The Inadequacy of Intelligent Design 1/3

[DigitalDecadence]

I'm confused. Ayala is a Christian, how on earth is he NOT ID?

[Drgamedood]

@DigitalDecadence Unlike some christians, Ayala is intellectually honest enough not to deny well established science and favor pseudoscience nonsense like ID.

[DigitalDecadence]

@Drgamedood I'm not sure you understood my comment - if Ayala is a Christian, then he believes ID is true, he cannot be a Christian and not believe that God created the universe. So that's why I'm asking how on earth can Ayala be opposing ID and also remain a Christian theist, the two positions are mutually exclusive.

[Drgamedood]

@DigitalDecadence Not necessarily. you can be a christian and accept theistic evolution. Like Kenneth Miller or Francis Collins.

[DigitalDecadence]

@Drgamedood It doesn't matter, you are still a creationist. As God started it all, as long as God is in the picture, you are a creationist, which is why this debate is so strange to me.

[Drgamedood]

@DigitalDecadence Intelligent Design proponents deny that the evolutionary process can account for the diversity of life. Contrary to what you think, they do NOT think that evolution did happen, that it was "guided by god", but rather that we were all designed in our present form.

[DigitalDecadence]

@Drgamedood That isn't always the case. Intelligent design merely means that there was an intelligence behind the creation of the universe and the life within it. it could be God, it could also be the Predator. You seem to be confusing Young Earth Creationists with just Creationists in general.

All theists are Creationists, Ayala, myself and Dr Craig included. But none of us are Young Earth Creationists which is the view you are talking about.

[Drgamedood]

@DigitalDecadence Well that isn't how the term "Intelligent Design" is understood by the public, scientific community, etc. It certainly wasn't understood that way during the dover trial. What you're talking about is theistic evolution. "Intelligent Design", as commonly understood, is the denial that evolution can account for the diversity of life. And that a designer was necessary.

Craig seems to come off as an old earth creationist, at least in my opinion.

[DigitalDecadence]

@Drgamedood ID is the view that some features of the universe and of life, are best explained by a designer. That is it.  You aren't wrong about the Dover trial, but since then ID has been reformed and refined into something which doesn't merely mean 'creationism'. Theistic evolution is ID, but ID isn't theistic evolution always.

[mojorhythm]

Shit my grandpa can argue against intelligent design better then Franny did in this opener.

He didn't even MENTION I.D. at all in his opening.

He should have known that Craig has been doing professional Lincoln Douglas debating since he was in high school, and hired himself a proper debate coach.

Seriously, is Jeffery Jay Lowder like the ONLY f&%*&#$ non-theist who actually knows how to debate properly?

To see the only atheist who really KNOWS how to debate, find JJ Lowder vs Phil Fernandez.

[LingEntityNoobi]

This Francisco J. Ayala guy is really something. I mean he's really got credentials in all kinds of biological sciences. I only heard of Kenneth Miller and Dawkins and stuff.......

[ygustavo]

he´s one (if not the only) of the leading evolutionist this days. he have done a great job in population genetics. and he´s also a Dominican priest.

[LingEntityNoobi]

No he retired from the priesthood.

[ygustavo]

yes, in order to fulfill his phd tesis. but althought he serve as one, he still is.

[herbiepop]

The ID concept is that all things are designed. If that is so design cannot be distinguished from non-design. The watch is designed as is the sand upon which it lies. Design itself becomes a non-identifiable quality.

[harrycrumb1989]

@herbiepop Perfectly put (I would have given your comment a thumbs up but ChristianJr removed the ability to vote - guess he doesn't approve of voting against his position)

[herbiepop]

@harrycrumb1989 Thanks HarryC. You might want to check out a Google group 'Evidence for God'.

[nazra7]

@herbiepop "If that is so design cannot be distinguished from non-design."

Interesting thought but I'd have to disagree. Certainly a random solution that serves no purpose would be something of non design, if there were in fact something like this in existence.

[herbiepop]

@nazra7 However the intelligent design proponent suggests that everything is designed and that nothing is without purpose. One must ask 'purpose for whom?'. Just because something appears to have no purpose for a human being doesn't mean it has no purpose for an intelligent creator. Humans 'design' many things that have no apparent 'purpose' apart from the satisfaction of creation itself.

[nazra7]

@herbiepop Only if that assumption were true. The IDist may think everything has purpose now then later discover information which counters that claim, yet doesn't diminish the idea that some things do have purpose. I can't say whether everything has a purpose or not but I was just trying to point out that what you said relies on assumptions.

