The "intelligent design" hypothesis vs. Darwin

[Shira]

The following is a short and interesting article that I found in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz

Last update - 09:23 19/09/2005   
 
 
The absurdity of intelligent design
 
By Elia Leibowitz
 
There is a big struggle raging now in the United States over the question of whether to allow the schools in the various states to present the "intelligent design" hypothesis - alongside the Darwinist picture - which competes with the theory of evolution as an explanation of the complexity of nature in the world.

The proponents of intelligent design - among them the president of the United States, who said recently that this is an alternative theory of equal value to the Darwinist world picture - argue that the enormous complexity that is revealed to us in the universe, especially in the animal and plant world, is the reflection of the action of an intelligent entity. As they see it, only planning by an intelligence of this sort can explain the existence in the world of complicated systems like the human eye or ear, or the wonderful pattern of a peacock's tail spread wide.

This argument is now being presented in the United States forcefully as a competitor to the world of biology's theory of evolution, the foundations of which were laid by Charles Darwin. The Darwinist is no less moved and impressed by the complexity, the purposefulness, the order and the beauty that are revealed in animal and plant life, but he attributes them not to any intelligent designer, but rather to the statistical regularity of random processes that occur in the world. In the Darwinist view, none of the processes that propel the evolution that yields the great variety revealed in the world can be attributed either to intelligence, or to design, or to emotion or to will.

In school boards and institutions in a number of American states there is an increasingly sweeping drive in the direction that is supported by the president, and in various schools intelligent design is indeed being taught in the classrooms, alongside the theory of evolution. This trend is alarming many scientists and educators, not only in America. It certainly should be giving educators and decision-makers in Israel sleepless nights.

The political-cultural struggle has become so heated that it is making headlines in the international daily press. The Haaretz Hebrew edition, for example, recently published an article by Richard Dawkins and Gerry Quinn, among the leading evolution researchers in our generation, which explains the weakness of intelligent design theory and the dangers inherent in the presentation of it classrooms in schools as a scientific theory. About a month ago The New York Times published a long article in a similar spirit, by American philosopher Daniel Dennett.

The main weakness in the idea of an intelligent designer is that it is impossible to see it as any sort of explanation of the phenomenon it purports to illuminate. The main premise at the basis of its argument can be presented thus: No reasonable person would think that the wonderful paintings by Michelangelo on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel could have been produced as the result of random processes, without intention and without intelligence. The same applies to the F-16 aircraft. How much more so is an explanation like this necessary for biological systems in the world, which are inestimably more complex.

However, this conclusion is based on reasoning based on a nonsensical premise. The assumption that an intelligent being designed the F-16 does indeed constitute a satisfactory explanation for the existence of this complex system, because we know of the existence of aeronautical engineers, in a way that is independent of our knowledge of the plane itself. The thought that the hand of an intelligent being painted the Sistine Chapel can explain the paintings, only because we possess prior knowledge of the existence of beings who can design and execute such works.

With respect to the natural world and the universe, however, we do not have any prior knowledge of the existence of an intelligence that is capable of planning them. Concluding from the existence of the complex and wonderful world that an intelligent designer exists is not an explanation of the phenomenon, but rather a psychological result of it.

To what is this similar? To the case of Yehezkel, who has been working now for 17 years as a cashier at a small bank branch in Rishon Letzion. Two years ago he bought eight dunams (two acres) of land in Caesarea and built a 400-square-meter villa, a tennis court, two swimming pools and a stable for race horses. This aroused the suspicion of the bank manager and the income tax authorities, who sent an investigator to look into the matter. The investigator's first question to Yehezkel was: Where did you get the money?

