April 7, 2009 at 1:25 am #11176LittleBeaverParticipant
I recently saw the film Expelled by Ben Stein and found it to be particularly thought-provoking. I did a little more research, including reading through some rebuttals to Stein’s claims on ID and also found them to be thought-provoking. I am interested in what people think about this issue. Please give OBJECTIVE explanations from both sides of the argument presented in the film (if it is possible to be objective on the subject). I find it interesting that both sides are so quick to defend themselves and I can see that both sides have flaws in their arguments. What is at the root of this issue…why it so controversial? Why are there so many different scientific theories on the origin of life, on that point from "inorganic to life"? With all the scientific advances that we have today, why hasn’t this exact point been proved yet? I don’t want to start a debate here…I am merely interested in people’s objective thoughts as scientists.
April 7, 2009 at 6:04 am #90038
Just a quick few words:quote LittleBeaver:
I don’t think there are that many realistic scientific theories on the origins of life. It doesn’t matter if the life came along meteors from, say, Mars, or evolved here on Earth – the basic principles that most scientists agree are pretty much similar: a gradual formation of self-replicating molecules that became more complex due to competition of free building blocks for their copies. There probably isn’t even any single point when it can be said "this is life now, it’s not inorganic anymore." Viruses even today blur the line between live and inanimate particles. Prions are also an interesting example of self-replicating molecules that aren’t "alive".quote LittleBeaver:
Now we must remember that we’re studying things that happened billions of years ago and it is extremely hard to tell the exact conditions that prevailed that day. Furthermore, even the theory of evolution is merely 150 years old (and our knowledge abot DNA and molecular biochemistry just about one third of that), so we have had very little time to study this, after all. They even have disputes with the origins of many of the Egyptian mummies, and on the evolutionary time scale the mummies were enbalmed just a blink of an eye ago 🙂
As to why there is so much controversy: probably primarily because there are two completely opposite lines of thought against one another and it’s only natural it generates controversy. Creationists often blame theory of evolution of not being able to provide direct/sufficient evidence on evoltuion, or that scientists have failed to simulate it in laboratiories, but when you look at the theory as a whole, it is very consistent and logical. On the other hand, there is no single piece of evidence on behalf of ID that I’m aware of, so it’s very peculiar that so many people believe in it nonetheless…
Now, what comes to the movie itself, unfortunately I haven’t seen it and thus cannot comment on any possible points it has about the topic. Maybe someone else can do this on my behalf.
April 8, 2009 at 3:17 am #90044quote LittleBeaver:
The movie was entirely for-profit and political. It ignored the fact that there was already a somewhat coherent Theory Of Intelligent Design in writing. Here it is today, coherently explaining the Cambrian Explosion and a good number of other things:
The Theory Of Intelligent Design already exists. The problem is there is more money in there NOT being one, and political slogans are a lot easier to learn and recite than a scientific theory.
April 8, 2009 at 3:35 am #90045LittleBeaverParticipantquote :
It seems strange somehow to me…most proponents of ID seems to be the creationists and so attribute the role of designer to "God"…my thought is this: the purpose of science is the study and observation of the physical world, how could real science used be used as an evidence for something intangible?quote :
If we can say that evolution is a theory that can logically explain the origins of life and likewise ID is also a theory that can also logically explain origins of life…it seems to me that there is potential on both sides for truth…but referring to my response above, can the invisible be proved? Or is the role of the scientist to dismiss any notions of "supernatural" on the basis that it is not tangible?
April 8, 2009 at 4:54 am #90046
I agree with biohazard; there are no controversial theories on the origin of life. Nearly the entire scientific community is in agreement behind the theory of evolution. Ben Stein is not a scientist, and so I don’t think his ideas should carry any more weight on a scientific topic than would anyone who has never seen an airplane have a right to tell an aircraft mechanic how to fix a jet engine. If you can present a legitimate scientific theory presented by a scientist who’s convinced evolution is wrong, you might very well be onto something. As far as I know, no such alternative theory exists. Crack-pots like Ben Stein only like to pretend that such a theory exists because they don’t like what science has discovered, and they think that gives them the right to tell the scientists who have earned the degrees and done the research that they’re wrong and all their effort is for naught for no other reason than Ben Stein says so. That’s hardly legitimate scientific evidence, if you ask me.
