ID is not creationism

[Warren]

Intelligent design is not creationism. Creationism is focused on proving the Genesis account is accurate. Creationism invokes the supernatural. Creationism is anti-evolution. ID is none of that, so it is misleading to call it creationism. The ID critics refer to ID as creationism in order to convince the public that ID proponents want to teach Genesis to schools kids and that ID is anti-evolution and anti-science. None of this is true. The term creationism has come to be identified with right-wing Christian fundamentalism and the ID critics are trying their best to stick that label on ID. This is blatant misrepresentation.

If some creationists are trying to bring religious creationism back into public school science classes under the guise of intelligent design then the courts won't buy it. Just calling creationism by another name isn't going to fool anyone. As soon as the creationists spell out exactly what they plan to teach the jig will be up.

So what is intelligent design? Basically it a teleological perspective that generates testable hypotheses that help us better understand the natural world. For those not familar with the terms "teleology" and "teleological" they refer to purposefulness or goal-directedness. The opposite of purposeful or goal-directed is ateleology.

Atheist Richard Dawkins begins his book "The Blind Watchmaker" with the observation that "biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." ID proponents simply take the inference of design in nature and use it as a guide for scientific research. There is no reason why a methodology that doesn't a priori reject teleology cannot employ an experimental, inductive approach to the world. As Del Ratzsch puts it:

"If things in nature can appear designed, if nature can produce things that are as if designed, if results of natural selection function as if designed, then doing science as if nature was designed - methodological designism - might be a productive, rational strategy."

Is mainstream biological research devoid of design-type thinking? Not according to Michael Ruse. He says:

“Both history and present Darwinian evolutionary practice have shown us that design-type thinking is involved in the adaptationist paradigm. We treat organisms –the parts at least --as if they were manufactured, as if they were designed, and then we try to work out their functions. End-directed thinking – teleological thinking – is appropriate in biology because, and only because, organisms seem as if they were manufactured, as if they had been created by an intelligence and put to work.”
Michael Ruse, Darwin and Design: Does evolution have a purpose?, p. 268

[belverron]

But where's the evidence?

[Morgan_Freeman]

Can you provide some more literature on ID? I don't see how it's useful as a scientific theory -- does it allow you to make predictions? If so, are the predictions identical to those produced by evolutionary theory? If so, why not use Occam's Razor and take out the silly part about an intelligent designer?

[northtexan]

Quote by: Warren Intelligent design is not creationism. Creationism is focused on proving the Genesis account is accurate. Creationism invokes the supernatural. Creationism is anti-evolution. ID is none of that, so it is misleading to call it creationism. The ID critics refer to ID as creationism in order to convince the public that ID proponents want to teach Genesis to schools kids and that ID is anti-evolution and anti-science. None of this is true. The term creationism has come to be identified with right-wing Christian fundamentalism and the ID critics are trying their best to stick that label on ID. This is blatant misrepresentation. If some creationists are trying to bring religious creationism back into public school science classes under the guise of intelligent design then the courts won't buy it. Just calling creationism by another name isn't going to fool anyone. As soon as the creationists spell out exactly what they plan to teach the jig will be up. So what is intelligent design? Basically it a teleological perspective that generates testable hypotheses that help us better understand the natural world. For those not familar with the terms "teleology" and "teleological" they refer to purposefulness or goal-directedness. The opposite of purposeful or goal-directed is ateleology. Atheist Richard Dawkins begins his book "The Blind Watchmaker" with the observation that "biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." ID proponents simply take the inference of design in nature and use it as a guide for scientific research. There is no reason why a methodology that doesn't a priori reject teleology cannot employ an experimental, inductive approach to the world. As Del Ratzsch puts it: "If things in nature can appear designed, if nature can produce things that are as if designed, if results of natural selection function as if designed, then doing science as if nature was designed - methodological designism - might be a productive, rational strategy."

