2. Is Intelligent Design Viable?: Francisco J. Ayala opens

[BoyJewish]

Darwin traveled on the Beagle in 1937? (3:20) Wow! Did he time travel?

[zelda0521]

sigh... its hard to pay attention to this speaker... He reminds me of my circuit professor, except worse...

[ShawDAMAN]

Ayala is hard to listen to :-\ he puts me to sleep. Just an observation, I understand this has no bearing on the validity or invalidity of his remarks.

[Idrivethe405]

I was there for this!

[BeauLeeman]

@Oreceo Jesrael is correct. Altho our motors are designed and built by differing processes, they are functionally similar (rotor, stator, energy in, radial output).

The assumption that DNA coding evolved naturalistically is less plausible than the design paradigm. Your point regarding 'self-replication' setting biologic formations apart from our our designs is non-relevant. Self-replication is likely a 'designed-in' process. How else could phyla propagate? Self-replication is not self-design.

[Jesrael1986M]

@Oreceo A flagellum does not RESEMBLE a motor, it IS a motor. DNA is not LIKE a software program, it IS a software program. There is no analogy here. An analogy is a superficial similarity which will breakdown on closer inspection. This is not the case when it comes to biological design. What we are seeing are instances of advanced technology, beyond what mankind can currently produce. If anything, a flagellar motor is the "real thing", and our technology is crude in comparison.

[bigspliffs]

Darwin...The greatest scientist of all time!!! lmao

[MorganMarvinson]

"His purpose in this book is not evolution per se. It is natural selection." We should have recognized his mistake. To use an industrial illustration, popular opinion may determine which cars sell, but it doesn't design and produce the cars for people to buy. The mechanism Darwin posited as "producing the cars for sale" wouldn't have gotten them to the "new car show room." Random mutation doesn't do any better. Neither Darwinism nor neo-darwinism is adequate to explain "new cars." Only ID is.

[BeauLeeman]

" ... 99.9% of all species became extinct so logical deduction would lead one to believe we have a terrible programmer to thank for that."

That overblown figure encompasses speciations that have become altered (and thus extinct) by sexual and geographic isolations (allopatric, sympatric,and parapatric) as well as species that have actually died off.

Regarding extinctions however, I say "so what?" Every computer, car and appliance made becomes extinct when a newer/better one comes along.

[PlatonicUniverse]

@BeauLeeman I can never understand why some people expect there to be absolute logical or mathematical level proof for Evolution. Extrapolation is done all the time in the sciences, and it almost always works. Why? Because we have a lawful universe- we ought to be grateful for that!

[Reerrpad5515]

"Regarding extinctions however, I say "so what?"" ~ BL

Why does it matter? Because cars, computers, and appliances, afaik, do not suffer their death, or extinction. They are also created by people, learning as we do steadily, and improving upon our designs through time.

Are you suggesting that this deity of yours has no thoughts on the suffering of it's creatures? or perhaps that it needs time to improve upon the design? If either is the case, why call it "god"?

[BeauLeeman]

@Reerrpad5515 Firstly, extinction doesn't equate with suffering, since all designed structures (1) degenerate, and (2) tend to outlive their fitness or needs. A somewhat valid arg against extinction is the 'bad design' premise. But if a design is 'fit' initially, it passes as valid design.

Regarding pain, suffering, predator/ prey, parasite/ host, I would suggest that the designer(s) saw competitiveness as a virtue, rather than an impediment. A purely Utopian existence would be boring as hell.

[Reerrpad5515]

"all designed structures..." ~ BL

Designed by humans, sure, but by a tri-omni god? I don't think so.

"A purely Utopian existence would be boring as hell." ~ BL

What would it lack? Would creatures designed to live and thrive in such a place feel the lack? HUMANS might not, but I presume our souls could have been inserted into another shell, yes? The idea is a bit larger than just "what could god 'fix' about this world, and would we like it", but rather, "why this world, this shell?"

[BeauLeeman]

"a tri-omni god? I don't think so" Nor do I.

Then there is MDT, or 'multi-designer theory', which correlates somewhat with the historical record of earlier pantheistic religions. But organized religion doesn't necesssarily hold the answers.

My approach is empirical, or tentative conclusions based on evidences (data). I hold no firm beliefs based on scripture or a priori philosophical views by others. I am still researching from many sources, including genetics and cell biology.

