The Viability of Intelligent Design 3/3

[ShawDAMAN]

where's the rest of this debate?

[princessAyleen]

as long as he is onto fairy tales , he can never be onto something, he is a donk

FACTUALLY

[Dark1777]

Another issue I have is that WLC may not know how science works in the academic sense (honestly not a jab) as I have numerous problems with his claims on physics before. I'd be happy to work with ID theorists if they could make it into a science but so far it isn't. They have not published any evidence to make peer review possible, they only run a negative political campaign against biology as it stands. ID has no disprovable model and no real world applications and evolution has dozens.

[Dark1777]

WLC sometimes is a very good debater, but not here. Biology is my field of study and I am very, very annoyed. First off I'd like to mention that a large part of his debates he argues about the big bang theory in matter of fact terms when it is far less concrete than evolutionary theory.

He draws from the less than .1% fringe viewpoints (Behe/Dembski) in academia first off. Quoting Behe is laughable after his public claims and ignorance about the peer review on the immune system was exposed.

[Christianjr4]

He quoted Behe and Dembski because they are considered the preeminent ID theorists alive today.

I reviewed your comments here and you've yet to provide a detailed example of where and how Craig is wrong in his claims. Could you be more specific? Thanks

[Dark1777]

The most important point to make first before addressing the unfounded claims is this:

WLC never provided evidence for the viability of ID but ran a mud slinging campaign against minor aspects of the current model of evolution. Even if I did not contest his arguments against modern biology his ID remarks still can not be defined as science and have no scientific applications.

It is also important to understand that over 99% of biologists do not share Behe's position. Worth considering...

[Dark1777]

1. His comments on the peppered moths are jaw dropping. No modern biologist ever claimed that a species plans ahead of time beneficial mutations and then activates them. It is an example that nobody should contest of natural selection of how a changing environment might preserve one mutation more highly than another. Craig's remarks show he is unqualified in even the basics of *this* debate.

[Dark1777]

2. Behe was publicly exposed for not reading the literature on the immune system just years ago. Why would you not suspect his claims on that subject at this point?

3. Craig claims there is "limitations" for the amount of change mutations can cause in a species. Were he to demonstrate that was actually factual he could win a Nobel Prize.

[Christianjr4]

I would with you that Craig needs to provide more evidence for the claim that mutations can't cause a change in species but I think he's on to something when he says little evidence has been provided for the claim that these mutations can be extrapolated to every species. It would seem that both sides need to give more evidence for their opposing conclusions.

[Dark1777]

Both sides need more evidence? While Craig or you if you care to, can move the goal post wherever you wish there is still no comparison. ID has no positive evidence for its claims and modern biology has hundreds of thousands of points of data supporting its claim. This includes several instances of speciation in the wild and controlled in the lab of animal, plants and bacteria. Just browse through the Nature archives. There is no comparison in this regard as one side has all the evidence.

[WanderingSeer]

@Christianjr4 he's not only "on to something", he's correct.

[Christianjr4]

Are you talking about Behe here or Craig? Craig stated that peppered moths do not show evolution and that is undisputed as far as a mutation is concerned.

[Dark1777]

Craig is out of his league here as his comment is without any worth or merit (You are being civil so I don't want to not be but I must drive this point home for non-life sciences people).

There is *no* argument that the camouflage of the moths is a mutation by definition as mutations are so common that every person has hundreds at birth and we have lists of thousands of new ones arising. The moths illustrate natural selection principles for mutations already evolved, simple population change.

[Christianjr4]

Craig wasn't trying to argue that ID is science. Neither was he trying to argue that intelligent design is true. He was only arguing that it was viable (an option worth pursuing in light of the deficiencies of random mutation and natural selection).

Also, there is much more to this issue than straight biology. In fact, many of the claims Behe makes on biology are agreed upon by biologists (such as the eye, or point mutations). It's just ID itself where the disagreement largely comes.

[Dark1777]

ID has in fact invested efforts in labeling itself a science so by saying it is valid it condones that. My peers teaching science in high schools have had to deal with ID propaganda *in their science classrooms* which adds to the fact whatever you label it it has been used to disrupt science education. "Theory of Intelligent Design" has been used misleadingly before as well as suggesting it is a model.

[Dark1777]

I really don't see many deficiencies with random mutation and natural selection scientific models and those that exist are offered nothing in terms of models by ID. Nothing at all. Why would you ever replace a model that works almost flawlessly with one that does not work at all just because it is guilty of not being perfect?

