Intelligent Design is not creationism

[jem]

Quote from kjkent1:

You're being unnecessarily paranoid. I'm not trying to set you up.

Substantively, you keep using Susskind's "New Scientist" interview from December 2005, as a defense of your position.

The Paula Gordon Radio Show interview, from February 2006, that I provided you a while back in this thread, clearly presents Susskind, in his own words, correcting any misunderstanding by saying, unequivocally that he does not subscribe to any theory of intelligent design, and that he views life in this universe as "an accident."

He's not equivocal in that interview, and I don't know how "New Scientist" managed to coax the bizarrely theological quote on which you base your position, out of Susskind, but there are no other Susskind quotes quite like the one you are using, and I think it highly unrepresentative of Susskind's views.

this is such a fundamental point to the discussion, I am surprised you are making repeat it again.

Susskinds quote is not out of context, and it is very consistent with the radio interview. In fact it is the whole reason he wrote his book.

He defends the scientists who support AP and said they know good science when they see it.

Design is the counterweight to his billiions of universes argument. When string theory was only predicting millions of other universes there was not enough universes to counter the design inference.


To review:

Scientists in multiple fields including astrophysics are coming up with findings showing how finely tuned the universe is to support life.

The math behind these findings show there is no way we got to these constants by random chance.

this is a simplification.

Weinberg said hey if we find a force that just right to make up for all the gravity it would be highly intestesting if it fit these parameters. He said if we find that the constant fits these predicted parameters you would have to conclude life itself influences the creation of the universe.


so what are the possible conclusions based on the comological constant and other fine tunings.

1. You can stick your head in the sand and say so what, we would not be able to observe them if we were not here.

2. or, you can say yes I realize the implications from these fine tunings is that we sure do looked designed.

3. or, we may looked designed but I will find another physical answer. (per hawking)

Susskind says we looked designed but I found another answer - we looked designed if we are only in one universe but since there may be billions of other universe that do not support life we may just be in the one "lucky" universe. So while the constant is just right here - it was just wrong hundreds of billions of other times in other universes.

In other words we did not just get dealt one hand and got every card in perfect order.

We got dealt billions of hands and we finally got the right one we needed to live.



He explained the math to you.
He could not argue for randomness when string theory only predicted a million universes. he said he kept checking in with other scientists.

However, when polchenski realized string theory supported billions of universes he now had his counter to the design argument.

In short if we only got dealt one universe - no way we got these constants set up so perfectly)

if we only got one millions hands (still no way we could have got all these constants set up perfectly as a statistical matter)

if we got dealt billions of billions of univereses - well now these tunings might just have been the result of random chance.

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from jem:

1. You can stick your head in the sand and say so what, we would not be able to observe them if we were not here.

2. or, you can say yes I realize the implications from these fine tunings is that we sure do looked designed.

3. or, we may looked designed but I will find another physical answer. (per hawking)

The above is an admission that there are three possible answers(AP, design, M-theory), rather than only two (design, M-theory).

It's merely your opinion that #1 is sticking one's head in sand. It is no more nor less likely that #1 or #2 is true, and there is no way to resolve the truth from the available evidence.

Your conclusion in #3 that design is apparent, depends on your opinion that #1 is sticking your head in sand. If AP is as defined in #1, then any perception of design is simply illusion.

Whether to view the universe as the product of design or chance is false dichotomy -- you just admitted it, above. AP resolves the issue without appeal to magical answers.

If you want to adopt the position that magic is the answer, rather than AP, that is a personal choice, and you are entitled to that choice. But you are creating this inference to explain what you see, based upon your desire that God be the ultimate answer -- not because God follows inexorably from the facts, or even from the available choices.

We have only one measurement for the cosmological constant, because we are here to witness only this one universal expansion. We can't measure any other universal expansion to see if it would have expanded differently and produced a different cosmological constant.

Analogy: you want to measure the probability of having an accident while driving to work. If you can compare your drive to the driving habits of millions of other drivers, then you can compute the probabilities.

If you have no other drivers with whom to compare, and moreover, you are allowed only one opportunity to make the drive, then the probability of having the accident is 50/50. That is, you will either have an accident, or you won't.