ID has generated no hypotheses to test. Few statements that ID advocates have made that can be tested. One set of such statements involve irreducible complexity, whereby a given biological system (e.g., blood clotting) has been asserted to be irreducibly complex and that it therefore could not have been evolved. In each case, biological evidence has been forthcoming (or in some cases already existed) showing how the systems could have evolved (and given the nature of ID assertions ("could not have evolved"), showing that something could have evolved is a refutation. What has been the ID response? Two things: (1) ignoring of the the fairlure of the hypothesis and continued assertion that it is true; and/or (2) searching for yet another biological system to label nonevolvable. Neither response is scientiifc, neither avoidance of the evidence nor continual rephrasing of a hypothesis to apply to differnt phenomena when disproved regarding previously-claimed phenomena is compatible with science.

OK, so ID isn't science, nor compatible with science, but is it religion? I would argue that a 'teleological perspective' that posits and explanation (intelligent designer) and then states that that explanation may not be further explored -- that approach is a religion. No, it isn't an honest religion -- it is a religion that tries to hide its deity. And this is revealed further by the many occasions in which the major gurus of ID have stated in religious venues that ID's purpose is indeed religious.

So, yes, ID is religion -- but it is a dishonest, fraudulent one.

[Warren]

Quote by: belverron But where's the evidence?

I'm merely pointing out that ID isn't creationism. But you might want to ask yourself what you would count as evidence for intelligent design.

[Warren]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman Can you provide some more literature on ID? I don't see how it's useful as a scientific theory -- does it allow you to make predictions? If so, are the predictions identical to those produced by evolutionary theory? If so, why not use Occam's Razor and take out the silly part about an intelligent designer?

I never said ID was a scientific theory. I merely agree with Del Ratzsch when he says:

"If things in nature can appear designed, if nature can produce things that are as if designed, if results of natural selection function as if designed, then doing science as if nature was designed - methodological designism - might be a productive, rational strategy."

And this just happens to be the "rational strategy" employed by many mainstream scientists when they do research. Michael Ruse says:

“Both history and present Darwinian evolutionary practice have shown us that design-type thinking is involved in the adaptationist paradigm. We treat organisms –the parts at least --as if they were manufactured, as if they were designed, and then we try to work out their functions. End-directed thinking – teleological thinking – is appropriate in biology because, and only because, organisms seem as if they were manufactured, as if they had been created by an intelligence and put to work.”
Michael Ruse, Darwin and Design: Does evolution have a purpose?, p. 268

[Savant]

Yeahhhh.... that's the ticket.. and the God mentioned on the dollar bill.. that could be ANY God. Yeaaaah.....

[Warren]

Quote by: northtexan OK, so ID isn't science, nor compatible with science, but is it religion? I would argue that a 'teleological perspective' that posits and explanation (intelligent designer) and then states that that explanation may not be further explored -- that approach is a religion. No, it isn't an honest religion -- it is a religion that tries to hide its deity. And this is revealed further by the many occasions in which the major gurus of ID have stated in religious venues that ID's purpose is indeed religious. So, yes, ID is religion -- but it is a dishonest, fraudulent one.

Absolute nonsense. Are you suggesting that mainstream scientists don't employ Design-type thinking when doing research? Do you dispute this observation by Michael Ruse:

“Both history and present Darwinian evolutionary practice have shown us that this kind
of design-type thinking is involved in the adaptationist paradigm. We treat organisms –
the parts at least -- as if they were manufactured, as if they were designed, and then we try to work out their functions. End-directed thinking – teleological thinking – is
appropriate in biology because, and only because, organisms seem as if they were
manufactured, as if they had been created by an intelligence and put to work.”
Michael Ruse, Darwin and Design: Does evolution have a purpose?, p. 268 (Harvard, 2003)

[Boetie]

First of all the very word 'intelligence' combined with the word 'design' implies what it implies, which is intelligence aka designer and the design aka the universe, which the same as saying God.

The blasphemous followers of Islam, Christianity and Judaism have been worshipping an Demiurge, caused idiotic wars and carries out the Demiurge's orders to keep the people in ignorance and darkness.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Warren “Both history and present Darwinian evolutionary practice have shown us that design-type thinking is involved in the adaptationist paradigm. We treat organisms –the parts at least --as if they were manufactured, as if they were designed, and then we try to work out their functions. End-directed thinking – teleological thinking – is appropriate in biology because, and only because, organisms seem as if they were manufactured, as if they had been created by an intelligence and put to work.” Michael Ruse, Darwin and Design: Does evolution have a purpose?, p. 268

This isn't ID. It's plain old evolution.

