). I said creation scientists presuppose there is a God and interpret the data likewise. Evolutionism is built upon the presupposition that life was not designed by God and interpret the data likewise. God cannot be explained in terms of naturalism, I agree. I think where the confusion lies is the difference between operational science and origin science. Evolution is origins science. http://www.sandpoint.net/tknapp/bias.htm

Once again, you leap outside the realm of science. Tell me exactly where in the theory of evolution or natural selection/adaptation science actually points to the origin of life? Perhaps you have expanded it to mean more than it was intended. Fear not, this is a common illusion experienced by many theists. God forbid you admit that you and the great apes have a common ancestor, but God gave you the technology to use the same DNA evidence that point to this to convict a serial rapist. Double standard isn't it.