The universe looks fine tuned to you, because you want it to look fine tuned. In order to draw this inference, you must believe in magic. If you choose this belief, then no scientific rebuttal will be either sufficient or necessary, because magic resolves all questions without resort to science.

Scientists do not have the luxury of resorting to magic -- at least not while they conduct scientific experiments. So, your answer #2 is not an option for the scientist while at work. Same as religion is not an answer for an attorney while in court.

Thus, only answers #1 and #3 are available to the scientist. If #2 is left on the table, then science and philosophy meld and the result is that every magical art becomes a reasonable conclusion to any scientific hypothesis.

The reason why science must maintain this boundary condition, is because without it, science cannot exist. Once you admit design, science is no longer required. Prayer is all that is necessary.

Finally, you may ask why design is synonymous with magic. The answer is simple. Admitting a designer, begs the question of who designed the designer, ad infinitum. Ultimately, you are left with a "creator" who has existed eternally and who is not subject to any scientific explanation. And, when something is not subject to a scientific explanation, the only remaining alternative is magic.

The design inference is thus an appeal to magic, which is outside the boundaries of science and cannot therefore be a possible answer to any scientific investigation of the universe.

 

[jem]

Well now we are getting somewhere.


I will not argue with you direclty on number one because frankly neither of us are qualified to discuss good science. But you seem to be discounting that physics has assigned the probabliltiy of the cosmological constant being tuned for life and that probablity is infintessimally small. So being that is the case you are incorrect about your probablity argument. the probablities can be assigned and they are assigned. If you wish to say we are unverse looks this way by random chance absent a physical explanation you are sticking you head in the ground.

However, more importantly your argument about point 3 but not point 2 is illogical and not based on the evidence.

If you accept 3 you have to accept 2 as the default situation. Until you have a proven physical explanation, you are exhibiting faith that a physical explanation will be found to combat the appearance of design.

2 is embeded in 3.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

yes I have seen the elegant universe.
Stu you are back to your old tweedle dee and tweedle dum persona.

I did not define AP because it would have just led to Strong ap vs Weak ap discussion. And that discussion would have been entirely off point. I have no problem stating that Susskind said __________ or top physicists state________. However, I do not claim to be an expert in AP so it woud be pointless for me to create a defintion when the term definition is not set in stone.

KJ s question could have been a setup, as I am sure he knows AP is defined different ways. So while he probably understood why I ducked the question. Apparently at least one dope did not.

...
"I did not define AP because it would have just led to Strong ap vs Weak ap discussion."

Says who?
Strong /weak are two definitions. You could quite easily give your definition without a discussion on comparisons to other ones.

Pointless for you to define what it is. That way you know what it is.
Well that fits with your usual modus operandi of utter muddlement.

You were clearly asked for YOUR definition of the anthropic principle, not THE definition or A definitive definition. Simple really.

I notice you have no problem defining the cosmological constant as "fine tuning".
Where exactly did you derive the expertise to do that, expertise which you state you don’t have to define the anthropic principle?

From the anthropic principle it seems, which you can't define, but which you do define enough to wrongly offer you some "fine tuning" via the cosmological argument

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from jem:

Well now we are getting somewhere.


I will not argue with you direclty on number one because frankly neither of us are qualified to discuss good science. But you seem to be discounting that physics has assigned the probabliltiy of the cosmological constant being tuned for life and that probablity is infintessimally small. So being that is the case you are incorrect about your probablity argument. the probablities can be assigned and they are assigned. If you wish to say we are unverse looks this way by random chance absent a physical explanation you are sticking you head in the ground.

However, more importantly your argument about point 3 but not point 2 is illogical and not based on the evidence.

If you accept 3 you have to accept 2 as the default situation. Until you have a proven physical explanation, you are exhibiting faith that a physical explanation will be found to combat the appearance of design.

2 is embeded in 3.

Your logic is incorrect, as follows:

If you can't falsify #1, because you don't believe you are competent to argue good science, then you can't argue that #2 is the default, because you don't actually know whether #1 is false -- you're simply relying on your faith that it is not true.

#2 is scientifically unprovable, because it is magic and magic is beyond the scope of any scientific proof. So, #2 cannot be the default, even were #1 and #3 not considered.

So, #2 fails first, leaving #1, assuming you're competent to argue it. If you are, then you can argue for or against the hypothesis which is derived from #1, which is #3.

