Intelligent Design

In this discussion we see a creationist using arguments for Intelligent Design taken from the "Discovery Institute" which he seems to have accepted at face value...  
  

	Discussion	Commentary
JimC	What is the evidence for the existence of God?
Creationist	I am convinced of God's existence when I study a flower?	How is that evidence?
JimC	Can you name one thing which is not evidence of God, in your opinion?
Creationist	Dog poop	That's a new one!
JimC	Why?
Creationist	Better to explain why I see God in a flower (by that I simply mean that He is the Creator behind the flower) rather than why I don't see him in dog poop or and ice cream cone or a pencil.  You asked if there was something that didn't make me think of God. Why not poop? There is no why. I've never thought of it. Belly button lint is another one. And toe jam too.  I'm just saying that those things aren't remarkable but for many reasons a flower is. Perhaps it's the artist in my that thinks about flowers this way.  DNA structure is another "evidence" for God (in my view). Math is another evidence as is musical theory (I'm a musician having studied theory and played since I was a kid).	Avoids the question by presenting a different question.  I didn't ask that at all! The structure of DNA and the existence of music are facts, not evidence. God is an explanation (a hypothesis in fact).
JimC	I did not ask you if there was something that didn't make you think of God. We were discussing evidence. This is what I said... "Can you name one thing which is not evidence of God, in your opinion?"  The example you gave was dog poop, and as I understand it, this is because you don't consider dog poop to be remarkable. So to summarise - correct me if I'm wrong - the evidence for the existence of God is anything that you consider to be "remarkable."
Creationist	No. This is the problem with these sorts of discussions. When trying to convey a thought one chooses a word and then the reader zeros in on it.  I see God in all of creation. But then one could get picky and choose something like a belly button which is a thing in creation. That misses the point entirely.  I picked a flower because it reveals to me something about God. Perhaps it reveals many things to others too. When I study a flower, I see certain attributes that are consistent with what one would expect to see if the flower were designed by some grand artist. There are certain artistic principles that all artists use when creating different types of art. The fact that all the these principles can be seen in nature (the created world) including the "world" in the farthest corners of space and the unseen world (which through technology we can now see with striking clarity) is "remarkable." Something that is remarkable is simply worthy of noticing. A remarkable thing stands out from the rest of things we can see and causes the viewer to look "deeper" into the thing.  I wouldn't expect an atheist to see these things in the same way that I see them. But like me, you have to account for the design in nature (not apparent design as it's clearly evident that design exists.) You point to science, I point to God. Science can't account for everything in our created world but an all knowing Creator can.
		What's wrong with trying to understand the words used and what they mean? Perhaps "misses the point" is a euphamism for "destroys my argument". Indeed, flowers reveal remarkable things about nature.  And they can be explained by a "Grand Artist" but that's not the only explanation.  Natural selection accounts for the apparent design we see in nature, and goes on to explain dog poop and belly button lint and all the other things that the Creationist seems unable to explain.
JimC	Again, my question wasn't "what do you see God in?" You said you had evidence. I'm still not sure of what your evidence is. Are you now saying that the evidence for God is that everything in nature has obviously been designed? Or are you saying that the evidence for God is that certain things in nature have obviously been designed?
Creationist	Evidence for God comes from many places. There is obvious design in nature that random forces cannot account for. DNA is one. The eye is another. The flagellum motor still another. But if you are committed to naturalism, none of this matters.	Again, an inaccurate assertion that the only explanation for DNA, eyes and the flagellum can only be explained by God.
JimC	You seem to have made an assumption that there are only two possible options: "random forces" or a single god. But let's put that to one side for now. You also assume the "irreducible complexity" hypothesis is fact. But let's stick to your "obvious design" idea for a while. In your opinion, is there anything in nature which does not have the attribute of what you call "obvious design"?  What would something that had not been designed look like? What properties would such a thing have, which would make you say... "That's definitely not designed?"
Creationist	With all due respect, I'm not going down the "definitely not designed" path. I don't think such a thing actually exists. It's more productive to focus on things with "obvious" design. I'm not a huge fan of bunny trails. The flagellum motor has obvious design. We can talk about that if you like.	With all due respect, that's just avoiding an awkward question.  It's more productive for the Creationist to focus on the things he wants to focus on.  and again the erroneous flagellum motor example taken straight from the ID literature.
JimC	I think you've answered the question. You say you don't think un-designed things exist. Therefore you must think everything that exists is designed. You might be saying that it's impossible for something to exist if it is not designed. Is that right? Again you state the flagellum motor is "obvious design". (You're a consumer of Behe pseudo-science I assume). The existence of the flagellum motor (and rotating propulsion in bacteria generally) can be explained by evolution through natural selection.  http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13663-evolution-myths-the-bacterial-flagellum-is-irreducibly-complex.html (I understand that you prefer the supernatural explanation). Plus... even if the existence of an organism cannot be explained by evolution, it is wrong to assume that the only other possible explanation is "God did it". That's the fallacious God of the Gaps argument.