As if this delima some how refutes ID as a whole, which it doesn't...

[herbiepop]

@nazra7 Again you are neglecting to specify what you mean by purpose. To an omnipotent, omniscient creator each grain of sand has a purpose. What I said does not rely on everything having a purpose, merely upon the claim that the universe and everything in it can be observed to be 'designed'. If everything is designed then there is no particular quality that distinguishes the designed from the non-designed (including 'purpose' since you can't define purpose in this context).

[raoskaos]

Back to Craig...

He doesn't "believe" in evolution, or he denies evolution. Hm...

You know, the problem of agnosticism is problematic one. Kinda think of it...

I think that I'm agnostic about agnosticism... : )

I don't know...

[Christianjr4]

"He doesn't "believe" in evolution, or he denies evolution"

No, his position is more that he neither believes nor disbelieves it, neither affirms nor denies it, neither for or against it etc. That's agnosticism more or less.

[michalchik]

You know, the evidence is in. He either needs to come out and say that he is not qualified to render an opinion. Say he trusts the experts in the field, or he need to go get educated and present a coherent argument for or against it. His evolutionary agnosticism hits me as simply pandering to the conservative base while not taking a risk of getting nailed to the wall by people who actually know what hey are talking about. Appease the ignorant and while avoiding the wrath of the competent.

[mojorhythm]

@Christianjr4

In one of his Q&A things, he said progressive creationism seems to be most plausible to him, so I guess he has finally come out of the closet as a creationist.

[Christianjr4]

@mojorhythm

Hi mojorhythm. Progressive creationism is not creationism, as commonly understood. It's the view that God intervened in certain circumstances to create new life forms or at least help the process along. More specifically, Craig's view of "progressive creation" is one that embraces macroevolution in most cases, but with the guidance of God. That's very close to theistic evolution. That's hardly creationism.

[mojorhythm]

@Christianjr4

Hi Junior Christian,

As far as I know, progressive creationism is creationism, otherwise he would have said he is a theistic evolutionist. Prog. Creation says that a supervening intelligence directly created certain complex structures (e.g. immune system, bacterial flagellum) abruptly, without any cumulative evolutionary history behind it. That would be a wierd form of evolution!

[pobanmanu]

I find it very hard to understand that Craig who is said to have 2 Phd s and is also said to have researched a lot about space and time but admits that he is agnostic about evolution. Can you smell something ?? Would he still be agnostic towards evolution if evolution in some way was to support the book of genesis??

[raoskaos]

I smell.....a religiously corrupt (intelligent) mind.

[lawrenca333]

Craig's PhDs are in Theology and Philosophy. So one would expect him to be an expert in those fields, as well as quite knowledgeable about physics and cosmology, (space and time), but certainly not to the same degree in the field of biology. I think it is quite reasonable for Craig to admit that he doesn't know that much about evolution but at least he remains open to the evidence, that is to say that he hasn't ruled it out in advance.

[sonnetxi]

@raoskaos the notion of angosticism isnt that complicated in my mind. the idea is complicated by the limits and ambiguity of the language we use. we use the word "believe to represent different degrees of certainty in different contexts. it can either represent absolute faith, or scientific certainty based on observation. but as you might agree, scientific fact dont represent epistemological truth....this is what makes religion so much more stubborn and superficial than science.

[raoskaos]

And here is PROOF, at 1:45, that Craig is a (non-young earth) creationist(his words):

watch?v=nUsMHSeWvaA&feature=re­lated

[Christianjr4]

He's agnostic on evolutionary theory. How's that creationism. Creationists either deny an old Universe or else deny evolution. Craig doesn't.

[raoskaos]

Funny how he's not agnostic about gravity, earth going around the sun, etc.

Well, the agnostic position is not totally opposed to a negative position. I think that we don't need agnosticism. I mean who "believes" in evolution has a positive position. And everybody else who doesn't "believe" has a negative position.

Meaning, I think that it's not a false dichotomy to say that you believe or don't believe.

I know that most theists and atheists who disagree but that's just me.

*continue.

[Christianjr4]

"Funny how he's not agnostic about gravity"

LOL, well that's where I disagree with Craig. I fully accept evolutionary theory, he doesn't. I'm pretty sure, however, that being agnostic on evolution is not the same thing as creationism, which is generally understood to characterize those who are young Earth creationists or those who deny evolution is it's entirety, which Craig does not.