[Dark1777]

I will challenge that biologists agree with Behe on the eye or point mutations. I know of none that do (even Christians) at my sizable institute or in the big journals. One light sensitive cell isn't that impressive of a mutation and from there you can make a probable progression to an eye.

Point mutations have no obvious strong limiting factors & even if they did they are only one type. Not many biologists feel the need to put up extra mechanisms to explain the fact of evolution.

[Balabaw2]

If Behe's claims are agreed upon by biologists, why did Darrel Falk say that his book would not even be acceptable as an undergraduate honours thesis in biology?

[YinHoNg]

Is a q&a part going to be uploaded Cjr4?

[Christianjr4]

The Q&A portion will not be uploaded. I've sent you the link to where you can find the full video of the debate, including the entire Q&A session.

[adstanra]

are you having trouble downloading Dr Ayala"s part?

[Christianjr4]

The audio in the other parts is garbage. I have no motivation to edit it and then upload it. I rather wait till the high quality video comes before I put it up.

[adstanra]

ah, too bad...I have not seen Dr Ayala before and cannot really understand Dr Craig without Ayala"s views.Hope the video comes out soon.

The audio here seems quite good though...

[Christianjr4]

Yeah the audio's decent here, but the feedback from the recording is really bad in other parts.

[gorilla199uncensored]

Its not about debate but a theist claiming his religion is correct denying the evidence and nothing more.

[SoSaCA100]

6:14 Dr.Craig mentions that Dr.Ayala is confused,and he is indeed confused because as a christian he is facing a theological problem with the designer,but as Dr.lane mentioned it's not a scientific objection.

[RobertBaral365]

Dark powers caressing my mind. In my unveiling, a body of shade. My heart, his infernal tongue. Blasphemous rituals lead the way to Lucifer. We adore the work of the devil. On a path of evil incarnation. He is below and above you. His life is ecstasy in yours. Under the inverted cross of the lord. See your soul in a black dimension. Pray to the weak god of infinity. Your pallid prayers are forgotten. You are the stranger to our champion. I lead you to the throne of Old Nick.

[geoffreyefloyd]

LOL

[geoffreyefloyd]

hawthornepark-surreyDOTblogspo­tDOTcom/2009/02/poetry-war-bet­ween-good-and-evilDOThtml

are you the same robert from that site? Is that your poem? ROFL

[RobertBaral365]

Holy faith buried deep inside the ground. Scattered prayers will never be found. A powerful vortex of dark unholy power. Victims of the master daemon's ax. Skull eyes shall weep the tears of blood. Their souls are now as black as night. The mortal remains buried in Lucifer's park. Don't play over there after dark. I wrote these words with the blood of faith. With the death of light and rotting prayers. Demons and darkness rule the Earth. Our mission is now complete. Hail Satan!

[geoffreyefloyd]

ok...lol

I think that qualifies as spam, interesting none the less...albeit a bit off topic.

[RobertBaral365]

Follow the blackest part of your soul. The dark messiah is who we search for. Cold rays of moonlight describing his rank. Satan's blood, it infects your soul. Satan's blood, it is dark as coal. Covered with blood of faith and dead prayers. We walk deeper into demon's territory. Holiness destroyed as the gates torn free. He is the master of dark arts. Hypnotic eyes to break your mind. Mystic circle will close this oath. Burn the light as a symbol to fight. Satan and I are as one.

[gluemoae]

If ID is true, there is no reason why there would be unique lifeforms on e.g. isolated islands. Yet this is exactly what we see and it makes perfect sense if we assume that the reason is adaptation to the environment through natural selection. It's really common sense stuff; any fourth-grader should be able to see this problem for ID.

[crumbum4104]

The truth is ID isn't scientific, its just another variation of creation science. It does not subject its arguments and hypotheses to the scientific method and scientific peer reviews. It skips this and goes straight for political influence to be official and in the public school system. People should not accept this and scientists should publicly speak out more against it.

[SoSaCA100]

crumbum4104,I would like to hear your objection to ID because even Christians are having a debate about ID and this video is just an example of that.

[raoskaos]

The first 10 seconds are hilaaaaaarious.

[HumanStrategy]

Agreed. Craig is a joke unto himself.

[CreationistCrap]

Spoiler; there is no viability of intelligent design.

