--- Richard Tenney <retenney@yahoo.com> wrote:
Excellent post, . . .
Other options for continuing this discussion (if that's what the list wants to do as a group) would be: 1) To better define exactly what the theory of intelligent design is that its proponents want to be taught in Utah secondary public schools, or, 2) To explore whether ID theory does equally explain the pattern of descent with modification, purportedly seen in the geologic record, as compared to the standard synthesis of evolution by natural selection. I believe that both Jim and Don have claimed that it is a better explanation parts of some organisms are irreducibly complex and could have only been created by an intelligent agent. In short, let's give intelligent design theory a fair test and see if it is consistent with evidence in the geologic record and in biological organisms. Let's see if ID theory can stand on its own instead of just saying that ID theory is true because the theory of evolution is statistically impossible. As I understand the intelligent design theory, its central feature is that directive force of evolution is explained by purposeful design. It substitutes explanation by purposeful design for the force of natural selection. Explanation of events by purposeful design is something we see frequently in our daily lives. A collection of objects on a table, like a star chart, a laptop loaded with Sky 2000, and a set of car keys, is evidence of an intelligent purposeful designer who wants to do some astronomy. A Paris map, a plane ticket to a subway, and a passport, if found on the ground, is evidence of an intelligent agent who is planning a trip to Paris. Similarly, when walking through a forest, if we find a smooth rock, we would assume that the rock was made into that form by unintelligent, random natural forces. If we walk a few more paces and find a watch or Blackberry, we would assume because of its characteristics, that they were created by a purposeful intelligent agent, who created these objects for a functional purpose - to tell time or to communicate with others or to record personal thoughts. What I take intelligent design to be, and what I understand that its proponents want to be taught in the Utah public secondary schools, is essentially a modification of the standard synthesis of evolution - one that substitutes explanation by purposeful design for the force of natural selection, namely - ========= Canopus56(Kurt)'s view of the central tenants of ID theory ========= 1) There are random mutations in the genetic code of organic life. 2) These random mutations in the genetic code cause mutations in characteristics of an organism. 3) Whether those random changes in the characteristics of organisms are expressed in subsequent generations depends on purposeful design selections made an intelligent agent. The design selections made by the intelligent agent result in a increased survival benefit to the organism that increases the probability the organism will reproduce. 4) Enough changes in the acquired characteristics of a group of organisms can accrue over time that speciation occurs - that is a group of isolated "child" organisms looses the ability to procreate by sexual reproduction with the "parent" group. ========= For comparison, let's repeat the key third central tenant of the theory of evolution by natural selection: "3) Whether those random changes in the characteristics of organisms are expressed in subsequent generations depends on the force of natural selection. Does the randomly created mutation result in a increased survival benefit to the organism that increases the probability the organism will reproduce?" IMHO, one of the indica of _purposeful_ design is that the intelligent agent makes good intentional engineering choices to achieve some improved function in an object. By "intentional," I mean that changes in an object (or an organism) are made by the intelligent designer to achieve some purpose. Mere whimsical changes are not purposeful changes and are not evidence of an intelligent agent. One of the main problems I have with the theory of an intelligent agent driving evolution is that if there is designer - he's got to be one of the worst engineers in recorded history. Some examples include: A) Men have nipples but don't nurse children. B) Women give birth by a uterus and do not lay eggs. Why would a purposeful designer select the mammalian utreus as a design for human reproduction? Without significant medical support the odds of death and/or dehabilitating infection are quite high due to the placenta tearing away form the uterine wall. Wouldn't a purposeful designer have simply stuck with egg - a design that inherently has much lower risks associated with childbirth? C) Wouldn't a purposeful designer have made me just a little better, e.g. - not bald, no bad breath and with knees that would easily last a life-time of use? My first point is that the theory of intelligent design is inconsistent with biology - most biological organisms are riddled inefficiencies and useless parts. That is more consistent with random mutations selected by random changes in the environment, than with a design by a purposeful intelligent agent. Along the same line, the second major problem intelligent agent theory gives me is that it does not explain why a purposeful agent would remove a useful part from an organism. A main example would be - D) Flightless birds like the now extinct Dodo. The geologic and historical record is that the intelligent agent first gave the Dodo wings - one of the most useful parts that a bird could have. But after the Dodo settled on a remote island, and even though wings were still useful, the intelligent designer apparently changed the wings to make them useless appendages. As a consequence, when man and his familiars, the cat and the rat, showed up - no more Dodo. To me, flightless birds seem inconsistent with a purposeful intelligent designer. Removing a key important characteristic needed for the survival of a bird does not seem IMHO the design choice of a purposeful intelligent agent. To summarize a series of questions for possible future discussion - 1) What are the key components of the theory of intelligent design that proponents want taught in Utah public secondary schools? 2) Is my summary of intelligent design as explanation by purposeful design accurate, or is ID something else, and I don't understand what is being proposed? 3) Are there instances where intelligent design theory is inconsistent (or consistent) with what we know about biology and/or the fossil record? 4) How can the existence of purposeless parts found in many organisms be resolved with a hypothesized purposeful intelligent designer making the design selections? 5) How can the removal of purposeful parts, as see in the fossil record of flightless birds, be resolved with a hypothesized purposeful intelligent agent making design choices? 6) Does intelligent agent theory explain observed facts in biology and/or the fossil record better than or less than the explanations provided by the standard synthesis of evolution by natural selection? My assumption is that if the intelligent agent theory provides a weaker explanation than the theory of evolution by natural selection, then it should not be taught in the Utah secondary public school system. Again, if the list has had enough of this topic, or if I am being repetitive of the many prior posts in this thread, speak up and I'll move on. - Canopus56(Kurt) P.S. - All of the above are taken from: Dembski, William A. (ed), Ruse, M. (ed.) 2004. Debating Design : From Darwin to DNA. Cambridge Univ. Press. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521829496/ref=wl_it_dp/002-65... - which includes chapters by scientists who are both proponents and opponents to intelligent agent theory. P.P.S. - Patrick, I hope the work on the dome went well today. My apologies for not showing up. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com