[raoskaos]

But, I'm curious. Why didn't he, in that video that I posted a link, say that he's an ID advocate, rather than creationist. Why did he say that he's a creationist??

[LingEntityNoobi]

you base it on evidence, more or less, Craig is just skeptical of evolution on scientific grounds, which is understandable, but once you learn it thoroughly, evolution is easier to understand.

I certainly learned that way.

[raoskaos]

Why you might ask?? Well...because I'm human.

I just wan't to say something about design. I kinda have a feeling that you use design in a context that means objective design. I don't know that that is what you mean, but I just think that there is no such thing as objective design. To us cars are designed, but to nature is just atoms.

I don't know what does this suppose to prove. I'm not saying that there aren't things who are designed. There would be no word for it if there were no design(cars).

[Christianjr4]

"I don't know what does this suppose to prove"

It's suppose to show you that there are justified circumstances in which the belief in intelligent design is warranted. Clearly in simple cases like your laptop, house or car it's justified. But why? What are the reasons justify ID in those cases? Well the reasons are actually very similar to what ID theorists propose with biological organisms. It's just an extension of the same reasoning, hence it's self-defeating to call that creationism.

[raoskaos]

"Self-defeating." - Now you got me pissed with this pseudo-phylosophical twist talk.

The facts are: ID came into use in 1987, after the Supreme court banned creationism being taught in classrooms.

And the scientific consensus is that ID is NOT science. Yes, it's not science, it's religion with a mask.

ID advocates can bullshit to themselfs all they want, but all they are going to get from science is laughter and mockery.

*continue

[Christianjr4]

I don't know why this is so difficult. The point remains that ID advocates don't espouse anything that is like creationism in the classrooms. All they argue for is justifiable design inferences under certain circumstances. That in and of itself is not creationism. The fact that you and so many scientists continue to use this equivocation shows just how pseudo intellectual you guys are. Instead of dealing with the arguments they put out all you can do is mischaracterize the argument. Shame

[adstanra]

the reason scientists are skeptical about ID is because they have not shown any evidence of a designer , or a mechanism through which design can be effected or any design. they have asserted that the eye and a flagellum can only be explained by design, but have not shown this to be true. Design does not fit the observed pattern wrt biological variance.They are going to have to turn to theology to explain the designer and science is skeptical about this excercise.

[eleveretto]

Not much difference between theory and theology when it comes to the design argument.

Yes I know what theory means and when it becomes atheist theology too .

[jaemilsz23]

christ is coming back soon.. i would like to refer you to the forerunnerchronichles777 on my substriction page.. he will reveal the truth to people, the new world order, what the symbols on the dollar bill mean, and what the illumanti have to do with athesim, diff religions, and the end of bible prophicies coming to past in modern day times... i ask you to do research urself and look at the forerunnerchronichles777 page. bcuz you wnt understand the illumaniti til you know what your looking for

[lejink]

ID is just silly.. to say earth is here so there must be a god to create it also means we see the sun, so there must be a sun god. we see planets there must be a planet god.. why dont we say that? because we know how planets and stars are made, we werent there to see them made though.. so ID believers would point to the bible as proof. i thought the point of ID was to seperate the bible from creationism so it could be a differing theory in school.

[99percentatheist]

Atheists like you make other atheists look very bad. If you don't have a sound argument, please don't post anything! This idiotic comment tells me how little you know. Go get educated first before you try to take on a theist, please.

[lejink]

actually i stole that arguement from thunderfoot.

go tell him hes uneducated then.

[agnostaxian]

Thanks jr4 for posting, I was waiting for the opening statement by ayala

[adstanra]

I am not sure how anyone decides who wins these debates. Dr. Ayala spent alot of time showing the evidence for evolution. There is a massive amount of evidence supporting it. I never really saw Dr. Craig show design?If fluidity of speech counts for anything Dr. Craig won. For educative and explanatory value, Dr.Ayala won imo. Would have liked to have seen Dr Ayala attack ID more

[99percentatheist]

Actually the debate was on the "Viability" of ID. Not on whether it is true or not. Craig was not attacking evolution (he is willing to grant it for argument's sake), he was attacking the notion of random mutation and natural selection being able to produce the vast quantities of phyla in existence.

[adstanra]

Attacking a theory is not defending another one. ID must show design or produce a designer..WLC doesn't do that . ID should not be a default position.

A nested heirarchial bush pattern is consistent with a stochastic algorythmic process, not an intelligent design. Why would a creator limit itself this way? By what mechanism does the designer design? Simply no evidence for design and WLC provides none.