April 8, 2009 at 5:49 am #90048quote LittleBeaver:
Well, of course real science could support ID if, for example, someone managed to find the creator’s initials and the date of creation from every living species’ genome, or if we’d find another planet or place with advanced organisms, where clearly evoltuion couldn’t have taken place (a very young planet with complex ecosystem maybe). However, there is no scientific evidence whatsoever to support ID. The supporters of ID happily rely on god, because that is extremely convenient: they don’t have to prove anything and can concentrate on defaming any theories that do not fit into their holy books.quote LittleBeaver:
I’m getting tired of this nitpicking about the word "theory" each time someone tries to oppose evoltuion. For fcuk’s sake, how come nobody keeps pointing out that there is a theory of gravity and there is a general theory of relativity as well, but those are taken for granted even though none of us can even understand the latter. (And not actually even the underlying mechanisms of the first one…). Just as well gravity and space-time phenomena could be mere tricks played by Jahve/Allah/Shiva/Perkele/Odin/Huitzilopochtli/[insert your favourite god here depending on where you happened to be born] and there is no gravity at all. Only this Intelligent Gravity Manipulator. Maybe let’s rebuff gravity as well as evolution and switch to IGM, which is not a theory but a FACT, because it’s caused by GOD. adhsghjgsafh…
The ID/creationism and their supporters piss me off because they have nothing solid to prove the existence of any creator or that all life was just suddenly created somehow, and because they try to disprove scientific support for evoltuion mostly by pointing out that there is a word "theory" in the theory of evolution.
April 8, 2009 at 7:22 am #90049quote GaryGaulin:
Uhh, sorry, my friend, but to me that looks far from coherent. There were many errors, non-scientific claims and terms, and undefined concepts in the text – I lost the track of them long before I got anywhere near the end of it. (Since when have trilobites been insects?)
On the first glance the text may look scientific with all it’s chemical formulae, graphs and programming lines, but a closer look reveals that this has nothing to do with science or scientifically proving anything.quote GaryGaulin:
I surely hope nobody puts their money on supporting "ID research" or whatever you call it, if the results are like this. I decided to comment this link mostly in hope of making it clear to any random Internet user who may stumble upon this site that if they choose to check the text in question, that at least carefully think about the "facts" it tries to tell you.
This is a long text, but again I have to wonder: do the author(s) really believe in what they are writing??
April 8, 2009 at 1:25 pm #90054quote biohazard:
Please show me one non-scientific claim.quote biohazard:quote :
To be as precise as possible I rephrased as "ancestor of insects" but it says the same thing.quote biohazard:
Then what is the "scientific" definition of intelligence and how do scientists detect it? According to what you are saying, you already have a complete answer.quote biohazard:
Considering I’m the primary author, you can be sure I believe in my work! I’m also a published author with very good reputation.
The only problem is the frequent dismissing of the theory before studying it. But not all have done so. Accomplished scientists still find it valuable. As well as educators who need the unique classroom ideas. They usually know good science when they see it.
Now show me some of these things you claim are unscientific.
April 8, 2009 at 4:20 pm #90058quote GaryGaulin:
Here’s one:quote GaryGaulin:
April 8, 2009 at 4:45 pm #90059LifeTeinParticipant
I watched a movie called Man From Earth. It is about a man who never dies. He lives since the stone age. He was mistaken for Jesus and he has seen many famous people from the ancient time. It is worth watching and thought-provoking.
April 8, 2009 at 5:17 pm #90063decostasisParticipantquote LittleBeaver:
I think that LittleBeaver is asking people to consider the ID "theory" from a scientific stance without consideration or suggestion of the Judeo-Christian "God." In my opinion, scientists need to stop pulling out the "creationist" card at which point the discussion then becomes subjective. Likewise, creationists need to stop pulling out the "evolutionist" card at which point they become personally offended.quote biohazard:
How then do you answer LittleBeaver’s question as quoted above. If given consideration for one moment that the supernatural does exist, would science be able to explain it?