However, as you are apparently not competent to argue #1, you cannot argue #3.

Thus, all three of your arguments fail entirely.

Which is why I suggested that we stop arguing -- because we have nothing to argue about, until you become sufficiently competent to argue #1 -- at which point we can then argue #3.

However, we can never argue #2, because it's not science -- it's magic -- and is thus only available via faith.

 

[palmbeachdude]

Darwinism Delusion Exposed by Professor Emeritus of Biology
Kazmer Ujvarosy


Kazmer Ujvarosy is the founder of Frontline Science, an independent think tank, based in San Francisco. He is dedicated to the analysis of complex problems, and the development of realistic, concrete proposals on issues of global concern. His stance is independent, interdisciplinary, with an analytical rigor, and a view to the future. He is uniquely qualified to help you understand what makes scientific sense, and what does not, based on cause-and-effect and systems principles.

Kazmer Ujvarosy
January 9, 2007

Adlai E. Stevenson, in his speech at Princeton (March 22, 1954), said: “All progress has resulted from people who took unpopular positions.”

In this age of Darwin mania, few intellectuals in academia dare to question the dogma of evolution. So it was refreshing to learn that Dr. John A. Davison is one of those scientists who, in the midst of the Darwinist crowd, does not fear to challenge the doctrine of evolution.

Dr. Davidson is an outspoken Professor Emeritus of Biology, he was teaching Zoology at the University of Vermont, and carried out experimental research during his entire professional career.

He was kind enough to e-mail me his latest essay, “The Darwinian Delusion,” and give his permission to make it available for the readers of this publication.

For the record, I don’t share all his views expressed in “The Darwinian Delusion,” but among others I share his refutation of random chance, because I agree with Voltaire: “Chance is a word void of sense; nothing can exist without a cause.” Moreover I share Davison’s view that, as he put it elsewhere, “The Darwinian fairy tale is the greatest scandal in the history of science.” Finally, I agree with him that “the Darwinian model does not qualify even as an hypothesis, a curious status for a view still widely accepted by the evolutionary establishment.”

This view brings to mind what Sir Karl Popper wrote in his Unended Quest (Oxford: Rutledge, 1991): “To say that a species now living is adapted to its environment is, in fact, almost tautological … There is hardly any possibility of testing a theory as feeble as this.”

Now here is the essay by Professor John A. Davison.

The Darwinism Delusion

By John A. Davison

It is now 147 years since the publication of Darwin’s celebrated “On the Origin of Species,” yet not a single species has been observed to be formed through the mechanism he proposed. That mechanism, the natural selection of randomly produced variations is apparently incompetent to transform contemporary species even into a new member of the same genus. The most intensive artificial selection has also proven to be unable to transcend the species barrier. Furthermore, there is every reason to believe that evolution is finished as proposed by the anti-Darwinian Robert Broom and the Darwinian Julian Huxley, curiously the same man who coined the term “the modern synthesis.” (Davison, 2004). Pierre Grasse suggested the same.

“Aren’t our plants, our animals lacking some mechanisms which were present in the early flora and fauna?” (Grasse, 1977, page 71).

I realize that some would not agree with us that evolution is finished, but I am now convinced that it is. How then is it possible for an hypothesis to survive without verification? Both the Phlogiston of Chemistry and the Ether of Physics collapsed when controlled experiment demonstrated them to be without foundation. Darwinism also has failed to survive the acid test of experimental verification. Why then has it persisted?

The reason for this paradox is the subject of this brief essay. It is, as my title indicates, because Darwinism is a delusion. The delusion is that evolution (phylogeny) has proceeded as the result of external causes which can be identified and experimentally manipulated. In my opinion that is impossible because such causes do not now and never did exist. They also do not exist for ontogeny, the development of the individual from the egg. Ontogeny and phylogeny are manifestations of the same reproductive continuum. Since only ontogeny remains, we must look to it as a model evolution. Does not ontogeny proceed entirely on the basis of contained information present in the fertilized egg? Of course it does. The only role for exogenous factors is to provide the necessary conditions for development to take place. For the amphibian fertilized egg all that is required is a freshwater environment at a suitable temperature. In a very real sense that is all that is required for the development of a mammal. I can say that because the amniotic fluid in which the mammalian embryo is bathed is very low in dissolved salts, like the ancestral environment in which our amphibian predecessors developed. Even the crab-eating frog of India, which dives into the surf to capture its prey, must go inland to fresh-water ponds in order to reproduce. Thus the mammalian womb retains the properties of the environment in which our ancestors developed in the past as their relatives still do today. This is true also of the amniotic fluid surrounding the bird or reptile embryo. It too is much lower in salts than the blood or tissue fluids, betraying their fresh-water ancestry as well.