[99percentatheist]

I think that your questions demonstrate that your problem with ID is philosophical in nature and not scientific. "Why would a creator limit itself this way?" This is a philosophical question, not a scientific one. As far as evidence is concern, Craig mostly had negative evidence against random mutation and natural selection, but we are yet to see the rest of the debate.

[adstanra]

The problem with ID is a scientific one.. It is not consistent with the observed pattern, but is consistent with a stochastic process.

t is not theory building when one critisizes another theory !

they have to produce a designer or show design or rule out every conscievable natural explanation.

They seem to want to say ..look at the design, but don't ask about the invisible designer because that is theology.

[adstanra]

Philosophy ,logic and science are not so far removed. If someone asserts through revelation and an authoritative book that God is Good, we can use these things to see if the evidence fits this assertion. I think the evidence does not support that assertion at all. The one making the assertion has some explaining to do..smallpox virus, world governed by predation etc

[99percentatheist]

Before we go on, I need to ask you a favor. Could you please define ID for me? I just want to make sure that you know what it is because it seems to me that you are attacking a straw man. Thanks.

[adstanra]

thanks for posting .

[raoskaos]

There's no debate here, and I would like for people to stop engading in this "debates".

Creationism = Fails, Science = Wins.

[99percentatheist]

Oh, the classic strawman argument shows it's face once again. This is not about creationism my friend. Make sure you know the definition of these terms before you post anything.

[raoskaos]

Creationism IS ID in disguise, and it's not science. Everyone who thinks evolution isn't a fact is in a huge delusion.

[99percentatheist]

I think you meant to say that ID is creationism in disguise. Correct? If this is the case, then your statement is nothing but an assertion. Now you need to give me an argument as to why ID is creationism in disguise. Or are you just repeating what you heard from someone else?

[raoskaos]

Yes, the opposite. My mistake...

As for evidence for evolution: reed books, go to museums(if you think that there are no fossils), talk with a scientist or a biology teacher,...

[99percentatheist]

Yes, but the argument here is not against evolution. It's on random mutation and natural selection being able as a mechanism to produce an eye or a brain or limbs. Get me?

[raoskaos]

Ok, but my answer to you still stands.

[99percentatheist]

what answer?

[raoskaos]

Here is the proof that ID is creationism.

It's your beloved Craig promoting creationism(at 6:30):

watch?v=sWTfyvmCYtc&feature=re­lated

[99percentatheist]

I don't know about that vid. All I know is that in this particular debate he is not addressing creationism. Do you know the difference between ID and Creationism?

[adstanra]

ID is a small group of people who believe that certain complexities of biology can only be explained or are best explained by design. The problem is they have no designer and no known mechanism through which the design can take effect...and they have not shown design at all. As such, it has little explanatory power without theology!.

Most of us believe that most of them are trying to get God into the classroom-an entity derived by religion. Darwinism best explains the pattern we see.

[raoskaos]

I've just shown you that there is no difference between ID and creationism, and you don't know...

[Christianjr4]

ID fundamentally as an academic hypothesis isn't creationism. Even sophisticated academics are starting to realize that fact now. You can't refute an idea by simply falsely attributing bad intentions to their proponents. If so, then there's nothing wrong with someone dismissing evolution because he happens to think evolution is simply an attempt by scientists to disprove God.

As for the video, we didn't get to hear anything from Craig. I highly doubt he was promoting creationism in schools.

[raoskaos]

"As an academic hypothesis..." - Sorry but there's nothing "academic" about it. It's not even a good hypothesis. It's just : "An intelligence did it."

But really it means: "God did it." The other possibility is aliens, and we know they(ID proponets) don't believe in that.

There is no proof. All it is pointing to imaginary problems in evolution.

As for Craig, you know that it was about creationism in that video. And Craig was on that side.

[Christianjr4]

ID is most definitely an academic hypothesis. The fact that you and everyone else believes in intelligent design when it comes to cars, computers, houses etc proves the concept has a viability. If it didn't, you would have to give up all belief in intelligent design everywhere. And your dismissal of ID by equating it with creationism is fallacious. It's equivalent to creationists dismissing evolution because they believe scientists are only propagating it to disprove God's existence.

[raoskaos]

Haven't you watch the video link??

They mention god, god and just god. And Craig was on their side. If you really wan't to argue that Craig wasn't on the CREATIONIST side, then you're dishonest.