[fenoglios]

Craig is a powerhouse.

[sevven1]

Craig is warping, blinding and wasting his intellect with a delusion.

[fenoglios]

Well... even if ID is a delusion... that really just goes to prove my point. He's showing ID's immunity when not even committed to it! Freakin' crazy. I'd like to see YOU defend a position you don't even hold as well as he does... hahahaha

[drumrnva]

@fenoglios Nobody would argue that he's not very intelligent and a good debater. But Craig's qualities have nothing to do with whether or not the god of the bible exists.

[drsuessre14]

Christianjr4, are you going to upload the whole debate? Hope so. Thanks!

[noodles321321]

Why did Craig bring up Ayala's theological argument against the design inference if he didn't bring it up? It looks like somebody's attacking strawmen...

[Christianjr4]

Dr. Ayala did bring it up. So far I've only uploaded Craig's opening statement. In the debate Dr. Ayala went first to give his opening presentation (I'll upload that shortly). After that Craig delivered his opening statement which is what I have put up here.

[noodles321321]

Ah. Sorry.

[darktango78]

Christianjr4,

Will you be posting the rest of the debate?

[adstanra]

Consider a Trabant and a dolphin born with hind legs( rare but does occur). Both apparent faulty designs.2 hypotheses-design or not.The only way to scientifically show design( unless you are omniscient and can rule out all possble natural explanations) is to produce a designer.We can for the Trabant, but not for the dolphin.Any speculation about why a designer would give a dolphin hind legs ( a jokester God?) or remains hidden is theology, not science. So how is ID going to survive as a science?

[adstanra]

It will be limited to criticising any natural explanations and a designer of the gaps. But why infer design in the first place? We know that dolphins are produced from their parents ( no supernatural explanation required). We know about common ancestry and have huge evidence that dolphins evolved from land mammals( why they sometimes have hindlegs and never are born with wings for eg).Plot ancestry out and you find a nested heirarchial bush of life consistent with mindless trial and error.

[jamesmagmar126]

Also, since there are still gaps in evolutionary theory, are the people he is referencing really the best people to consult on the matter? Like M. Behe (Chemist), W. Dembski (Mathematician & Theologan), and of course the man giving this presentation W.L. Craig (Theologan).

WOW, talk about experts in the field!

[noodles321321]

james, tone it down a little will you? You're in enemy territory. Laughing at the opposition isn't scoring you brownie points.

[jamesmagmar126]

Oh don't worry, I don't laugh to try and win brownie points, I do it because it is a natural reaction.

[noodles321321]

Fair enough >.>

[jamesmagmar126]

But I do admit that it gets me more than a little snippy at times hehe.

[Christianjr4]

This was a debate about ID theory. The preeminent advocated of ID today are Michael Behe and William Dembski so I don't see anything wrong with Craig using them as his top sources. Those people are experts when it comes to ID. As for Craig himself, I would agree he isn't really qualified to talk in this area. He admitted that even before the debate.

[jamesmagmar126]

Hahaha I knew this is EXACTLY what the case for intelligent design would be. Not at all putting forward a theory of design, but instead looking for the areas in evolution where there is still uncertainty and discussion. Do you have ANYTHING to offer us in the way of the intelligent design theory William Lane Craig? Anything that we can actually work with? I doubt it! An absolute waste of time!

[Christianjr4]

Please put aside your bias and focus on what was actually said by Craig. Dr. Craig wasn't offering ID as the truth. Notice that he explicitly said he didn't know if ID was justified. Rather, he argued that ID was a viable option to pursue given the limitations of unguided random mutation and natural selection to account for the evolutionary history of all life.

[jamesmagmar126]

I'm aware he wasn't offering ID as truth, that would be odd. When I first watched the video, I did notice the unusually vague, wishy-washy title of the lecture, asking whether ID was "viable". It seems silly to address such a question, since you can make almost anything you want viable if there is a gap that hasn't yet been filled. Even though this is as far as ID can be taken, it still has ramifications.

[jamesmagmar126]

I don't know if WLC said limitations. I'll have a look at the videos again and check, but he should know better than to already decide that there are limitations, rather than works-in-progress with regard to some areas. Since ID is trying to shake off it's ties to creation science and not promote the idea of God, I wonder why WLC and other Christians are still interested in it. Do you know why? I'd be genuinely interested to hear.