In every instance when we look for a role for the environment as a guide to evolutionary change we encounter a blank wall. The most that can be documented is that of acting as a stimulus for a potential already present. That includes the capacity to become resistant to insecticides and all other phasic responses which, unlike evolution, have proven to be reversible. Mendelian allelic mutations are also reversible and accordingly have played no significant role in evolution either. This realization has led me to postulate the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (PEH) as the only reasonable alternative for the formation of species as well as any of the higher taxonomic categories (Davison, 2005).

Coupled with the Darwinian delusion is the incapacity of certain ideologies to accept the implications of a predetermined evolution. Such a scenario demands one or more past intelligences far beyond our present capacity to comprehend. Such concepts are anathema to the atheist Darwinian perspective. The Darwinians have traditionally pretended that they had no critics. It is evident in the references and citations that are missing from the writings of their primary spokespersons, Ernst Mayr, William Provine, Stephen Jay Gould and most recently Richard Dawkins.

Otto Schindewolf recognized the failure of the experimental approach to phylogeny more than a half century ago. He too has been ignored but not by this investigator.

“Many recent authors have spoken of experimental evolution; there is no such thing, Evolution, a unique, historical course of events that took place in the past, is not repeatable experimentally and cannot be investigated that way.” Basic Questions in Paleontology, page 311, italics his emphasis, bold my emphasis.

References

Davison, JA. [2004], Is Evolution Finished? Rivista di Biologia 97:111-116

Davison, J.A. [2005], A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. Rivista di Biologia 98: 155-166.

Grasse, P. [1977], Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation. Academic Press, New York. (original French edition 1973)

Schindewolf, O. [1993] Basic Questions in Paleontology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. (Original German edition 1950).

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from palmbeachdude:

Darwinism Delusion Exposed by Professor Emeritus of Biology
Kazmer Ujvarosy


Kazmer Ujvarosy is the founder of Frontline Science, an independent think tank, based in San Francisco. He is dedicated to the analysis of complex problems, and the development of realistic, concrete proposals on issues of global concern. His stance is independent, interdisciplinary, with an analytical rigor, and a view to the future. He is uniquely qualified to help you understand what makes scientific sense, and what does not, based on cause-and-effect and systems principles.

Mr. Ujvarosy's Frontline Science appears to me to be just another fundamentalist christian "front," for promoting theology as science.

John A. Davison is an ex-professor from the University of Vermont, who proposes essentially that evolution was front-loaded by person/entity unknown, and that human life is the ultimate result. Davison's theories are not taken seriously by anyone in the mainstream scientific community, and at last investigation, even William Dembski, one of the most well-known and "scientific" members of the Intelligent Design community, has banned Davison from Dembski's website: http://www.uncommondescent.com.

 

[Ether64]

I am new to this board and conversation, but a few things I noted in just the first few posts I observed, which I am responding to. I'd like to see Teleologist post an intelligent response without quoting everyone else, because quoting everyone else does not tell me what he/she thinks.

Secondly, I can understand why the ID people lost in court. The true motives of their theology was clear. My problem with them is that they took God's intelligent design, and tried to remove God from the picture, so as to make it more acceptable to those who don't believe. They basically denied Him. So I agree...they should have been busted in court because they were operating in deception, and our calling in Christ is not for that purpose.

Secondly...it's a deception to attempt to state that Intelligent Design has no designer. That's just asinine. How can it be intelligent design, with no source for that intelligence? So of course they would be found out for the deception. I don't know why so-called "christians" think that they can win people over with lies. It doesn't work.

Some things are not meant for everyone, and to try to force those things into the lap of people they were never meant for is ridiculous. It's like those zealots trying to convert everyone. It's not happening. That is not God's call on anyone's life. There is an appointed timing for everything and for everyone, and if it's not your time to "get it"...it's just not your time. Maybe it will never be, but it's not for me or anyone else to dictate.