You really need to educate yourself more, and talk to people who aren't close-minded.

[Christianjr4]

Are you serious? So because they mention God in that video that therefore means every single person at the hearing endorsed creationism being taught in school? What a joke!

Craig is NOT ON THEIR SIDE. I've heard him over and over again say he doesn't endorse teaching creationism in school and that he's specifically agnostic about ID being science. That's NOT an endorsement of creationism and if you think so then you're the dishonest one, not me. Don't make assumptions when you never heard him.

[Christianjr4]

I need to educate myself? And this coming from the guy who thinks not only that ID is creationism, but also that ID denies evolution. If you honestly think that then you don't have a clue at all about what you're talking about. You couldn't name one prominent ID advocate who would accept your characterization of ID. You're still stuck in never never land on this with the same old child like arguments.

[raoskaos]

If you "believe" in evolution, then why did you put this video up? I don't get it...

[Christianjr4]

Because ID is actually compatible with evolution. That's right! ID proponents like Dembski, Behe, Denton, Meyer etc etc have never said ID denies evolution. If you think ID is against evolution then as I said before, you don't know what ID is.

[raoskaos]

If it's compatible, then why do ID proponets only attack evolution, and it supposed problems, rather then to present arguments for ID??

It's the same tactic that creationists use.

And please comment on the video(link in my previous comment).

[Christianjr4]

The ID proponents don't only attack evolution. That's a myth. Michael Behe doesn't attack evolution. He agrees it happened. Same with Michael Denton. William Dembski has explicitly stated ID is not incompatible with evolution, just the unguided processes of random mutation and natural selection.

[raoskaos]

Here is one proof that ID is creationism:

watch?v=GUB8Mv1SaKQ&feature=pl­ayer_embedded#

[Christianjr4]

That doesn't prove that ID is creationism. All that proves is that certain ID advocates falsely use ID as a cover to promote creationism. If some teachers who were evolutionists happened to use evolution to promote atheism in their classroom would that prove that evolution is atheism? No it wouldn't. The same is with ID. This does nothing to refute the central academic theory of ID.

And you haven't answered my other point about how you also believe in ID when it comes to cars and laptops. Why?

[raoskaos]

Certain?!?! Ok, I guess if I point to othet similar cases, you would respond with the same answer...

The hypotetical is a bit wrong, it's about writing books, not teaching in classes.

You are constantly saying "the theory of ID". I'm interested, what research have the ID advocates did, what peer reviews.

Point me to a list of some proof for ID, which doesn't have anything to do with evolution.

I don't "believe" that cars and laptops are designed, I know that they're designed(by humans)

*cont.

[Christianjr4]

I say the "theory of ID" because I'm specifically talking about the academic theory that ID proponents argue. That position is not creationism.

As for peer review, take a look at Dembski's book "The design inference". That was peer reviewed and was published by the prestigious Cambridge University press.

[Christianjr4]

Finally, the cobb county school district hosted a debate on creation-evolution that included all sides. It wasn't only proponents of creationism that got a say so why are you automatically assuming Craig was defending the motion?

I know for a fact that Craig doesn't espouse the teaching of creationism in schools. He's stated this many times. As for IDT (not creationism) specifically, he's agnostic about it (including it's inclusion in science classes) so why would he endorse it?

[raoskaos]

I don't get why do you think that this is a 150 year old global scientific conspiracy???

Sure you can point to some 200 people with college that are "skeptical" about evolution, but what about the other couple of million scientist who "disagree"...

[Christianjr4]

Did you even read my comment? I never claimed evolution was a conspiracy. For your information, I actually believe firmly in the fact of evolution. I said that YOUR line of argument is equivalent to those who dismiss evolution as some conspiracy. That's what you're doing when you accuse ID proponents of promoting creationism.

[HumanStrategy]

Anyone who has read WLC's book Reasonable Faith will know that the man fails miserably in print. He's a much better public speaker.

Of course, this doesn't at all lend credence to his arguments. I don't understand why people take him seriously anyways.

[Propheticmafia777]

He got his behind handed to him by Craig......

[geoffreyefloyd]

with all do respect to Dr.Ayala, Craig = WIN!

[arktheball]

The alphebet and numbers were created by mankind to convey information. And to hold values. How did Dr Ayala think that this example would be an example of undesigned information? The letters and numbers themselves have no intrinsic meaning that is not givin them by their creators, Us. If anything I believe that it is better reinforcer of information requiring an intelligent source, to shape, and give meaning, and assign value