[Reerrpad5515]

"I hold no firm beliefs based on scripture or a priori philosophical views by others." ~ BL

and I own a flying pig.

"Then there is MDT, or 'multi-designer theory" ~ BL

MDT, meet Occam's Razor.

"...pantheistic religions..." ~ BL

This religious structure would be one FAR more apt to accept, a priori, purely naturalistic evolution, simply by definition. Where are you copy/pasting these arguments from?

[BeauLeeman]

Re MDT, don't write it off too quickly, since it fits the evidence in many ways. Check out Richard Hoppe's take on it 'pandasthumb','rbh','mdt'.

Then a critique of his view at 'telicthoughts', 'mdt'

You won't find many mainline ID'ers who would even consider that, and yet in a cosmic stomping ground of this size (earth being one grain of sand on a cosmic beach) it encompasses rational thought well.

I blog by 'leebowman' as well as 'beau leeman' if you care to read other posts and comments.

[Reerrpad5515]

"Re MDT, don't write it off too quickly" ~ BL

Occam's razor gets sharper when introduced to more targets.

"it encompasses rational thought well." ~ BL

We have perfectly good natural processes to explain biological complexity; the gaps in the theory do not represent homes where people can start renting space to multiple gods. MDT tries to resolve the paradox of one god creating conflicting purpose creatures, when these creatures are sufficiently explained naturally.

Occam's Razor....

[BeauLeeman]

RBH by the way is a materialist form the evo camp. He may not buy into it, but at least considers it.

Occam's Razor is widely accepted (and cited), but does not always fit the data. It dates from an age where complexity was viewed as reduntant, wastful, and illogical. It doesn't fit systems in evidence in today's age. It is used, in fact, as a way out of accepting something viewed as "too complex". Dawkins loves to cite it as a prime god disqualifier.

[Reerrpad5515]

"dates from an age" ~ BL

Irrelevant.

"It doesn't fit systems in evidence in today's age" ~ BL

Incorrect.

"Dawkins loves to cite it as a prime god disqualifier." ~ BL

Because it works. It isn't about complexity, it's about redundant complexity. If I said the principle of internal combustion is the chief operative mechanism behind car engines, and you claimed gas gremlins were somehow involved, Occam's Razor removes the unnecessary complexity inherent in gas gremlins. Its that simple.

[BeauLeeman]

"It isn't about complexity, [or] redundant complexity."

Only if it can be established that there is/was a better way, and that involves conjecture in most cases. Even where redundancy can be shown (clotting cascade), that does not refute design, since a designer did it that way, based on chromosome availability perhaps, or limits to the 'tweaking' process. Omnicience is not relevant, since that term (and 'infinity') are man's ideas of what god is, coupled with reality (infinity is unproven).

[Reerrpad5515]

The point is that if there IS a natural explanation for a certain instance of complexity, positing a MORE complex, supernatural "thing" as a "possible" explanation fails utterly. Why? First, Occam's razor takes a might swing at it because it adds complexity to try to explain complexity. Second, It doesn't actually 'explain' anything. HOW does this "thing" interact? How often? How has it interacted with other parts of nature, and how can it be incorporated into science?

Superfluous, period.

[BeauLeeman]

"The point is that if there IS a natural explanation for a certain instance of complexity, positing a MORE complex, supernatural "thing" as a "possible" explanation fails utterly."

Supernatural is as seen through the 'man filter' of reason. Multiple universes have been hypothesized, yet defy natural laws. I view spirit entities (you/ me in essence) as non-Newtonian within our understanding, quark based perhaps, but supported by a plethora of evidence. Bioforms are vehicles for same.

[mouldsjr87]

@Reerrpad5515

are you saying that there is a natural explanation for how DNA could form? Talk about delusions of reality...

[Reerrpad5515]

Your comments present what we in the military call a 'target rich environment', but my trigger finger is getting tired.

Make a prediction based on your hypothesis, test it, and publish it. Qualify your 'agent(s)' and it's methods, and get back to me. Better yet, don't, just enjoy your Nobel Prize money, and post a big "I told you so" on youtube.

I'll be waiting.

[BeauLeeman]

"Make a prediction based on your hypothesis ... "

I'm working on it. I need to get some sleep as well. Service calls tomorrow.

Cheers,

Beau

[BeauLeeman]

"Where are you copy/pasting these arguments from?"