Yehezkel's reply came immediately and without hesitation: On the night of the Ninth of Av, 2001, Elijah the Prophet was revealed to me in a dream at night and said to me: Yehezkel, my son, arise, take a shovel and go forth to the grave of Queen Esther in the Galilee. At midnight on the first day of the lunar month stand by the gravestone and walk north exactly 613 paces and 49 paces east. At that point, dig seven cubits into the ground and you will find an ancient metal coffer there. Open the coffer, clasp it and say three times: "Na-Nach - Nachm - Nachman from Uman." And here Elijah rose heavenward in a tempest. I did as he commanded and as I stood on the night of the new moon of the month of Elul holding the open coffer, it began to fill up with NIS 10 million in new NIS 200 bills. This is the source of the money I have invested in Caesarea. The investigator did not relent and asked: Do you have any evidence for this story? Of course, replied Yehezkel. Isn't the villa in Caesarea sufficient proof?

And this is exactly what the proponents of intelligent design are saying. We see a wonderful world. The explanation for its complexity is an intelligent being who designed it. And if you ask us how we know that such an entity exists, we will answer immediately: Isn't the existence of a marvelous world like this sufficient proof?

[J. J.]

Would you care to show evidence for another source for the money?

[Bugs]

The concept of intelligent design came about because some secular scientists began to question the validity of evolution, for a variety of reasons, but they were not willing to acknowledge the existence of God.  So they came up with this middle of the road idea, which in the end, won't please anyone.  Evolutionists won't like it, because it refutes their esteemed theory, and Christians won't like it because it stops short of the spiritual realm, which science is inadequate to consider anyway. 

We will always have the evolution argument.  Christians won't accept it, because they will always be unwilling to deny the supremacy of God.  Evolutionists won't abandon it, because they would have to acknowledge God.  Both sides often (not always) have their minds made up before they look at any evidence.  The logic in the cited article is certainly questionable.  We can believe that an F-16 was designed by an intelligent being because of our prior knowledge of aeronautical engineers, but we cannot make the same assumption about the natural world and the universe because we have no prior knowledge of any such intelligence.  All that argument does is further convince the Christians, because they do have prior knowledge of a Creator.  Science cannot investigate God because it has no way of observing anything outside the five senses, which is where the spiritual realm exists.  Intelligent design?  Bah!  God did it.

[Defarge]

I always hear about these scientists who support intelligent design over evolution.  Who are they?

[phk]

I always hear about these scientists who support intelligent design over evolution.  Who are they?

"Jerry Falwell"

[Schmitz in 1972]

I always hear about these scientists who support intelligent design over evolution.  Who are they?

"Jerry Falwell"

Jokes aside they do exist, but there's no denying that for the most part they're not exactly in the scientific mainstream. One of my biggest beefs with the leftists is how they assume mainstream=correct.

Mainstream scientists are for the most part cowardly people who hate anything that is unknown, unexplainable, or otherwise illogical. That's why they are silly enough create and maintain laughable theories such as "evolution" and "global warming".

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The concept of intelligent design came about because some secular scientists began to question the validity of evolution, for a variety of reasons, but they were not willing to acknowledge the existence of God.  So they came up with this middle of the road idea, which in the end, won't please anyone.  Evolutionists won't like it, because it refutes their esteemed theory, and Christians won't like it because it stops short of the spiritual realm, which science is inadequate to consider anyway. 

We will always have the evolution argument.  Christians won't accept it, because they will always be unwilling to deny the supremacy of God.  Evolutionists won't abandon it, because they would have to acknowledge God.  Both sides often (not always) have their minds made up before they look at any evidence.  The logic in the cited article is certainly questionable.  We can believe that an F-16 was designed by an intelligent being because of our prior knowledge of aeronautical engineers, but we cannot make the same assumption about the natural world and the universe because we have no prior knowledge of any such intelligence.  All that argument does is further convince the Christians, because they do have prior knowledge of a Creator.  Science cannot investigate God because it has no way of observing anything outside the five senses, which is where the spiritual realm exists.  Intelligent design?  Bah!  God did it.