April 8, 2009 at 10:39 pm #90066quote alextemplet:
I origionally thought they went extinct with no descendents. After checking to make sure I was correct, I read otherwise. Now it looks like you are right, or at least there is a controversy the theory does not need to get involved in.
Anyhow, I stand corrected.
Is this better?
"Trilobites (extinct arthropods) are known to have had well developed crystal lens compound eyes of modern insects."
I have to thank you for pointing that out. The Cambrian Explosion section is the newest. It’s less than a week old and has not yet been reviewed yet.
If the above correction looks OK to you, then do you see anything else non-scientific in the theory? 😀
April 9, 2009 at 3:23 am #90068canalonParticipantquote decostasis:
Science can only measure physical effects. If it cannot be recorded, it has to be discarded.
As for the possible existece of an intelligence designing life, it simply gets "shaved" by Occam’s razor, if I can say: of the possibility that random mutations and genetic movement under natural selection and following al known physical laws, life evolved in what we are seeing now OR that an invisible intelligence that cannot be detected, that acts by unknown and non measurable ways, scientist have to chose the first solution. But find a way to experimentaly show the noodly appendages in action, and then ID will be able to be considered something else than just the divagations of religious nuts.
April 9, 2009 at 3:40 am #90070
I needed to add why I saw the Theory Of Intelligent Design as logically possible. Then after having the part below about the Discovery Institute sentence all written up another forum went into what a theory is then I had to answer the critics with it too so it turned into the following. I thought you might find the additional detail helpful, even though none here seem to need all the lecturing. Should help explain why as weird as it seems challenging the theory is the most logical and scientific thing for me to do.
So to experimentaly show the noodly appendages in action:
In as few words as possible "A theory is a coherent statement that explains a phenomena."
Sometimes I add extra detail with the word "works" because you can tell whether something is science by it explaining how something "works" in a way you can experiment with. Can then say "A theory is a coherent statement that explains how a phenomena works."
I already know that saying "God did it" doesn’t help game developers make better AI or show anyone how Intelligence Detection "works" as explained in the theory and to programmers in the computer model tutorial available at this link:
Getting back to the theory the Discovery Institute stated quote:quote :
The theory does not need to explain with an undirected process such as Natural Selection like Darwin did. It’s never mentioned. Theory also has to focus on nonrandom behavior because without that intelligence is impossible.
Since it is possible to coherently explain that we are emergent from molecular and cellular intelligence there is in fact an "intelligent cause" or cause of human intelligence that is itself intelligent that boils down to being produced by "emergence" that is not "supernatural" and although it is not stated as such in the theory it keeps the search for the Creator alive and well going ever further in science. Which means the theory of ID can be "coherent" and explain how intelligence "works" as I (with help from others) have already done, while the ID movement connects with the science they have been searching for.
None here are in any position to argue that I do not know what I am talking about in regards to intelligence science that thousands do every day that has nothing at all to do with supernatural explanations and all the other insults hurled at those who experiment with "intelligence". And the same theory that made it possible to trash a whole lot of us has a way of putting things back in their proper places. The Discovery Institute wanted a theory, well now they have one. And all here have it too, whether you like it or not because educated people find it useful to know.
Science thrives on new theories and this is like the theory of theories. And supposedly some 99.9% of scientists wrote it off as impossible and all that hoopla. Owe us a Nobel Prize and everything. 😀
April 9, 2009 at 5:57 am #90073quote decostasis:
As the word "supernatural" itself explains, it is above natural, which in turn means it is above natural sciences. There is no way science can prove the existence of god or any other such supernatural creator. Like I already said:
"The supporters of ID happily rely on god, because that is extremely convenient: they don’t have to prove anything"
Then again, if there was some extremely intelligent organism who has simply designed us and placed us here we might have a chance. The situation today just is that they haven’t left any evidence on this. In the light of the evidence we have, all points towards evolution and nothing towards creation.