[sevven1]

When one recognizes that in order for them to make their argument they must abandon what's at core of their beliefs WLC and other christians' claims that ID isn't "tied to creationism" can be clearly seen as an obvious deception and a seemingly unwitted admission on their part of the failings of their argument.

Notably, these people are also in a sense guilty of feigning a denial of their God in order to vainly conceal, what should be painfully obvious to all, their true motivation. Charlatans.

[jamesmagmar126]

Quite true. But even their efforts to completely seperate the Intelligent Design idea from their core religious beliefs won't help it become recognised as a scientific theory. ID is a lost cause.

[jamesmagmar126]

But also, I think that if serious scientists actually appear on a stage with the ID proponents, then this is giving some people the idea that there is a serious scientific conflict between two theories, that there is genuinely a scientific controversy, which is very misleading.

[Eastmanarium]

lol intelligent design

[regelemihai]

Interesting response. Dr Craig wouldn't stand a chance.

[Eastmanarium]

He wouldn't stand a chance against anyone scientifically literate.

[regelemihai]

Well so far he kinda' did. Including with renowned physicists and philosophers of science.

Making assertions without actually knowing anything about the person is a little childish.

[Eastmanarium]

lol. Anything about him? He's a philosopher and is apparently completely scientifically illiterate. The beginning of the video - "Given the weakness of the scientific evidence of the Darwinian mechanisms.." Right... because the vast fossil record with an enormous number of transitionary fossils, DNA, as well of the whole field of biology haven't given overwhelming evidence in its favor or anything. This man is a philosopher of pseudoscience, nothing more.

[PraetorDrew]

Craig didn't argue against common descent in this video. He is disputing the potency of random mutation and natural selection. If it can be shown that those two mechanisms are inadequate to produce common descent, then a new mechanism needs to be added, such as intelligently directed mutations.

Intelligent design is not creationism.

[Eastmanarium]

It hasn't been shown that there are any mechanisms missing to produce common decent, and there is still no necessity for for anything "intelligently directed."

The U.S. gov't says otherwise. Design is just a synonym for creation, cintelligent design proponentist.

[PraetorDrew]

Is the U.S. Government now the arbiter of what is true or not? Since I am an Old Earth (Progressive) creationist, you could rightfully use the label "creationist" on me. But Behe believes in common descent, so how is that creationism?

Do you believe in theistic evolution? Perhaps that's just another term for "creationism" as well.

[Eastmanarium]

Well, no, but it was a ruling that was based on science, and is a position backed by nearly the whole scientific community. Behe was also part of that ruling and was caught in his flawed/untruthful arguments. I'd recommend you watch the documentary on the case - it's probably on here. If I can find it...

[regelemihai]

You try to revoke my denounciation of your apparent lack of knowledge concerning his debating/academic credentials byt saying " yeah right, he's a theologian, har har har?" Cause' if that's the case, I'll be patient and wait for a less moronic response from you.

I happened to disagree with Craig or any other theologian that debates evolution, mind you. But dismissing him as scientific illiterate? You wanna read some of scientific publications? You won't get past the first page.

[Eastmanarium]

And - how did he put forth an actual argument in favor of design at all? It's absent from this, as with intelligent design, the premise is the conclusion. It just is not scientific in any way whatsoever, especially when all scientific evidence is to the contrary.

[PraetorDrew]

I think the argument is as follows:

1. If random mutation and natural selection are inadequate to produce common descent, then some features are best explained in terms of design

2. Those two mechanisms are inadequate to explain common descent

Conclusion: Some features are best explained in terms of design

How is this argument circular? Is long as you don't presuppose that design is impossible (which would lead to a circular argument), the argument seems valid

[Eastmanarium]

How is the conclusion rational? It essentially is based with a premise of "if," then states it as true following it, not based on anything empirical? Is it not a huge jump to say if it can't be explained by 2 things together, that something else just *must* explain it, despite there being no actual observable evidence?

When it comes to scientific theories, I don't have "belief," though I don't particularly see a problem with the idea of theistic evolution, though i would have to be unguided.

[PraetorDrew]

Most of Behe's empirical arguments are in his book: The Edge of Evolution.

I'm curious as to why theistic evolution must necessarily be unguided. What if it turns out that's what happened? Shouldn't we at least be open to the possibility?

The moderator of this debate, Bradley Monton, is an atheist, but still believes that ID deserves a fair hearing in the scientific community, and a chance to compete in the marketplace of ideas.

