Discussion of "intelligent design" (uncapitalized, AlanF)

by AuldSoul 153 Replies latest members adult

• 

  AuldSoul

  I would appreciate it if this thread can be used for a public discussion of this matter between AlanF and myself, with extranea regarding the discussion being delivered by PMs to AlanF and/or myself instead of posted to this thread. That way, the argument will not get bogged down in sideline issues that are not directly pertinent to the direction of the discussion. SO we can have a good, clean, public record of the discussion without AlanF and I having to resort to PM or talking it out over the phone, in order to discuss it.

  AlanF: While in principle you have a point, in practice none of the great lights of ID agree with you.

  While it is very likely that none of the great lights of ID agree with me, in fact, I would be oblivious to that reality having never read anything written by any great light of ID. Nor do I give two s***s regarding the collective weight of opinion against my viewpoints from that quarter. I do not rest my opinions on the opinions of others. But, if I take a position I am willing to alter my position as a result of being shown the error of my position. I won't be arguing for Intelligent Design, or for Creation, if ind them secularized and codified positions and in my experience I rarely ever agree with such positions.

  I will be arguing for intelligent design, and creation, which are concepts and a theory of origin, respectively. I am certain that many will not agree with much of what I write here but, frankly, I don't mind that people I care about and respect disagree with me. If that bothered me, I would still be a JW.

  Unless you take issue with the following assumptions (in which case the validity of the assumption would need to be argued out prior to the discussion) for our premise, I will assume them and reference them as though fact for the remainder of the discussion:

  [+] Characteristics (earmarks) of known design are valid indicators of design if present in physical realities.

  [+] The addition of increased total code capacity for DNA, if it occurred, must be explained. As must the successful messaging of this expanded code set to not only new cells, but also to all cells within a given specimen.

  Let's start with these two assumptions from my side, leaving the door open for the addition of more as the thread progresses. Can you accept both of these assumptions as logically valid assumptions? Have you any more that you wish to stipulate, to set the initial premise?

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  AuldSoul

  By way of explanation, because AlanF said I had to do so, Intelligent Design is practically a trademarked and packaged brand, sort of like a mini-religion that rides alongside a lot of other bigger religions.

  However, "intelligent design" is simply a concise way to describe a process as arising from intelligence and possessing the marks of design. Nothing religious or even suggestive of religion needs to be brought into a discussion of pure chance versus a combination of chance and intelligent design.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  AlanF

  The premise of this thread, AuldSoul, is eminently sensible. I would though, despite your initial comments, invite responses from anyone willing and able to contribute intelligently designed comments. There are plenty of such capable people on this board, although I'm sure we'd also agree that there are plenty of the opposite.

  You obviously have your own ideas regarding "intelligent design" (readers will note the deliberate lack of capitalization, which distinguishes AuldSoul's use of the term from the capitalized term "Intelligent Design" that has been popularized in the last 15 years by Phillip Johnson and his ilk), but you should start this thread off with a precise definition of your ideas, so that we're all on the same page.

  : Unless you take issue with the following assumptions (in which case the validity of the assumption would need to be argued out prior to the discussion) for our premise, I will assume them and reference them as though fact for the remainder of the discussion:

  Fair enough. However, these assumptions need to be fleshed out a bit, as I will indicate.

  : [+] Characteristics (earmarks) of known design are valid indicators of design if present in physical realities.

  Basically, yes, on an informal basis. However, the notion of the "characteristics of known design" must be carefully defined. Are we talking about designs that are known and practiced by humans, unknown aliens, a superintelligent creator, or a hyperintelligent God? What, exactly, are the characteristics of design that would peg a postulated design as coming exclusively from one of those sources? How, precisely, would one distinguish the earmarks of one kind of intelligent designer from another?

  I'm not sure if you know it, but this is really the crux of the question of "intelligent design" in the sense that I interpret your use of the term. So it's imperative to get the definitions down pat from the start.

  I'm harping on this a bit because unless we know exactly what we're talking about, we might be arguing about different things. An illustration of the difficulty is, what might happen if a modern airplane made a forced landing in the remote Amazon jungle, the people on board marched away from the plane, and then some Amazonian Indians who had never seen or heard of outsiders came upon the plane? They would see no human beings. All they would see is an object made of a material they had never seen before -- aluminum -- and of a shape they had never seen before, except that it was vaguely reminiscent of birds. Given their limited experience, could they logically conclude that the airplane was designed by humans? Or that it was designed by some god? Or that it was a product of the same natural world they had experienced for generations, but which they had not seen up to this point? Obviously, my analogy has limits, but I hope you get my drift.

  : [+] The addition of increased total code capacity for DNA, if it occurred, must be explained.

  Agreed.

  : As must the successful messaging of this expanded code set to not only new cells, but also to all cells within a given specimen.