Bullsh**t. Evolution is based upon scientific evidence. Intelligent design is based upon creationists trying not to sound like the religious fundamentalists that they are.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I always hear about these scientists who support intelligent design over evolution.  Who are they?

"Jerry Falwell"

Jokes aside they do exist, but there's no denying that for the most part they're not exactly in the scientific mainstream. One of my biggest beefs with the leftists love of everything mainstream is how they assume mainstream=correct.

Mainstream scientists are for the most part cowardly people who hate anything that is unknown, unexplainable, or otherwise illogical. That's why they are silly enough create and maintain laughable theories such as "evolution" and "global warming".

Intelligent design isn't even a scientific theory, so you have no basis of complaint. You sure don't like scentists. Did you have a science class that you did poorly in?

[ATFFL]

Intelligent design is a scientific fact.  Don't believe me?  We have done in many, many times.

You like your geneticly modified foods?  Intelligent design.

You like the breeds of dogs bred to survive in different environments?  Intelligent design.

Crops resistant to disease?  Intelligent design.

Now, if you want to talk ID on the macro scale, i.e. the development of all species on the planet, that is a different story.  Mind you, evolution is pretty lacking in evidence in this area as well.

Too many people think of ID as just creationism in a fancy suit, and there is certainly an element of that to it, but, unlike evolution, ID has experimental evidence to back it up.

[J. J.]

Bullsh**t. Evolution is based upon scientific evidence. Intelligent design is based upon creationists trying not to sound like the religious fundamentalists that they are.

If you actually understood ID and  evolutionary science, you would realize that neither address the same issue.  Pity.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Intelligent design is a scientific fact.  Don't believe me?  We have done in many, many times.

You like your geneticly modified foods?  Intelligent design.

You like the breeds of dogs bred to survive in different environments?  Intelligent design.

Crops resistant to disease?  Intelligent design.

Call that whatever you want, but it's 100% compatable with evolution.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What experimental evidence?

[J. J.]

Intelligent design is a scientific fact.  Don't believe me?  We have done in many, many times.

You like your geneticly modified foods?  Intelligent design.

You like the breeds of dogs bred to survive in different environments?  Intelligent design.

Crops resistant to disease?  Intelligent design.

Call that whatever you want, but it's 100% compatable with evolution.

Exactly,  evolution explains the process of how matter, is organized.  It doesn't explain how matter was created.

ID suggests that there was some intelligence behind the formation of the universe.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Intelligent design is a scientific fact.  Don't believe me?  We have done in many, many times.

You like your geneticly modified foods?  Intelligent design.

You like the breeds of dogs bred to survive in different environments?  Intelligent design.

Crops resistant to disease?  Intelligent design.

Call that whatever you want, but it's 100% compatable with evolution.

Exactly,  evolution explains the process of how matter, is organized.  It doesn't explain how matter was created.

ID suggests that there was some intelligence behind the formation of the universe.

Since when did Intelligent Design say anything about the big bang?

[J. J.]

Intelligent design is a scientific fact.  Don't believe me?  We have done in many, many times.

You like your geneticly modified foods?  Intelligent design.

You like the breeds of dogs bred to survive in different environments?  Intelligent design.

Crops resistant to disease?  Intelligent design.

Call that whatever you want, but it's 100% compatable with evolution.

Exactly,  evolution explains the process of how matter, is organized.  It doesn't explain how matter was created.

ID suggests that there was some intelligence behind the formation of the universe.

Since when did Intelligent Design say anything about the big bang?

Since the 13th Century, though the concept dates back beyond that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

Now, in many cases it's applied to the development of organic matter, but that becomes a very technical argument.  One of the questions raised is, why did eyes develop?  It looks to the causes of the process, while traditional evolution has tended to look towards the process.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Intelligent design is a scientific fact.  Don't believe me?  We have done in many, many times.

You like your geneticly modified foods?  Intelligent design.