[Warren]

ID 101
by MikeGene

What is Intelligent Design? If you ask a critic, he will probably tell you that ID is a disguised version of Creationism and nothing more than a Trojan Horse to get God taught in the public schools. If you ask a typical proponent of ID, he will probably tell you that ID is the best explanation for various biotic phenomena. If you ask me, I’ll give you a different answer.

For me, ID begins exactly as William Dembski said it begins – with a with a seemingly innocuous question:

Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause?

The first thing to note about the question is that you don’t have to be a religious fundamentalist to ask it. You don’t have to be a religious fundamentalist to consider it. In fact, you don’t even have to be a religious fundamentalist to answer it.

The question is a good one, as it stems from the fact that certain things do exist in our reality only because they were brought into existence by an intelligent cause. If human beings did not exist, for example, Mount Rushmore would not exist. Thus, Mount Rushmore’s existence is dependent on intelligent causation. So one begins to wonder if there are other aspects of our reality that are likewise dependent on intelligent causation. If so, can we detect them? If so, just how reliable is our detection?

This, in my opinion, is the very foundation of ID. It’s not a position or socio-political movement or a system of belief. It is a question and expression of curiosity.

When we consider Dembski’s question, many answer ‘no.’ That is, they insist that we need to have information about the designers and their methods to detect design. This is the designer-centric approach.

The main problem with the designer-centric approach is that the truth of a design inference does not entail that we would also have independent evidence of the designers and their methods. For example, if some form of ETI seeded this planet with life 3.5 billion years ago, this would not entail that we would have the ability to study the ETI today.

Now, while I can respect the designer-centric approach, such that I do not demand its proponents abandon it, I think it illegitimate to expect everyone to answer Dembski’s question with a ‘no.’ In my mind, that is akin to throwing in the towel and giving up on an interesting question only because our current tools are inadequate to the investigative task. Yes, it is true that science relies on the designer-centric approach when it comes to things such as forensics and archaeology, but is this simply a matter of convenience or necessity?

If it is a matter of necessity, then it simply underscores the manner in which science is fundamentally limited in its ability to reconstruct the past. If intelligent design is indeed part of our biotic past, then science cannot ever hope to uncover it unless we are lucky enough to stumble upon the designers and/or their lab protocols and blueprints. Thus, science would be forced to look elsewhere and come up with an alternative story that does not involve intelligent design. While the non-teleological story may appear coherent and supported by pieces of circumstantial evidence, and while it can always be maintained with a bucket full of promissory notes, it would never converge on the reality of our past (again, assuming this reality includes ID).

The designer-centric approach not only gives up on the question of detecting design, but also gives up on trying to accurately reconstruct our past. There can be no evidence for design and there can be no evidence against design. Design would be forever hidden away firmly in our collective intellectual blind spot. The designer-centric position is thus fundamentally agnostic about ID.

On the other hand, things change if someone answers Dembski’s question with a ‘yes.’ At this point, we turn to these proposed methods for detecting design without the luxury of independent information about the designers. Do the methods work? If so, how reliable are they? And here you find all sorts of positions. The two most widely known methods are Michael Behe’s concept of Irreducible Complexity and William Dembski’s concepts of Specified Complexity and the Explanatory Filter. You will find people who think these methods have succeeded in detecting design and thus the payoff is in. On the other hand, you will find people who think these methods fail (this can either mean that there is no design or the methods are not up to the task of reliably detecting design). And then there are people somewhere in the middle (like yours truly), who is not convinced that the proposed methods have truly delivered a design inference, yet also think they are on the right track.

Thus, for me, ID becomes a challenging and exciting investigative search. If design, as a consequence of intelligent causation, exists amidst biotic reality, it might only be the most difficult question any investigator can address. The obstacles are many. And one of the most annoying obstacles is not from Nature herself. It comes from the manner in which many are willing to paint the investigator as a deceptive apologist for sectarian views simply because the investigator finds the Question to be so intriguing.

[Warren]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman This isn't ID. It's plain old evolution.

You evidently think ID is anti-evolution. Not so. ID is teleological evolution. Darwinian evolution is ateleological.