And what comes to pulling out the creationist card – well, typically ID and creationism go hand in hand, that is why the "card" always emerges. Very few real scientists regard ID as a likely explanation for our beginning.
April 9, 2009 at 6:39 am #90075quote GaryGaulin:
Intelligence, again, is a very abstract term and different definitions exist. I would not regard it even as an exact scientific term as such (although some psychologists might disagree), just something that describes a trait in organism that allows it to make apparently conscious choices to improve its chances to achieve its goal based on its past experience and stimuli it is observing at the moment. I might also add that all forms of today’s intelligence require a developed nervous system, with a central nervous system being an integral part.
Thus, in my opinion one cannot use the term intelligence in context with atoms or single cells. Development of AI may change our views of intelligence, but as it currently stands, it’s reserved for advanced, multicellular organisms.quote GaryGaulin:
You stand behind your work, all credit to you for that.quote GaryGaulin:
Well, for example your views of intelligence on atomic and cellular levels are in my opinion unscientific. In my opinion the fact that things work in a certain ways (cellular interactions, atom-scale chemistry and such) do not mean these things are intelligent. But like I said above, intelligence is a porblematic topic, because it can be defined in too many ways.
I think you should consider revising at least the introduction section in your work, at least for me it was very difficult to notice the key points of the text (i.e. what you are actually trying to say with this) – a new version of the intro part might help even us thick ones to understand you!
Anyway, I’m afraid you still have a lot more to do if you want to convince me to put my money on this research 😉
April 9, 2009 at 9:45 am #90078
In the Dover, PA case Judge Jones found that the ID theory the Discovery Institute tried to coherently explain could not "separate" itself from religious Creationism. I found that the theory was able to separate by accounting for the fossil evidence and all else without needing to mention Evolutionary Theory or Natural Selection.
The strategy I recommend is immediately shut down the other side by making it clear from the start that ET or NS are never once mentioned in the theory therefore all arguments either way are irrelevant. With defending ET all the other side really knows how to do well, it is in their best interest to first gain that control.
Invisible or not something either exists or it does not. A Creationist who believes that the Creator could appear to reveal new knowledge to them, would then be able to explain more about how that "supernatural" realm works. With enough information for scientists to be able to repeat and same happens for them they could write an excellent theory. Or maybe the "supernatural" Creator told them to do this then that then "Poof!" a ten dollar bill will come out of thin air. Scientists try it then next thing you know they’re driving half million dollar cars so you know they’re a believer. So to a theory it doesn’t matter whether one calls it "supernatural" or "natural" it only has to explain how the phenomena works.
I doubt any expected a theory that makes a Creator entity appear in the lab. The average person inclined towards ID wanted a "faith-friendly" theory to solve a number of problems they saw needing to be solved. Now instead of only a political solution there is a scientific solution that works much better than wedges. Science classrooms are already heading towards something better that the usual ET so they can at least welcome that change.
The way everything works together the theory is logically possible. Requires science be done to the letter but I make that easy. So with patience the "Theory Of Intelligent Design" should become accepted science. Just have the usual learning curve.
April 9, 2009 at 6:24 pm #90083
Gary, let me first say that it is obvious that you have put some serious thought into this issue. Among ID theorists, that is unfortunately a very rare quality. That gives me a lot of respect for you, which is a very high complement in my book.
That said, I would like to explain a bit about myself and why I disagree with you. I do believe the universe and everything in it was created by an intelligent designer. I will even go so far as to say that I believe that creator is the Judeao-Christian God. I believe that "fingerprints" of God can be found all over His creation, yet I also believe that He designed the universe to function according to natural laws, including the development of life through evolutionary processes. I am convinced that the bulk of scientific data supports this claim.