You like the breeds of dogs bred to survive in different environments?  Intelligent design.

Crops resistant to disease?  Intelligent design.

Call that whatever you want, but it's 100% compatable with evolution.

Exactly,  evolution explains the process of how matter, is organized.  It doesn't explain how matter was created.

ID suggests that there was some intelligence behind the formation of the universe.

Since when did Intelligent Design say anything about the big bang?

Since the 13th Century, though the concept dates back beyond that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

Now, in many cases it's applied to the development of organic matter, but that becomes a very technical argument.  One of the questions raised is, why did eyes develop?  It looks to the causes of the process, while traditional evolution has tended to look towards the process.

In science, having your theory be entirely from the 13th century is generally not a good thing.

[ATFFL]

Intelligent design is a scientific fact.  Don't believe me?  We have done in many, many times.

You like your geneticly modified foods?  Intelligent design.

You like the breeds of dogs bred to survive in different environments?  Intelligent design.

Crops resistant to disease?  Intelligent design.

Call that whatever you want, but it's 100% compatable with evolution.

Perhaps, but it is intelligent design.  A person is telling life where it wants to go.  They are designing the lifeform they want.  That is the very definition of intelligent design.  That makes ID a scientific fact, not a theory.

Now, if you want to talk ID on the macro scale, i.e. the development of all species on the planet, that is a different story.  Mind you, evolution is pretty lacking in evidence in this area as well.

Too many people think of ID as just creationism in a fancy suit, and there is certainly an element of that to it, but, unlike evolution, ID has experimental evidence to back it up.

What experimental evidence?

Are you being willfully dense here?

All of yhe examples I cited above.

[J. J.]

Intelligent design is a scientific fact.  Don't believe me?  We have done in many, many times.

You like your geneticly modified foods?  Intelligent design.

You like the breeds of dogs bred to survive in different environments?  Intelligent design.

Crops resistant to disease?  Intelligent design.

Call that whatever you want, but it's 100% compatable with evolution.

Exactly,  evolution explains the process of how matter, is organized.  It doesn't explain how matter was created.

ID suggests that there was some intelligence behind the formation of the universe.

Since when did Intelligent Design say anything about the big bang?

Since the 13th Century, though the concept dates back beyond that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

Now, in many cases it's applied to the development of organic matter, but that becomes a very technical argument.  One of the questions raised is, why did eyes develop?  It looks to the causes of the process, while traditional evolution has tended to look towards the process.

In science, having your theory be entirely from the 13th century is generally not a good thing.

Oh, so you don't think the discovery of elements like gold, silver, and cooper was a ]good thing.  Glad you cleared that up for us.

Of course the theory of natural selection is just under a century and a half old, and genetics is about a decade younger.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Intelligent design is a scientific fact.  Don't believe me?  We have done in many, many times.

You like your geneticly modified foods?  Intelligent design.

You like the breeds of dogs bred to survive in different environments?  Intelligent design.

Crops resistant to disease?  Intelligent design.

Call that whatever you want, but it's 100% compatable with evolution.

Perhaps, but it is intelligent design.  A person is telling life where it wants to go.  They are designing the lifeform they want.  That is the very definition of intelligent design.  That makes ID a scientific fact, not a theory.

It doesn't matter what you call it, it's useless to the question at hand. Yes, humans that believe in evolution can manupulate the selection, or they can even go one step further and engineer the DNA directly.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What experimental evidence?
[/quote]

Are you being willfully dense here?

All of yhe examples I cited above.
[/quote]

Examples that are 100% compatable with evolution don't count. In order for intelligent design to be a seperate theory from evolution it has to have predictions that differ from that of evolution.

[J. J.]

Examples that are 100% compatable with evolution don't count. In order for intelligent design to be a seperate theory from evolution it has to have predictions that differ from that of evolution.