[Warren]

Quote by: Boetie First of all the very word 'intelligence' combined with the word 'design' implies what it implies, which is intelligence aka designer and the design aka the universe, which the same as saying God.

Would you prefer the term "methodological designism"? The term "design" implies intent/volition even if the word intelligent is not connected to it. Paul A. Dernavich notes:

The language used by many of today's prominent Darwin defenders, at least as it appears in the popular press, is inherently self-defeating, as if they had a collective case of cognitive dissonance. They routinely describe non-human processes as if they were actual people. No sooner do they finish arguing that the universe could not possibly have an Intelligent Designer, that they proceed to comment on how the universe is so seemingly intelligently designed. No sooner do they discredit evidence for a grand, cosmic plan, that they reveal their anticipation towards what the next phase of it will be. Let me give you examples.

Dr. Massimo Pigliucci, in his Secular Web critique of Intelligent Design theory
( "Design Yes, Intelligent No"), utilizes several phrases whose "scientific" definitions, I assume, are sufficiently esoteric enough to obscure the fact that, as concepts, they defy common sense. He describes the natural world as being a result of "non-conscious" creativity, "non-intelligent design," and "chaotic self-organizing phenomena." If these terms mean something very specific to evolutionary biologists, it cannot be anything that is inferred by the actual words themselves. For the very notion of design cannot be thought of in any other terms than that of a conscious being with an intent, a scheme, a protocol, a plan, or an intellect. Each of the 21 definitions of "design" in Webster's pertain to a living subject, human by implication. This is not to say that random arrangements of things cannot be fantastically complex; but if they are not purposefully complex then the word "design" is incorrect. And "non-conscious" creativity is a cluster of words similar to "triangular circles": an excessively clever term to describe something that can't possibly exist.

[RickSp]

Oh please. ID is just creationism in a cheap suit. You yourself say that you "never said ID was a scientific theory." OK, then why force people to teach it alongside a scientic theory?

Even your article by Mike "Designer"Gene while adroitly argued, gives too much away.

If it is a matter of necessity, then it simply underscores the manner in which science is fundamentally limited in its ability to reconstruct the past. If intelligent design is indeed part of our biotic past, then science cannot ever hope to uncover it unless we are lucky enough to stumble upon the designers and/or their lab protocols and blueprints. Thus, science would be forced to look elsewhere and come up with an alternative story that does not involve intelligent design. While the non-teleological story may appear coherent and supported by pieces of circumstantial evidence, and while it can always be maintained with a bucket full of promissory notes, it would never converge on the reality of our past (again, assuming this reality includes ID).

This is a blatant con game. No science will never find any proof of intelligent design unless you ignore science and assume the possiblity of intelligent design. As long as we ignore the scientific method, it all becomes clear. I don't think so.

The number of fundamentalists who know flock around ID like flies to manure is a pretty good hint that they themselves do not seperate ID from creationism. ID is pure ne-creo.

[Warren]

RickSp: Oh please. ID is just creationism in a cheap suit. You yourself say that you "never said ID was a scientific theory." OK, then why force people to teach it alongside a scientic theory?

Warren: Where did I say anything about forcing people to teach ID? I'm merely pointing out that ID isn't creationism. It also isn't anti-science or anti-evolution. You certainly haven't presented a shread of evidence to dispute my claim. Just because some religious fundamentalists have hijacked the term "Intelligent Design" for their sociopolitical agenda doesn't mean ID=creationism.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Warren Intelligent design is not creationism. Creationism is focused on proving the Genesis account is accurate. Creationism invokes the supernatural. Creationism is anti-evolution. ID is none of that, so it is misleading to call it creationism. The ID critics refer to ID as creationism in order to convince the public that ID proponents want to teach Genesis to schools kids and that ID is anti-evolution and anti-science. None of this is true. The term creationism has come to be identified with right-wing Christian fundamentalism and the ID critics are trying their best to stick that label on ID. This is blatant misrepresentation.