You tell me. Take any of my comments over a ten year period, and find a spot where I copied and pasted. NONE, unless I cite a reference.

[Reerrpad5515]

"You tell me." ~ BL

You are presenting them as your own, but I don't think you understand a good portion of what you write.

"Don't go along with 'any' crowd" ~ BL

You are a christian. I know it, you know it, everyone reading you knows it. You are betraying yourself with this obscurantist nonsense, and no one is fooled, least of all your sky-daddy. It's ok to be religious, it is not ok to derail science on behalf of your own personal metaphysically charitable delusions about reality.

[Reerrpad5515]

"I would suggest that the designer(s) saw competitiveness as a virtue" ~ BL

Spoken like a person who doesn't know a damn thing about suffering. It's surprising, really, the callousness with which your camp cashes out it's claims by balancing your desire for eternal bliss with a cost in human suffering, pain, and death, as though the second is justified by the first. Somehow, the word 'selfish', while fitting, doesn't have the punch necessary to really illuminate this narcissistic fairy tale.

[BeauLeeman]

"Spoken like a person who doesn't know a damn thing about suffering."

I didn't say I welcomed it, just that it comes with the territory. I have written off reports of lower back pain by others, then received mine (13 continuous months at this point). I still view corporeal life as one of many, and that you are not your DNA. So basically, no complaints.

By the way, I hold to ID, but differ with most in "my camp", many of whom hold to canonized religious views. My approach is purely empirical.

[Reerrpad5515]

"Spoken like a person who doesn't know a damn thing about suffering." ~ RP

"I have written off reports of lower back pain by others, then received mine" ~ BL

Lower back pain is your definition of suffering? Are you being deliberately obtuse? or have you really never left the 'burbs? I'm talking about....you know what, if you don't know what I'm talking about, this is a fruitless conversation. Suffice it to say, lower 'effing back pain isn't the suffering I was referring to.

[Reerrpad5515]

"My approach is purely empirical." ~ BL

OK, exhibit A:

"I still view corporeal life as one of many, and that you are not your DNA." ~ BL

Data. Now. Honestly, if you've got something here, I really would be interested. If not, drop the "purely empirical" nonsense. I can smell a creationist from a thousand miles away, and you reek of saddle-sweat on a dinosaur.

[BeauLeeman]

"I can smell a creationist from a thousand miles away, and you reek of saddle-sweat on a dinosaur."

Check out my comments online, including Forbes, Huffington Post, Spectator (UK) and most newspapers that accept comments, then get back to me. Check this one also: Florida Citizens for Science / archive 352

Bottom line. Don't go along with 'any' crowd, be it religiious or atheistic, since rational thot requires just that. Rational (self induced) thought.

[davidsfriend01]

@BeauLeeman "Regarding extinctions however, I say "so what?" Every computer, car and appliance made becomes extinct when a newer/better one comes along" But isn't God, sorry, the Intelligent Designer so awesome he can make the best one first?

[BeauLeeman]

@davidsfriend01 "But isn't God, sorry, the Intelligent Designer so awesome he can make the best one first?"

I view biologic design as an incremental process, similar to evo theory, but with intelligent input at certain points. I also see evidence of multiple designers, possibly surrogates to a higher authority, and who may be in league w/ea other, or in more of a competitive stance. Thus predators and parasites.

Now what was the question? ...

Oh yeah. No, no magic involved.

[davidsfriend01]

@BeauLeeman "Now what was the question? ...

Oh yeah. No, no magic involved."

The question was, Isnt the Intelligent Designer good enough to get it right on the first go?. Your answer is a long, but explanative, no.

The new question is, what evidence have you seen, or do you have, that an intelligence was needed at any point during the evolutionary process, as opposed to an unkown natural cause or agent? If your intelligent designer is natural, I would like to hear more regarding it

[BeauLeeman]

@davidsfriend01 - An "unknown natural cause" is a possibility, but at least in our observable space, form and function do not come from unguided [natural] causes. Nonetheless, since I am an objective and unbiassed observer, I don't rule that out.

But when I refer to 'intelligent input', I'm referring to a non-natural phenomenon. Ergo, a God, gods, or surrogates of a higher authority or intelligence acting either independently or under that/those authorities.

[davidsfriend01]

@BeauLeeman I think I have a better understanding of your position now.