If you want to believe that a designer created species instantaneously and without evolutionary ancestry, that is certainly your prerogative. I do not, however, believe that such a claim deserves merit as a scientific theory. I think we can all agree that some invisible force might be behind every natural law that we think controls the universe, yet science cannot (and probably never will) detect such a supernatural entity. Because a supernatural designer by definition lies outside the reach of science to investigate, I believe that any intelligent design theory for the origin of life must also be regarded as fundamentally nonscientific. You are of course free to disagree if you so wish, but until you can present hard scientific evidence that such a being exists and how he/she/it operates, then I will continue to insist on principle that your theories be excluded from mainstream science.
April 10, 2009 at 12:12 am #90086
Hi alextemplet!quote alextemplet:
Thank you very much!quote alextemplet:
Actually, we are in more agreement than it would seem.quote alextemplet:
Jon Saboe (created Evolution Is Dead website and forums) worded something for me that I now quote where I can.quote :
The way I see it in the beginning there was already something there that always was, always will be. The forces that make the universe, is the Designer.quote alextemplet:
The Creator that I explain is what all religions search to better know. Has no gender like we require. As a result of being part forces the Creator is the natural laws.quote alextemplet:
The theory is not at all saying that evolution is not a real phenomena. It’s a single theory that explains what Abiogenesis plus Evolutionary Theory cannot because neither explains the all important "intelligence" that makes living things "alive".
I’m not saying ET has no merit, I just see ET as a lame way to explain how living things work. And I’m not just saying so without offering an alternative explanation, with "design" I was able to cover ET’s entire niche in one paragraph:quote :
This is what makes the ID theory a stand-alone alternative. It’s explaining what ET and AbioGenesis combined cannot. Has self-assembly and origin of life aquarium experiments with one to be developed using dust/clay that one gives light to make metabolic organelles for an intelligence to control, like right out of Genesis.quote alextemplet:
Some things happen instantly. But learning takes time, especially for a genome. But since they can live for billions of years, they have plenty of time.quote alextemplet:
Even where one claims its from the "supernatural" a theory must explain how it works. At one time lightning was thought to be supernatural so when Ben Franklin was trying to figure out how it works you could say he was trying to explain the supernatural. No matter what you call it, the only thing science (through theory) can do is explain how it works.quote alextemplet:
You’ll change your mind.quote alextemplet:
The theory does not have to make a Creator being pop into the lab to grant wishes, for it to help explain how the Creator works. And it’s already doing well in mainstream science. If I do say so myself. 😀
April 10, 2009 at 3:27 am #90087quote GaryGaulin:
While you no doubt see this as one of ID’s greatest strengths, I see it as one of the theory’s greatest weaknesses. The problem, in my mind, is that if we can simply explain anything with "the designer made it this way", then the entire process of scientific investigation grinds to a halt. Science, by definition, has to seek natural explanations for natural phenomenon, and that rules out any chance that a designer theory has for being treated as scientific.
April 10, 2009 at 5:05 am #90090quote alextemplet:
I can agree by saying that a "Designer did it" answer does not explain anything about how said Designer works so there are no experiments or anything for scientists to do then the entire process of scientific investigation grinds to a halt.
The only difference in thinking is that I consider the word "supernatural" to be another word for "unknown" so even where one claims it was supernatural they are still obligated to explain something about how it works in their theory. Otherwise none will have anything they can do with it, even where they try. They need something to put into their science machines or model on the computer, etc..
I keep it a science is for everyone sort of thing. Explaining a theory this way keeps the rules the same for both sides. If one claims the supernatural then fine but the rules are the same as one claiming the natural. So after being welcomed to science, something about how the phenomena they are conceptualizing works must still be in their theory too.
And all great theories in science came from religious minds. Charles Darwin had no scientific credentials at all, just a divinity degree. Big Bang was written by a priest. Einstein was not church-going religious but still saw his theory as explaining some of how the Creator works. The hellion Newton would get upset when clergy did not see scripture like he did. Galileo wanted to be a monk. It’s like a search for the Creator in science helps writes the great theories. Are then no limits to what can be explained, even what all call Creator. So an active religious side seems necessary for a really great theory. So please don’t mind mine!