What you don't understand is that an example can be 100% compatible with evolution and 100% compatible with Intelligent Design.  They ask different questions.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Examples that are 100% compatable with evolution don't count. In order for intelligent design to be a seperate theory from evolution it has to have predictions that differ from that of evolution.

What you don't understand is that an example can be 100% compatible with evolution and 100% compatible with Intelligent Design.  They ask different questions.

Intelligent design is useless as a scientific theory unless it makes predictions that differ from that of evolution. Tredrick's examples don't, and so are meaningless.

[ATFFL]

It doesn't matter what you call it, it's useless to the question at hand. Yes, humans that believe in evolution can manupulate the selection, or they can even go one step further and engineer the DNA directly.

Examples that are 100% compatable with evolution don't count. In order for intelligent design to be a seperate theory from evolution it has to have predictions that differ from that of evolution.

Now we are talking two different things.  Micro verse macro evolution/ID.  Micro being things on the small scale, the development of an individual species.  Macro being, well, the development of life on Earth.

At the micro level, ID is indisputable fact.  We can create spieces.  Evolution is a bit trickier and depends on if we call natural selection alone an example of evolution in action.

As for its macro level predictions:

Does intelligent design make predictions? Is it testable?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It doesn't matter what you call it, it's useless to the question at hand. Yes, humans that believe in evolution can manupulate the selection, or they can even go one step further and engineer the DNA directly.

Examples that are 100% compatable with evolution don't count. In order for intelligent design to be a seperate theory from evolution it has to have predictions that differ from that of evolution.

Now we are talking two different things.  Micro verse macro evolution/ID.  Micro being things on the small scale, the development of an individual species.  Macro being, well, the development of life on Earth.

At the micro level, ID is indisputable fact.  We can create spieces.  Evolution is a bit trickier and depends on if we call natural selection alone an example of evolution in action.

As for its macro level predictions:

Does intelligent design make predictions? Is it testable?

Humans doing sh**t is 100% compatable with evolution no matter what you call it. That's not what the creationists mean when they talk about Intelligent Design.

[ATFFL]

Humans doing sh**t is 100% compatable with evolution no matter what you call it. That's not what the creationists mean when they talk about Intelligent Design.

I'm terribly sorry to bring up all these thorny issues for you to deal with.  I can see, by the fact  that you are having trouble forming sentences, you are obviously having trouble dealing with an intelligent rebuttal to your position.  I will stop presenting contradictory evidence and theories and let you get back to your blind faith in evolution.

I apologize for assuming you wanted, and could deal with, an intelligent debate on the merits of evolution and intelligent design.  Clearly, you just want to bash creationism and religous people.  I'll allow you to resume your mindless bigotry. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Humans doing sh**t is 100% compatable with evolution no matter what you call it. That's not what the creationists mean when they talk about Intelligent Design.

I'm terribly sorry to bring up all these thorny issues for you to deal with.  I can see, by the fact  that you are having trouble forming sentences, you are obviously having trouble dealing with an intelligent rebuttal to your position.  I will stop presenting contradictory evidence and theories and let you get back to your blind faith in evolution.

I apologize for assuming you wanted, and could deal with, an intelligent debate on the merits of evolution and intelligent design.  Clearly, you just want to bash creationism and religous people.  I'll allow you to resume your mindless bigotry. 

That's not what the creationists mean by Intelligent Design. You can go FEMA yourself. I'm sorry that you don't understand what a scientific theory is.

[J. J.]

Examples that are 100% compatable with evolution don't count. In order for intelligent design to be a seperate theory from evolution it has to have predictions that differ from that of evolution.

What you don't understand is that an example can be 100% compatible with evolution and 100% compatible with Intelligent Design.  They ask different questions.

Intelligent design is useless as a scientific theory unless it makes predictions that differ from that of evolution. Tredrick's examples don't, and so are meaningless.

Why, they ask completely different questions.  The idea that evolution can be guided by an intelligence does not contract the evidence that evolution exists.