Creationism is any supernatural religious explanations that posit a creator for existence. So many people in the US are so ignorant that it never occurs to them that the Christian account of creation is not the only creation story for existence in the world. There are Hindu creationists, Chinese folklore creationists, and Native American creationists and so on. Of course most people do not consider any of these explanations as credible because we have learned enough about the universe to make it impossible for an educated and intelligent person to think that a giant formed the geology of the earth or that rain comes from a body of liquid water over our heads and on and on. For some strange reason IDiots ignore that positing that existence was designed means that there was a creator. What they lack is simply the narrative story to go with it. But because they do not actually posit an explanation for existence and yet claim it was created they are not actually proffering any kind of an actual explanation no matter how anciently misinformed. Also for some strange reason they want ID taught as an opposing explanation to the theory of evolution even though ID doesn't explain anything about how life on the planet came to be. So what they are doing is religion since in order for their base idea to be considered to be scientific they will be forced to produce the creator or at least the creator’s plans and yet they will be the first to tell you that producing god or its plans is impossible.

If some creationists are trying to bring religious creationism back into public school science classes under the guise of intelligent design then the courts won't buy it. Just calling creationism by another name isn't going to fool anyone. As soon as the creationists spell out exactly what they plan to teach the jig will be up.

Not sure that the courts will rule one way or the other. You saw what they did with the Ten Commandments and it looks like the courts will become more conservative.

So what is intelligent design? Basically it a teleological perspective that generates testable hypotheses that help us better understand the natural world. For those not familar with the terms "teleology" and "teleological" they refer to purposefulness or goal-directedness. The opposite of purposeful or goal-directed is ateleology.

Politics has a purpose but no one would mistake it for science. The issue is not that ID has a purpose; the issue is that it has no scientific purpose. Its purpose is obviously religious.

Atheist Richard Dawkins begins his book "The Blind Watchmaker" with the observation that "biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." ID proponents simply take the inference of design in nature and use it as a guide for scientific research. There is no reason why a methodology that doesn't a priori reject teleology cannot employ an experimental, inductive approach to the world. As Del Ratzsch puts it: "If things in nature can appear designed, if nature can produce things that are as if designed, if results of natural selection function as if designed, then doing science as if nature was designed - methodological designism - might be a productive, rational strategy."

Saying that the universe was "designed for a purpose" is a claim. The only way to test that claim is to know the purpose. If you look at the universe it may have a purpose but it is hard to see how it has anything at all to do with mankind and his concocted creators.

Is mainstream biological research devoid of design-type thinking? Not according to Michael Ruse. He says: “Both history and present Darwinian evolutionary practice have shown us that design-type thinking is involved in the adaptationist paradigm. We treat organisms –the parts at least --as if they were manufactured, as if they were designed, and then we try to work out their functions. End-directed thinking – teleological thinking – is appropriate in biology because, and only because, organisms seem as if they were manufactured, as if they had been created by an intelligence and put to work.” Michael Ruse, Darwin and Design: Does evolution have a purpose?, p. 268

Sounds great but actual research is more about discovery. The last fifty years of molecular biological research is driven not by trying to figure out the design but merely trying to identify all the parts and how they work together. Who knows what the "purpose" of the HIV virus is and why it is manufactured the way it is? And if you think it is there because of some "design" of the creator how in the world are you going to use science to figure that out without the creator’s designs?

Starboy

[belverron]

Quote by: Warren RickSp: Oh please. ID is just creationism in a cheap suit. You yourself say that you "never said ID was a scientific theory." OK, then why force people to teach it alongside a scientic theory? Warren: Where did I say anything about forcing people to teach ID? I'm merely pointing out that ID isn't creationism. It also isn't anti-science or anti-evolution. You certainly haven't presented a shread of evidence to dispute my claim. Just because some religious fundamentalists have hijacked the term "Intelligent Design" for their sociopolitical agenda doesn't mean ID=creationism.

The way to prove ID is to prove that something couldn't be the result of evolution. That pretty much does make it anti-evolution, and it simply doesn't have the weight of evidence behind it to be considered anything else.

[Starboy]

Quote by: belverron The way to prove ID is to prove that something couldn't be the result of evolution. That pretty much does make it anti-evolution, and it simply doesn't have the weight of evidence behind it to be considered anything else.

It may be anti-evolution but as a "scientific" theory it is not a replacement for ToE because it doesn't explain much of anything.