April 10, 2009 at 5:41 am #90091
I think I see your point a bit better now, Gary. Equating supernatural with unknown, I can accept that. However, is it still not the duty of science to explain the unexplained, to make the unknown known? That said, given that "designer did it" doesn’t explain anything, and that we currently have no clue of how such a designer (if it exists) works (unless you want to look to religious scripture, but that’s one Pandora’s Box science should leave untouched, imho), then how can you advocate that ID be accepted as legitimate science? I’ll grant you that there might come a day when we will be able to scientifically examine a designer, but until that day comes, can we really accept ID as real science?
April 10, 2009 at 8:48 am #90095quote alextemplet:
Glad to hear it! We truly are both saying the same thing.quote alextemplet:
I think I know what you are trying to say but logically science is always explaining the unexplained. In my case I see virtually no limit.quote alextemplet:
But leaving it at "designer did it" does not explain how said designer works.quote alextemplet:
There is already what is in the theory that shows where it is proper to use the word "design" as in the title "Theory Of Intelligent Design" and nowhere in the sentence from the Discovery Institute say "Designer" that is actually like inferring a "Big-Banger" from Big Bang Theory.quote alextemplet:
I know it’s possible, so I can’t help myself!quote alextemplet:
The theory is not one bit obliged to examine a "designer" it is fully obliged to examine "design" which it does. Only thing left is what you (along with others) read into it that was never stated as having to be explained in Heavenly detail. Even going there would detract from and complicate understanding of the "design" it must coherently explain. So expecting a "designer" is here unreasonable, unscientific, unfair, and all that. But I’ll forgive you!
April 10, 2009 at 9:05 am #90096quote biohazard:
There is only one definition I ever found in science that works at all levels of intelligence as quoted in the theory from 1979 book. I boiled the electronic schematics and such down to a 4 requirements that are used to qualify intelligence. That is the best definition there is, and it’s very useful. You would now have to find an intelligence that does not possess all four to show the theory is wrong about that.quote biohazard:
That was an interesting attempt at a coherent theory! It’s like the Wiki entry on intelligence where scientists are all over the map with different definitions. None of them could be modeled from information given. Only evidence of how badly science needs a new theory to explain intelligence!
The 4 part definition that works in all cases of intelligence being explained, unimolecular on up. Being that versatile helps show how looking for 4 requirements greatly simplifies intelligence detection as well as definition. Need that kind of standard so all are on the same page as to how it works.quote biohazard:
The simplest known intelligence are the self-replicating RNA World molecules that control their own metabolism. And my definition of cellular intelligence is university level science. From references of theory:
 Guenter Albrecht-Buehler, Robert Laughlin Rea, Cell Intelligence (webpages)
http://www.basic.northwestern.edu/g-bue … llint0.htm
And cellular intelligence here being discussed by scientists:
The terms I use are what scientists use, or soon will have to. Not because I said so, it’s just where science is going.quote biohazard:
Thank you too!quote biohazard:
The theory never claims intelligence exists at the atomic level. I can’t see how there could be at least until the subatomic. But I added something on unimolecular intelligence so the theory states what the simplest known intelligence is. No more excuses for getting that wrong!quote biohazard:
Intelligence is detectable by it having the 4 requirements. It’s now as simple as that.quote biohazard:
That’s what theories are for, to explain/define these phenomena in a way it can be experimented with. Intelligence is in turn defined by the theory that explains it.quote biohazard:
I’ll work on it!
I previously had this starting off a blog that is now dated by the theory having done better than expectated:quote :
I took it out so that the theory would stand out better. But let me know where you see something that should be put back in from the above. It sounds though like you would be saying I need to write something new to better describe what the theory will be explaining why it’s useful to know.quote biohazard:
That sounds almost kinda serious! But I’ll keep working on it until it at least makes more sense to others. It looks like the Cambrian Explosion part is correctly worded so I’ll make that my next area to improve. Already have a new idea that will help.