"An "unknown natural cause" is a possibility, but at least in our observable space, form and function do not come from unguided [natural] causes." How far do you extend "observable space"? If you like I can give an explanation on the natural causes behind the form and function of a stars, galaxies, molecules, planets, organic chemistry, fire, etc...

[davidsfriend01]

@BeauLeeman "But when I refer to 'intelligent input', I'm referring to a non-natural phenomenon" now here is the crux of my point. What have you seen to make you consider non-natural causes even possible, let alone probable, in regards to non-human endevours? Nature, by definition, encompasses all the known universe. non-natural is, by definintion, outside the domain of the known universe, and that includes human endevours. How do you know the non-natural exists in the first place?

[BeauLeeman]

@davidsfriend01- Granted, but by 'non-natural' used in this context, I'm referring to occurences of natural causation, rather than guided causation. That should be clear by its correlation with its usage.

"non-natural is, by definintion, outside the domain of the known universe"

Not if you mean it as 'non-naturally occurring' as I posed it. But regarding what exists within the natural universe, I would include cognition [intelligence], but place it beyond synaptic function.

[davidsfriend01]

@BeauLeeman "Not if you mean it as 'non-naturally occurring' as I posed it." If that is what you meant, why didnt you say that? Equivocation.

"I'm referring to occurences of natural causation, rather than guided causation." Why cant occurences of natural causation be guided by non-intelligent processes? False dichotomy.

[davidsfriend01]

@BeauLeeman "But regarding what exists within the natural universe, I would include cognition [intelligence], but place it beyond synaptic function" I would include intelligence aswell. However, I have seen no cause to suspect it to be beyond synaptic function. What has given you cause to place cognition / intelligence beyond synaptic function?

[BeauLeeman]

@davidsfriend01 - Direct personal experience. But beyond what I've experienced to offer as a verification, [it fails as such, w/o a publishing of the details], simple logic points to the biologic forms as vehicles for a higher [separate] consciousness, rather than consciousness in toto.

Firstly, the notion of accidental formation[s] due to chance events defies the extreme complexity and organization in anyone's plain view. The reductionist position is science's failed pleading.

[davidsfriend01]

@BeauLeeman "Firstly, the notion of accidental formation[s] due to chance events defies the extreme complexity and organization in anyone's plain view." I agree with you completely on this point. However, to my knowledge noone is claiming accident and chance to be the cause for complexity.

"The reductionist position is science's failed pleading." Care to explain exactly what you mean by "Reductionist position" and how science has adopted it? I dont want to misrepresent what you mean.

[BeauLeeman]

Well David, a 'reductionist view' can mean several things. I use it is the sense that all observed phenomena can be reduced to [explained by] physical laws. This assumes of course, that all physical laws have been defined.

Quantum physics is an example of the falsity of that assumption. So when I term the 'science approach' reductionism, I mean it as being unable to delve into these areas, at least for now.

In short, there are undefined realms, perhaps at the quantum level.

[davidsfriend01]

@BeauLeeman "Quantum physics is an example of the falsity of that assumption" Considering your assumption was false this statement is meaningless.

"So when I term the 'science approach' reductionism, I mean it as being unable to delve into these areas, at least for now." How does not being able to explain something yet make the scientific method "reductionist"? It is merely still looking.

[davidsfriend01]

@BeauLeeman "In short, there are undefined realms, perhaps at the quantum level." You're right, there is alot about the quantum world we are yet to understand. how does that make intelligence independant of synaptic function or make the hypothesis of Intelligent Design viable? Is this turning into a very verbose "God'o'the gaps" argument?

[shallbeagain]

""Design without designer" makes as much sense as 'logical deductions' without the use of 'logic'."

Your a biomedical engineer and still manage to make such a ridiculous statement.

"likely a 'designed in' mechanism to improve species survival "

Apart from the fact that 99.9% of all species became extinct so logical deduction would lead one to believe we have a terrible programmer to thank for that. But how would one test this as a scientific hypothesis?

[BeauLeeman]

"Design without designer" makes as much sense as 'logical deductions' without the use of 'logic'.

Natural selection would be fine if it had anything but junk mutations to select from.

'Selected' micro alterations are observable within lineages, likely a 'designed in' mechanism to improve species survival (notice I didn't say 'kinds').

To extend that to synergistic complexities is an over-extension of logic, an extrapolation made famous by Darwin, the "greatest scientist of all time." [4:38]

[RJL738]

I think this will be an interesting debate.