[adstanra]

I wouldn't object to a statement like this in science class

"there are some people who believe that it is IMPOSSIBLE for many biological things to arise naturally, so they conclude that a supernatural or alien intelligence is responsible. They have not been able to produce the designer as it/they wish to remain hidden or are dead. these people are not necessarily religious"...lol

[Birdieupon]

adstanra:

You don't need to produce the designer in order to prove that something is designed. The evidence should be contained within the entity you are examining.

If ID were proven, then the *next* thing to do would be to try to find the designer. It's not an irrelevant question, but a separate one following as a consequence from the conclusion.

e.g. You wouldn't rule out murder, as the cause of a corpse, if you couldn't find the murderer yet the evidence proved he was repeatedly shot.

[adstanra]

Hey Birdie..Since the designer wishes to remain hidden, you have to show that design is the only possible explanation. ID has not done that! What it has done is question the prevailing theory,then jump to design( and we know why !) In fact the pattern that empirically has emerged is consistent with a mindless process. Difficult to imagine how an intelligence could or would create such a pattern.The crime scene is consistent with an algorythmic process governed by laws of physics and biology

[AtomicKinetic12]

That's only due to fact that we know about such processes of how people get bullet wounds prior. In no way do we know about how the universe was designed. This was never experienced before. People getting was shot was.

[gorilla199uncensored]

But if said the invisable mickey mouse murdered this non existent body neithe rof which I have any have never seen or have any evidence for and the evidence is aginst them, would you think its true?

Better still the science proves their is no designer unless its a retarded designer who went out the way to plant evolution evidence.

[CreationistCrap]

being atheist does not a scientist make, ID only deserves as much of a 'fair hearing' as flat earth, science isn't about ideas being created equal, science is about evidence, thus far ID lacks it completely.

[adstanra]

It is "begging the question" as you have built in the conclusion from premise #1, plus #1 does not necessarily follow.

Your argument could take on this form 1. If all natural hypotheses have been excluded, then there must be a supernatural explanation

2.all natural hypotheses have been excluded

therefore a supernatural explanation exists.

You could produce a designer.

[PraetorDrew]

Openness to supernatural explanations is not begging the question, as someone who is open to both types of explanations could vote either way. To preclude supernatural explanations a priori, you have to prove that supernatural explanations cannot exist, for naturalism is a claim to know something.

Openness to both natural and supernatural explanations, on the other hand, is a neutral stance.

[adstanra]

I don't think neutrality is rational if the evidence clearly supports one option. I am not neutral to the claim that aliens from another universe have designed life on earth. Why would I be? You have decided a priori, for religious reasons, to believe in an intelligent designer. Christianity depends on it and has always got that knowledge /belief through authority, revelations and personal experience. We don't precude anything, but follow the evidence. You have not made a case for a designer.

[adstanra]

A nested heirarchial bush of life, common ancestry, sexual reproduction, 99% of species now extinct,predation,mindless algorythmic laws of physics and biology are all consistent with a mindless trial and error process and inconsistent with a mind involved. You have not produced a designer, proposed any mechanism as to how this designer might accomplish his/her/their activity. You rely upon revelation and dogma and theology. This is not science!

[Eastmanarium]

Why must you prove that the supernatural cannot exist, when we know that naturalistic explanations do? The two are not objectively equally valid.

[adstanra]

It is difficult for humans to imagine that God could design something flawed. Can a good God design smallpox virus and a world governed by predation. This is why theology is so complicated and things like a fall have to be developed to explain things. Man is to blame...not God. They want it both ways.

IF we can infer a design we can infer something about the designer from the design? I suspect Ayala was arguing that what observation finds is inconsistent with a Good God hypothesis.

[a012345]

WTF, so he's comparing a mechanical inanimate man made object to an evolving animal made from another animal biologically?

Also, he asked another ID believer if another god could have designed it? FAIL!

[Christianjr4]

He wasn't making that kind of comparison. He was using the examples of two different intelligently designed vehicles to show the flaw in Dr. Ayala's THEOLOGICAL reasoning. In essence, he was saying that Dr. Ayala's argument against ID based on the notion that biological organisms are inadequately designed does nothing to show that they aren't intelligently designed, however incompetent the designer may happen to be.

[iDeist]

Great set of videos. Thanks for the uploads. 5*