April 10, 2009 at 6:46 pm #90101
Gary, you’ve got me confused on how you can differentiate "design" with "designer". I’ll admit they’re not exactly the same thing, but just as art implies that there must be an artist, then shouldn’t design also imply that there must be a designer? How are you able to discuss the concept of design without addressing the obvious (and very legitimate, imo) questions of who/what this designer is and how it works? That’s the biggest thing that’s preventing me from being able to accept your theory as real science.
April 11, 2009 at 1:58 am #90103quote alextemplet:
I’m relieved to see that it is something so simple! For me the "Designer" inference is such a non-issue to the logic of the theory that I didn’t think of it as a problem. Like I was saying a Big-Banger is inferred by those who see the Creator being its cause but Big-Bang theory is not thrown out of science because of it.
The only thing that belongs in a theory is the explaining of how a phenomena works so it can be experimented with. What people infer from that which relates to Creator happens outside the theory. There is no way for some theories to avoid that. So I best I can explain how "design" fits into things to improve the scientific accuracy of the "Designer" inferences that others will later make.
I could say something like "Intelligence that inherently produces new designs is a designer." or just "Intelligence is a designer." but the entire theory taken together is required to make proper sense of what that means. Until I am sure I can use the word without causing even more confusion I am best to leave it completely out.
The theory only needs to provide a coherent explanation of "design" to work from. Addressing the "designer" word bridge into the philosophical inferences is then left a separate church/forum type science project. Once again what Judge Jones found needing separating is separated.
Also, what is expected of Creationists is also expected of you and me and all else here. Unscientific biases that would dismiss a theory because of someone inferring a Big-Banger or Gaia a goddess or Designer are certainly not excused.
The theory is to explain what the Discovery Institute website stated as being what the theory explains, not something else!quote :
The word "design" is only in the title of the theory. It could have been titled almost anything even named after a goddess. As far as science is concerned it’s just the name of a theory that none should take literally in the first place. Therefore the theory does not even have to address "design" it could just focus on the emergent intelligence cause of human intelligence.
The reason that I did include "design" is because it was possible to do so, and useful. The title of the theory can then be taken literally to mean it will explain how "design" relates to "intelligence" even though not necessary. And when you look at how the fossil record is accounted for the word "design" is vital to explaining any other way.quote :
Without the exact word "design" in the logic of the sentence it doesn’t work. For example a good one would seem to be "never once was there not a predecessor of like organism present for the descendant organism to have come from" but "organism" is an abstract word relative to things outside the theory not a geometry/engineering "design" that the theory is explaining inside of itself.
Here are places where various properties of design is explained:quote :
As you can see it is showing how the word "design" relates to chemistry, biology, microbiology, paleontology, crystallography, engineering, programming, electronic type schematics and more. And it already covers the territory of all of abiogenesis and ET plus the best of AI, robotics and university level molecular/cellular intelligence research. Going beyond that point would result in a theory that covers so much it would be approaching ridiculous. Maybe further on down the road how to explain "designer" will fall into place. Let me know when you have an idea. But for now that is unnecessary.
The theory only has to explain what science can reasonably explain and no more. Expecting more than that from it is simply you being unscientific, not the theory.
April 11, 2009 at 5:31 am #90107
Alright Gary, I think I see your point, and I do accept that a designer/creator/deity/etc. is perhaps the best explanation (for now, at least) behind the Big Bang and possibly a few other phenomena. However, for the development of life, I still think blind evolution by natural selection is a much better explanation. I’m still not sure if ID theory should be considered as scientific, but you’ve at least caused me to have some respect for it, and that is quite an accomplishment worthy of congrats on your part.
April 11, 2009 at 5:56 pm #90112quote alextemplet:
I can also say where there is no science to go any further it is my responsibility to stop right there. Where the line ends up drawn is where Big-Banger Designer territory begins. Have to be glad the theory does not go past there. And I also have to separate what Judge Jones found needed to be separated, which happens the moment the theory goes beyond what was clearly stated by the Discovery Institute the theory explains.quote alextemplet:
If that works for you then there is no shame in that. It’s one of the ways to explain the same thing. Not a theory that replaces ET it’s an origin of intelligence theory that explains with its own design dependant word needs, in addition to science already there. Paleontologists and such like the cladogram and morphological cataloging system that Darwin is famed for. Love putting together the tree of life and often only have bones and traces so the intelligence is no longer there anyway.
