People in biology don't typically take "Intelligent" Design very seriously - at least, not as a science and not in their day-to-day job. When it comes to their work, evolution remains the organizational principle. What would be necessary for "Intelligent" Design to stand out as a superior and useful explanation for the diversity of life? Is it something that Intelligent Design proponents even understand, much less are capable of producing?
PZ Myers wrote a couple of years ago:
The biologist's complaint is a simple one. When someone offers up a new explanation A for a phenomenon that has so far been explained by B, the first thing we try to come up with is an experiment which will produce different results if A is true vs. B is true. We can't do that for ID creationism.
ID creationists can't do it either. There are no experiments or observations that can be made to distinguish evolution from Intelligent Design creationism. That is a fatal flaw: it is a new hypothesis that adds absolutely nothing to existing theory, other than a great big herkin' complex entity which they have made undetectable and which they have explicitly said they will not be evaluating.
What we have here is an important ingredient in the argument that "Intelligent" Design isn't really a science. Real scientists understand that evolution works on a practical level -- it explains what it is supposed to explain and it makes testable predictions that continually work out. This doesn't mean that there isn't something better, but it does mean that if there is something better, it has to be demonstrated to be quite a bit better to even be considered (never mind adopted as a replacement).
For that to happen, though, supporters will have to be able to do what Myers describes above: provide a theory that not only delivers everything that evolution delivers (explain all of the things that evolution explains, and at least as well as evolution explains them) plus more. This new theory must explain more things than evolution -- things that evolution currently has trouble with. Only really bad theories are ever completely overturned; good theories that work are incorporated into something new and more comprehensive.
So, what does "Intelligent" Design add that is interesting, explanatory, useful, and helpful?
Interesting. Although you negate yourself by quoting PZ Myers. Myers wrote: “…when someone offers up a new explanation for a phenomenon that has so far been explained by something else…” To state Evolution was the existing explanation is false. Consider antiquity – although not credible enough to stand alone as reason, we must not argue with inaccurate foundational statements. You also offer no explanation for the potential intelligent design which created the possibility for internal evolutionary development.
Scientifically, evolution is the existing explanation. Evolution is the only genuine explanation thus far, in the it fulfills what a genuine explanation is and does.
What? I’m afraid I cannot make any sense out of this.
I also offer no explanation for potential invisible gnomes. Why? Because there is no need to “explain” something that is merely “potential” and for which there is no evidence that it is “actual.” Unless you can provide clear evidence and reasons to think that something like “intelligent design” exists, there’s simply nothing to explain.
This goes much too far! We – my friend Ratzinger and I – are detrermined to solve this problem as it has been solved in past centuries. First we will issue an Encyclica Apostolica and if there are voices against it (like some stubborn evolutionists) we will hold a hearing before the Holy Inquisition. If found guilty of heresy we will hand this individual over to the state authorities to meet his fate on the stake. After all, the Middle Ages had a much more efficient way of dealing with people who wouldn’t listen to the voice of reason. There is no evolution. This word sounds very akin to revolution and, as you know, already Pius XII had condemned Bolshevism. So, be careful not to follow the footsteps of heretics like Giordano Bruno and the like lest you meet their fate. From now on words and expressions like evolution, Darwin, self organizing system, “there is no Intelligent Design” etc. will be regarded as illegal and all offenses will be severely punished.
Benedict XVI & Il Cardinale Pimpinello
I realize that Pimpinello’s post was satire, so I am not criticizing it.
However, I thought I’d point out that the Roman Catholic Church does not oppose evolution. They do, of course, believe in an intelligent designer, but they have made no claim that theistic evolution is science. (N.B. Whether Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum supports ID is a separate issue, as they do not represent the RCC.)
The key here is whether or not the person or institution claims that the hypothesis is scientific.
The article fails to properly define the arguments, which can only sow confusion. Intelligent Design does not oppose evolution, so to falsely set evolution against intelligent design negates the value of the entire article.
As an IDist myself, I am an evolutionist and I oppose creationism, which is defined as the sudden creation of all life, essentially as it is today, at the hand of a deity.
There are at least 3 general catagories of viewpoints on life’s origins. One, Creationism as defined above, Two, Intelligent Evolution (the most widely supported by the evidence and by most of the populace). Three, Materialist Evolution, consisting of Abiogenesis and Darwinistic Evolution. The third is essentially random luck along with vague references to “other processes” never found.
Although ID is the 2nd view listed, many creationists (and most opponents of ID), note that technically creationism falls under the umbrella defintion of intelligent cause, since creationists do credit an intelligent cause (God).
This confusion festers on because of the highly publicized battle between the two false extremes – materialism and creationism. Most people reject both concepts and find that the evidence shows both evolution AND intelligent cause. I agree.
Getting our terms straight would be a huge help.
Then maybe you can demonstrate how they are compatible.
That’s only one form of creationism. By deliberately misrepresenting key concepts, you can “prove” almost anything.
Really? Then you should be able to cite some of that evidence.
I won’t hold my breath, though.
There you go, making up definitions again.
I agree. You can start by using terms correctly instead of making up your own definitions to suit your own ideological goals.
But again, I won’t hold my breath.
The best definition of ID that I’ve seen: creationism in a pretty dress. Calling ID anything other than creationism is a lie.
Dear IntelligentAnimation,
You might be just the one to clear up an issue that has confounded me for some time.
I cannot see how a belief in Christianity can be compatible with acceptance of the theory of evolution. The stumbling block is the thorny question of ; “when was the first soul?” and consequentially when the “original sin” was committed, and by whom.
Possession of a soul is the thing that distinguishes humans from animals, Christians believe, so if both evolved from a common source, at some point along the path of development God must have decided, “OK this man looks enough like me now so he gets a soul”, and then selects a woman resembling his female side who gets one as well. This original soul-equipped couple then go and eat apples, or have sex, so original sin is committed and things are right on track.
There are problems with this idea though. It would have been very difficult for this first soul equipped couple to relate to their soulless families and friends and their children would have to find partners from people without souls also.
Another explanation could be that God handed out souls to a whole community that had progressed far enough along the evolutionary path. This seems a more reasonable strategy but it leaves us with the question of “who committed the original sin?”.
It is a pivotal and defining belief for Christians, that we are all miserable sinners tainted with original sin from infancy. If we are not then we do not need to be saved, and there was no need for Jesus Christ to come along and do his thing.
What are your thoughts on this IntelligentAnimation?
I’m no IDist, but with what I know of biology, I can see why some people believe in it. The structure and intercooperation of cells almost seems too complex to have occurred by chance.
But if you take into account that this “chance” was one chemical reaction (not the only one possibly, but maybe the only type of life-resulting reaction) in billions, trillions, at the same time over a few thousand years, all happening so quickly – that significantly raises the chances of us being here today, if you only take into account first life, and not the whole what-are-the-chances of the Big Bang.
But if you support the theory of infinite alternate universes (which is a scientific theory, not just a belief – go look up alternate universes in relation to quantum physics if you don’t believe me (I’m 16 years old and I understand it, but many normal adults probably won’t unless they have some prior knowledge on such experiments as Schrödinger’s cat)) – back to my sentence, if you support the theory of infinite alternate universes, the chances that we are here, that we are here in multiple universes even, is raised by an exponential factor.
I can see why people can believe in IDism, but personally, it’s either the scenario I outlined above, or we’re some alien’s long-running science experiment on sentience.
-Ashby