Starboy

[RickSp]

Quote by: Warren Where did I say anything about forcing people to teach ID? I'm merely pointing out that ID isn't creationism. It also isn't anti-science or anti-evolution. You certainly haven't presented a shread of evidence to dispute my claim. Just because some religious fundamentalists have hijacked the term "Intelligent Design" for their sociopolitical agenda doesn't mean ID=creationism.

ID has meant many things since the phrase was first used in late 19th century. If what you mean by ID is as articulated by MikeGene I did argue that his position makes no sense - requiring that one must first assume ID and then view everything through an ID filter of sorts. That is not science.

You yourself said, in a manner of speaking, that it was not a scientific theory. What else need be said? If ID is not science, then does it matter if it is different from creationism? Doesn't it become a distinction without a difference?

[Warren]

Quote by: RickSp You yourself said, in a manner of speaking, that it was not a scientific theory. What else need be said? If ID is not science, then does it matter if it is different from creationism? Doesn't it become a distinction without a difference?

Perhaps this will help.

Scientific inquiry proceeds in the absence of theories
Paul Nelson


Suppose we define "theory" as follows:

"A body of propositions, organized systematically and accepted as canonical by a particular science, where the foundational propositions and their corollaries are ordinarily taught to students in textbook form."

Does a biological theory exist for intelligent design? No. Does it exist for evolution? Yes, of course. But folks -- let's not get carried away by the obvious.

Scientific theories do not come into the world like Athena springing from the head of Zeus, perfectly formed. "The transition from data to theory," argued the philosopher of science Carl Hempel (1966, p. 15), "requires creative imagination....and great ingenuity, especially if the [new ideas] involve a radical departure from current modes of scientific thinking, as did, for example, the theory of relativity and quantum theory." Hempel might have added that a lot of hard work is also needed, mainly in hypothesis generation and testing -- to start the difficult cycle of reasoning Karl Popper (1962) called "conjectures and refutations."

At the moment, we -- that's all the people who care, both design theorists and anti-design theorists -- are in the midst of the first major cycle of proposed refutations. Two design hypotheses, namely, irreducible complexity and specified complexity, are undergoing critical evaluation. Heck, you the reader may have attempted some of those refutations yourself. Don't get hung up on whether what you're doing is "science" or not. Leave the naming for historians. The dialectical activity of proposing and weighing new ideas is underway. Either a theory of biological design will emerge from all this work or it won't. I say it will.

Currently, there is no theory of biological intelligent design, in the sense defined above. There, I said it again. Does that matter? Not really. The fact that you're reading this right now means you care about design, one way or another, and you want to know what can be said for, or against, the idea. You're caught up in the cycle, dear reader.

What experimental support did Darwin provide for natural selection in the Origin of Species? None. And therein resides a lesson. In the Origin, under the heading, “Illustrations of the action of Natural Selection” (1859, p. 90), Darwin wrote, “I must beg permission to give one or two imaginary illustrations.” Ooh, naughty Darwin –- making things up like that. Shouldn’t he have waited to publish until he had some hard experimental evidence to back him up? Shouldn’t he have exercised the proper caution, seeking peer review of his ideas by first testing them within the context of a well-defined theory making precise predictions?

Maybe, but then the idea of descent with modification by natural selection might well have died with Darwin in 1882. “The credibility of natural selection as a factor in evolution,” writes evolutionary biologist Mary Jane West-Eberhard (2003, p. 508), “is based almost entirely on indirect evidence and abstract reasoning.” West-Eberhard notes that “of all the numerous demonstrations of natural selection in the wild listed by Endler (1986, table 5.1), only five were published prior to 1950.” That is, nearly a century after the publication of the Origin, only five observational studies of natural selection existed in the literature.

But science lurches along. Descent with modification by selection was so plainly an idea worth exploring that the science of evolutionary biology began decades before anything resembling a theory was in hand. I’d say that Bill Dembski and Michael Behe have done pretty well in stirring critical discussion of their ideas. No, they and the rest of the design community haven't published as many papers in the gawd-almighty peer-reviewed literature as we would like. So what. Listen closely (shhhh): It doesn't matter. The Popperian cycle is underway.