The benefits of explaining as a product of intelligence is for someone looking for an easy way to add intelligence to their game engine. Also helps show what is going on in Genetic Algorithms that are such good problem solvers by their having the 4 requirements. Natural Selection is something added to zap out some of the replicated designs, not what produces them. NS is a brute force sort of way to influence what they develop towards but they would none the less develop towards something. And GA’s take "good guesses" through crossover exchange that are not "blind" which is why they are in GA’s and genomes. In your field the differentiating between random and good guess is not necessary but in another it’s vital to understand both. And epigenetics is challenging what we know about genes by their being just one part of a programmable memory at another level with coiling system and more. It’s great news for the theory that has a place waiting for how that works. But it’s already complicating the ET based conventional thinking.quote alextemplet:
Good enough for right now! At least you know I’m not out of bounds of science.
I also worked on the introduction to be more clear with fewer words. What was being lost in a long paragraph was made its own so it’s spaced to stand out as important. There is still work to be done but at least what it was saying should be noticeably easier to understand.
Might be helpful to mention that sometimes I copy-paste what I said in a forum or somewhere then do a quick word change so the theory at least has that in it as a placeholder sort of thing. Better than end up with nothing at all due to time constraints. I recently added a good batch of them including the predicted reason for there being codons. They seem to fit in well but where it looks like a hasty cut-paste from some rambling I had somewhere, it probably was. They in time find the right wording, then another batch is there so its always like there is some work left to be done. So if that were not the case then it would mean that the science part of the theory is not really going anywhere in which case all I have left to do is work on the grammar.
It’s not just what the theory is right now to consider, it’s what at the year+ current rate of progress it should become by this summer. Just keeps getter all the time as new science becomes available. And just today I found out that the theory is missing something important in the design features of histones, so here we go again with a needing a whole new section just to keep up with science alone! It’s always like this which is why for so long I was certain the challenge was developing into something useful even though I had no way of knowing what that would exactly be. That is more determined by where things go in forums. Like for example the introduction is now better worded for someone like you and there is no trilobite bug in it now either. I didn’t cause that to happen the forum did. I in a sense move the theory from forum to forum acting as an inference engine as described by group "collective intelligence" in Wikipedia to form new knowledge from the old, which kinda works the same as the scientific method. Presenting it in a forum like this is first of all informal peer-review and you know how theories benefit from as much as they can get. And the title has a beneficial way of making some work hard to give it a good challenge, not a "polite" response like some priest with something they called the Big-Bang wondering what you thought of their math equations to explain red shift and all that. Probably politely think it was great they had a science hobby then wish them well with it. But the Theory Of Intelligent Design is not that way at all, all are ready to rip it to shreds. Adapting to that, made it increasingly better to what you now see.
The computer model, aquariums and other things predated the challenging the theory of ID by writing the theory itself. Months before Ben Stein’s movie came a complete change in my prior thinking that the "Theory Of Intelligent Design" had to go. The movie coming had me weirdly agitated and when really riled up in an off-the-wall way what was needed to make a theory popped into my mind then I wrote it down as fast as could not to lose any of the thoughts it needed. I could fuzzily see some of things in between that makes it more resemble what it is right now but the core logic it needed shows up in what was written down. In case you want to see the magic moment here it is:
Before then I saw no way to write that theory. Then it kept getting better until soon I needed a blog for it all. And I must add that I own a dinosaur tracksite with best specimens being studied from the Springfield Science museum so there is plenty of respectable science for me to do without the theory. It’s that I knew what I had. Would in time at least get you to say what you just did about it. And even that is supposed to be impossible. I knew that in the science world that would profoundly change conventional thinking. All together it would be nuts to pass up the chance to turn science on its head like this, not nuts for doing so!
Now I just wonder what next. Any ideas?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.