Creationist	Well it wouldn't make sense to think that God created everything but didn't "design" it. But understandably there are some things that have a clear appearance of design when other do not. But I think you're right as I can't think of anything I'd say wasn't designed by God. I like to choose my own words so I won't say it's impossible for something to exist that wasn't designed. I'd put it differently.  Interesting that you'd call Behe's science "pseudo-science." Rather supports my assertion that "real" science likes to stack the deck and exclude those with whom they disagree. Sorry if you don't like Behe but he is a scientist and he is not alone. The flagellum motor cannot be accounted for by evolution or natural selection. That is an impossible task. Scientists have tried but they fall short. And I notice a dishonesty in the article you post. Intelligent design is NOT an offshoot of creationism. Intelligent Design is a science that comes from the point of view that there is an intelligent cause behind things seen in creation. They counter the claim that all can be explained through natural processes.  Why wouldn't I prefer a supernatural explanation? I think it make more sense than does natural selection and I think the flagellum motor blows a huge hole in Darwinian theory. I understand that you prefer naturalism. So what? The fact that an organism cannot be explained by evolution (and there are many examples of this) but CAN be explained by an intelligent force should matter.  SETI looks to an intelligent force in space but refuses to see the obvious intelligent design implications of the world they study. Instead, they dishonestly seek ONLY naturalistic explanations. A stacked deck. This is allowed, that is not. Intelligent Design does not say God did it, I say that. Intelligent Design says an intelligent agent of some kind is behind the formation of of life (and indeed the universe). Just like your science would say that if we receive an intelligent signal from outer space that signal originated from an intelligent cause.	Says "I'd put it differently" but doesn't put it differently. Just ignores the point. It's a fact that Behe's science isn't real science.  Stacking the deck seems to be a euphamism for having rules to follow which Behe can't follow.  And yet again the assertion that the flagellum motor can't be explained by evolution when it can - and has. Agreed that ID begins with the axiom that there is an "intelligent cause".  That's the problem. And again, ignoring the fact that the flagellum motor is explained by Darwinian evolution.  This is not a fact!.  SETI? How on earth is that relevent to anything here? Intelligent Design does say God did it - that's why it's funded by Evangelical Christian organisations.
JimC	Obviously if your axiom is that God created everything, then you would have to assume God designed everything. In fact, with that axiom in place, you don't need any evidence for God at all. So we could have saved a lot of time here if you'd stated that assumption in the first place! Behe's science is not science. It is pseudo-science. It does not follow any scientific process and does not meet any criteria for publication in peer reviewed science journals, which is why he publishes it himself. It's nothing to do with a stacked deck. Behe's ideas aren't discredited because of a global conspiracy. they are discredited because they are baloney. Science has rules to eliminate speculation and false logic being presented as fact. Behe ignores those rules.  The flagellum motor can be explained by evolution and has been. Michael Behe will not be winning the Nobel Prize for superseding Darwin's theory of natural selection. I suspect a scientist will one day. But it hasn't happened yet.  http://truth-saves.com/pdfs/ASM_flagellum.pdf You state as fact that there are organisms that cannot be explained by evolution. But you provide no examples. And even if you did, your assumption that they can be explained by "intelligent force" is a false one, because the term "intelligent force" is just more pseudo-science, in an attempt to avoid using the word God. "Intelligent Force" explains nothing because "intelligent force" itself has no definition and is just more pseudo-science. Explaining something with a concept that can't be defined is no explanation.  SETI is an attempt to detect alien life. SETI is looking for artificially created signals from lifeforms similar to us. Our earthly radio communication signals drift into space space, maybe other civilisations do the same. Maybe we can detect them. Maybe advanced civilisations are deliberately beaming electromagnetic signals to announce their existence. it's a very long shot. It's a very primitive approach. We are now on the verge of developing methods to detect life on other planets from biological evidence which has much more potential than SETI. The problem with SETI is how do you know an intelligent signal is an intelligent signal? It could be a pulsar. The existence of life on other planets does not support the concept of intelligent design. If we discover alien life on another planet, it would suggest that life didn't just evolve on this planet - it evolved on other planets.  You say ID does not say God did it. The fact is ID is used as an argument for God and that is what you are doing. But ironically, you are right. With a big enough particle accelerator we could create universes ourselves, perhaps within the next 200 years. We might even be able to design them. And we are not gods.(unless your definition of a god is an entity that can create universes). If we can do it - there's no reason why other civilisations in other universes have not already done it. It seems universes can occur naturally or artificially, just like snowflakes.