I was in a discussion about that last night with some friends. One said to another, speak to me on my level; and the other said, I speak the truth...you can accept me or reject me.

I saw both points of view. One was saying, I want to understand you...speak to me in a way I can understand. The other said, I'm speaking what I was told to speak. If you cannot understand it, it is not meant for you at this time. So it is with all of us. Therefore, to perpetuate a lie to give understanding for those who were not meant to understand is foolishness.

As to the quote from lkh:"Evolution has purpose and direction. Survival."

I agree. The purpose of evolution is the "survival" of mankind's desire to be self sufficient. To believe that a big bang occurred and suddenly all this intricate life was created without a designer, is tantamount to equating life to be shat out of a wormhole somewhere. You know...no offense, but someone mentioned a drunk stumbling around....Maybe in some unknown universe this could have occurred, and his upchuck became the fodder for our existence.

I mean after all, if things just came to life out of nothing...who's to say life didn't evolve from upchuck? I mean you can find any number of small creatures in the waste of the world, and they will start thriving, and recreate themselves and feed and seemingly evolve into other creatures...and you support the idea that you came from a possible circumstance like that? What are you afraid of?

They say that those that hold to God are weak, dependant beings, but I say, those that run from Him, are even weaker, because they cannot admit their need as a human...as a person, and no doubt, this pattern of running from things and/or people is a constant "truth" in their lives because of a lack of an ability to really connect on an honest level. It takes strength to admit weakness because it requires vulnerability, and weak people cannot acknowledge their vulnerability, so they put up a wall of defense to any ideology that requires such submission.

 

[jem]

Kj said

Your logic is incorrect, as follows:

If you can't falsify #1, because you don't believe you are competent to argue good science, then you can't argue that #2 is the default, because you don't actually know whether #1 is false -- you're simply relying on your faith that it is not true.

Response -
Are you familiar with expert testimony at trial. Coming from someone who claims to be an attorney your argument seems designed to play to the gallery even though you know you are wrong.



Real Physicists have evaluated this question and some state the universe looks designed. I have given you quotes from nobel prize winners and the father of string theory.

Since neither of us have advanced training in physics and years of study neither of are experts on this subject. (if you wish to be considered an expert put forth your credentials) Consequently our opinion of whether the cosmlogical constant indicates design are of little consequence.

However we do not not need to be competent to testify as an expert to make powerful and correct arguments about what the experts say. I thought every lawyer understood this point. Apparently you are not familiar with expert testimony.

Quite simply some of the best minds in physics are saying the world looks designed. You have no standing to entirely discount their findings.

(sometimes with a caveat of multiple universes)

----------------
#2 is scientifically unprovable, because it is magic and magic is beyond the scope of any scientific proof. So, #2 cannot be the default, even were #1 and #3 not considered.

Rsponse

This is a juvenile denial of facts. If You seem to totally disregard that quantum physics has been used to assess probiliites across all sorts of disciplines.

Nobel prize winners disagree with your statements and claim the univese looks designed. Yet you still think your outdated view of probablity theory turns of science into magic. The irony is that you are arguing like a religious person here.

First of all you are wrong and completely overruled by the applicatiion of quantum mechanics to the field. You also do not understand how the arguments are constructed. You do not need to have multiple trials if you already know how the univese works. One can quantify the how likely something is to happen using quantum mechanics, It is how we can send space ships into orbit around other planets.


Why do you continue to argue from such a silly posture.

There no reason for me to address the rest of your arguement since science renders your points outdated.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from jem:


Real Physicists have evaluated this question and some state the universe looks designed. I have given you quotes from nobel prize winners and the father of string theory.

...

Quite simply some of the best minds in physics are saying the world looks designed. You have no standing to entirely discount their findings.

...

There no reason for me to address the rest of your arguement since science renders your points outdated.

You're very confused.

"Something looks designed" does not mean "something is designed."

The purpose of science is not to prove that something is designed. Science can never prove that. The purpose of science is to explain why something looks designed, to find out the reason behind the pattern.

You just don't understand what science is. All of your points have been refuted many times in this thread but you . just . refuse . to . learn.