  I'm not able to interpret what you're saying here in terms of what you've said before, because it's not far from gobbledegoop, for the following reasons. Any change in DNA must come about by mutations of the cells directly involved in gene replication, not some random cells anywhere else in the life form. I.e., in the case of multi-celled life forms, only in sperm or egg cells. Once one of those mutated central cells gets involved in forming a living embryo, the normal cell duplication machinery takes over and automatically produces fifty bazillion copies of the mutated DNA in the course of developing a mature adult life form, in the case of multi-celled life forms. This replication is fairly well understood today, and has nothing at all to do with the mutation and selection of DNA in the sperm and egg cells.

  : Let's start with these two assumptions from my side, leaving the door open for the addition of more as the thread progresses. Can you accept both of these assumptions as logically valid assumptions?

  Not quite, as I've said above.

  : Have you any more that you wish to stipulate, to set the initial premise?

  As above.

  AlanF
• 

  AuldSoul

  AlanF: known and practiced by humans

  Known design as known and practiced by humans.

  AlanF: I.e., in the case of multi-celled life forms, only in sperm or egg cells. Once one of those mutated central cells gets involved in forming a living embryo, the normal cell duplication machinery takes over and automatically produces fifty bazillion copies of the mutated DNA in the course of developing a mature adult life form, in the case of multi-celled life forms.

  I believe you would be surprised how many people are NOT familiar with the basics of biology. I was eventually going to get to this as the only means by which such mutations can conceivably be present in the DNA so that successive generations also have a chance of inheriting the mutation, which is different from mutations acquired during the life of the specimen unless such acquired mutations affect sperm, or eggs, or both.

  Since you unraveled it through criticizing the phrasing I chose, we can use this as basis instead, which will save me at least a couple of posts.

  AlanF: invite responses from anyone willing and able to contribute intelligently designed comments.

  I am fairly certain that almost everyone on this forum believes your criteria applies to them, and if ANY feel that your criteria doesn't apply to them they likely feel slighted by the exclusion. This is exactly why we had to move from the other thread, isn't it? I believe it would end up with me arguing against 20 or so evolutionists and I would rather not, or it would end up with a lot of people wondering why they don't "qualify" or assuming they DO qualify and I would, again, rather not.

  Given these stipulations, do you feel it is safe to proceed?

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  AuldSoul

  AlanF: What, exactly, are the characteristics of design that would peg a postulated design as coming exclusively from one of those sources? How, precisely, would one distinguish the earmarks of one kind of intelligent designer from another?

  I promise, I won't be pulled into an argument about who the designer is. Such an argument is ultimately irrelevant to the question of whether there is evidence of design.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  ballistic

  My take on this is that evolution is by nature a trial and error selection mechanism, which turns out to be a very good designer, even though it has no pre-determined goal as to the result. If however, on another hypothetical planet there exists creatures which evolved through some other flawed mechanism which selected the weakest, slowest and most unintelligent creatures to procreate, they would probably never evolve to the point of asking the question of "why their design is so unintelligent".
• 

  Little Drummer Boy

  AuldSoul: I am fairly certain that almost everyone on this forum believes your criteria applies to them, and if ANY feel that your criteria doesn't apply to them they likely feel slighted by the exclusion. This is exactly why we had to move from the other thread, isn't it? I believe it would end up with me arguing against 20 or so evolutionists and I would rather not, or it would end up with a lot of people wondering why they don't "qualify" or assuming they DO qualify and I would, again, rather not.

  Not at all. At least for me. I eagerly look forward to this thread and to the absolute lack of contribution to it by me (other than this post). I could argue evolution's cause if I chose to do so, but as I stated in the other thread, there are far better word-smiths than I (or is that "me" - see my point?) on this forum.

  I see both of you as being of the finest sort of these "word-smiths" and I can't wait to see how this progresses.

  I have a feeling that I am going to learn a thing or 12 along the way and even though I am 99% convinced of non-i.d. evolution, for the space of this thread I am going to do my best to suspend that belief and consider what you have to say AuldSoul. I really do appreciate and now understand the differentiation that you made between I.D. and i.d. I have not yet considered the evolution idea from the perspective of i.d. I am eagerly awaiting your take on everything.

  LDB (of the "If I ever stop learning then I might as well lay down and die." class)
• 

  Big Tex

  I eagerly look forward to this thread and to the absolute lack of contribution to it by me (other than this post).

  As am I. As I mentioned in the other thread, this is not a subject about which I feel a great deal of passion. So admittedly I am somewhat ignorant of many of the facts of the matter.

  I'm starting off agreeing with the premise of intelligent design with the caveat that once life began and parameters were put in place for growth, such life began to grow, adapt and evolve. But I'll try to keep quiet and see if my poor middle aged grey cells can learn something!
• 

  dido

  It amazes me how the same old people don`t like contributing.
• 

  proplog2

  AuldSOul:

  The spirit of this forum is participation. The two of you have E-Mail. If you don't want participation go and do it with E-mail and when you reach your impasse (which I believe is inevitable) either post the entire discussion or make it available as a web page or download.

  AuldSoul, you are oblivious to your arrogance. This is just another example.