Creationist	You're right that I don't need evidence for the existence of God but it's there just the same. And just as I may assume God's existence, you assume He doesn't exist. For that matter, you assume a materialistic explanation for the universe and all that is in it. That is what you pursue.  It's complete rubbish that Behe's science isn't true science. That is delusional. Scientists throughout the ages have ignored the rules. That is why we've progressed so far. You have too much at stake to give those like Behe (and he's far from alone) any credit. You MUST discredit him which is why I ignore such nonsense.  The flagellum motor has never been adequately explained. The explanations assume too much. Again, too much at stake for Materialists. Must attack the messenger any way they can. I find it amusing. IF it were just a flagellum we were talking about that would be one thing but the flagellum is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.  One cannot explain the flagellum motor via evolution without numerous assumptions. You cannot explain the detailed structure of DNA and it's COMPLEX system of information without making assumptions. I only need ONE example that evolution fails to meet. Darwin and the scientists of his day thought a cell was like a glob of jello. Had Darwin known of the flagellum or the DNA he would cringe at his inadequate theory. Nothing explains the complexity of the cell like an Intelligent Agent does. Evolution has to do contortions to even come close all the while making numerous assumptions that you and others must ignore.  SETI is an attempt to decect INTELLIGENT alien life. SETI is looking for INTELLIGENTLY created signals from INTELLIGENT lifeforms similar to us. You deliberately leave out the word "intelligent" in your comments about alien life. Very telling.  Scientists infer intelligence all the time. For that matter, every day people like you and I infer intelligence. Only when it comes to things of biology and cosmology etc do scientists refuse to allow intelligence a foot in the door.  IF science detects "life" from biological material on another planet they will assume, once again, too much and ignore, once again, too much.  You say ID is used as an argument for God and I use it because I am a Christian. What would you expect me to say? The Easter Bunny is the responsible agent? Your assumption that other civilisations in other universes could create universes is a huge assumption on your part. Far more unlikely than my belief in God. Here you have zero proof that other civilizations have created a universe or two but you suggest it just the same. But, in the same breath you reject the idea of an Intelligent Agent (such as God) because of lack of proof! Amazing.	Just saying the evidence is there isn't good enough. What is the evidence! It really isn't true science! Science progresses because of the rules.   It's not that I must discredit Behe - his work discredits him. YES IT HAS!  STOP IGNORING THE INFORMATION I'VE PROVIDED! And if it's just the tip of the iceberg, why make such a fuss about the tip - why not show us the iceberg? For the nth time - The flagellum is explained by natural selection. So is DNA. So are cells. Quite an extraordinary level of denial going on here.  Yes - so what?  It's looking for extraterrestrial life. How could life not be intelligent? I didn't deliberately leave out the word lintelligence. "Intelligent Life" is a tautology. Life has intelligence; intelligence is an attribute of life. And intelligence isn't an inference. It's a fact! For example? You could say that - it's impossible to disprove. Like God. It's not an assumption - it's a hypothesis. No one said there was proof.  And I never rejected the idea of an "intelligent agent" because of lack of proof. Lack of evidence is the point.  God is a hypothesis. One of many.
JimC	Behe's science is not "true" science because it ignores the rules. Specifically, he ignores the rules of a hypothesis having to make predictions so it can be tested, and having those tests reproduced and peer reviewed. He discredits himself by proposing hypothesis as fact. It's a shame people believe what he says without checking the facts. Every theory he has put forward has been soundly demolished by any scientists with the spare time to do so.  The flagellum is explained by evolution and has been. I've sent you the explanation, you're ignoring it. DNA can be explained by evolution, and has been. Complexity is not proof of design. The flagellum is not the tip of any iceberg. It's not any part of any iceberg.  The extraordinary thing about Darwin't theory is that it has been confirmed and made even more robust since the discovery of DNA and numerous other discoveries. Evolution through natural selection does explain the complexity of a cell. explains the complexity of a cell. The extraordinary thing about Darwin's theory is how it made predictions which have since been tested and validated long after he died. Evolution by natural selection explain the complexity in nature which you perceive to be design. Intelligent Design explains nothing at all - because it's not an explanation.  As for intelligent alien life - I did not deliberately omit the word intelligence and I'm happy to include it, but bear in mind we don't have a definition of intelligence. So let's assume that SETI is looking to detect signals from intelligent alien life similar to us, on other planets. I'm still not sure what your point is. That would be evidence of intelligent life evolving on other planets. The problem is how do we know a signal is natural or artificial. Some of the first signals detached seemed to be "intelligent" but they were natural signals from pulsars. It's very difficult to determine if something is an intelligent signal "designed" by an intelligent extra-terrestiral intelligence, or if it's natural. Anyway - I'm just not getting your SETI argument at all especially how it relates to God. Can you explain? Perhaps a new thread? I agree with you by the way - yes you might as well say the Easter Bunny is the responsible agent. It is just as impossible to disprove that hypothesis as it is to disprove any god you care to name. Any supernatural explanation is unfalsifiable and therefore just speculation. If you believe that our universe is "intelligently designed" and not a product of natural processes, then you have to admit it could have been "intelligently designed" by an intelligent civilisation in another universe.  We both have zero proof that other civilisations or intelligent agents have created a universe. I think you understand what I'm saying about universes and gods. I don't reject the idea that an intelligent agent created our universe. But the fact is there's no evidence for it. So I think it's improbable and I live my life on the assumption that gods don't exist. I reject the idea of anything that has no evidence. But I don't rule it out 100% - anyone with any scientific understanding never rules anything out 100% and so to repeat - it is possible to create universes artificially, and we will be able to do so within a few hundred years. In which case, there's no reason to assume that this has not already happened.