Evidence that Intelligent Design has Nothing

In spite of all the rhetoric* from ID proponents, there is nothing to Intelligent Design.  Nothing, nada, zip, zilch.

How do I know they have nothing?

It’s really very simple.  Read lots of ID proponents and supporters.  Read lots of their writing.

What do you not see?

Think about it for a second… as prolific writers as many of that group are, don’t you think that if they had anything that actually supported Intelligent Design, any research data, any lab experiments, anything, that they would be trumpeting it as loudly and as often as possible?

Every post, every comment one every blog, every signature would have the evidence and links to it.

And that’s the one thing you don’t see in any intelligent design writing.  None of it.  Oh sure, they talk about maths and sciency sounding words and maybe hash out some philosophical implications, but they don’t have any data.  None.

They don’t have any tests.  They don’t have anything.

After almost two decades, there is still nothing that any ID proponent can point to and say, “See, this data indicates design, because this value of this experiment is x, where a value of y would indicate evolution.”

It really is as simple as that.

 ______________________________
* and I use that specific word for a reason.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Creationism / ID and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Evidence that Intelligent Design has Nothing

  1. Eugen says:

    Hi

    I think you listed number of acceptable types of evidence for ID but I don’t remember when.
    I don’t know how acceptable would be the circumstantial evidence from meaningful
    clues.
    Sometimes that’s all that may be available.

  2. Thorton says:

    As expected, Joe on his blog has used his new sockpuppet ‘IntelligentAnimation’ to declare Joe the winner and to sing Joe’s praises for such good answers.

    On a side note, Joe has now silently banned me from posting on his blog – no warning, just none of my posts have appeared for the last week or so.

  3. ogremkv says:

    Thorton,

    Sorry man. You’ve been really in the rat’s nest with that one. I won’t visit Joe’s blog, except for this ‘debate’. I don’t think there’s any person that isn’t 100% biased who would think Joe won that debate.

    I’ll also add, be careful. Joe is well known for internet stalking. He’s a wimp, but even internet tough guys can cause trouble if they think they can get away with it.

    Eugen,

    There is no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise for Intelligent Design. It’s that simple. Before one could even suggest that some evidence might be circumstantial support for ID, one must define ID. No one can do that, not even the leaders of the movement.

    Just take a look at the debate posts I just shared with Joe. I think I posted 4 unique definitions of ID and those were all from ID leaders and groups. And none of those get into ID as applied to non-biological systems. Some IDists think ID applies to everything.

    First, you have to actually state something that can be examined. If you’d like to try, then let’s go for it. I’d like nothing better than to have a very specific and testable hypothesis for ID. Then we can test it and end this ‘debate’ for once and for all.

  4. Eugen says:

    ” There is no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise for Intelligent Design. ”

    OK, so be it but don’t you think there are some clues at least. You know more than me about research in bio field. Does anything give you a clue (if not evidence ) which point to design. Would you be able to evaluate clues without bias, ideology, religion…

    As for exact definition for ID somebody could look up UD FAQ but maybe it’s not necessary. You hopefully know what design means in general. Did you ever design something?

  5. ogremkv says:

    Eugen, I’ll clarify. There is design in biology. However, there is no evidence or even indication that ‘intelligent’ design is required.

    Non-intelligent systems are perfectly capable of producing massive complex systems and structures.

    I think we can all agree that “Intelligent Design” is a euphamism for “God”. At least all the leading proponents of ID have publically said so.

    I find it interesting that ID advocates are often powerfully for intelligent design, when it can be easily shown that evolved design is often way more effective than intelligent design. In designing systems from hyperspeed aircraft to production efficiency, evolved systems perform better, can be created faster, and work more efficiently than humans designed systems.

  6. Eugen says:

    “Non-intelligent systems are perfectly capable of producing massive complex systems and structures.”

    Are you possibly talking about emergent and sometimes unexpected system behaviour?
    That can happen when lots of components are involved in building a system while each component is guided by simple rules.
    I had first hand experience with one of my robot toys behaving unexpectedly.

  7. Cubist says:

    Eugen, the problem with ID-as-it-is-promulgated-by-Dembski-&-Co. is that it’s so bleeding vague; scientifically speaking, there’s no ‘there’ there! ID can be summarized in seven words — Somehow, somewhere, somewhen, somebody intelligent did something — or, if you want to be even more concise, somebody done something will suffice, too. If you think either of my summaries has done violence to ID, please clue me in on what’s missing!
    What does ID have to say about the ‘somehow’ — according to ID ‘theory’, what is/are the method-or-methods, the tool-or-tools, the technique-or-techniques that the Designer used when It was doing Its thing?
    What does ID have to say about the ‘somewhere’ — according to ID ‘theory’, at what location (or locations) did the Designer do Its thing?
    What does ID have to say about the ‘somewhen’ — according to ID ‘theory’, at what moment (or moments) in time did the Designer do Its thing?
    What does ID have to say about the ‘somebody intelligent’ — according to ID ‘theory’, what is the Designer? What goal, or goals, was the Designer working towards when It designed Its Designs? Is there only one Designer, or a pair of cooperating Designers, or a pair of mutually-hostile Designers, or what?
    What does ID have to say about the ‘something’ — according to ID ‘theory’, what is, or was, that thing (or things) the Designer Designed? Did the Designer only work on the flagellum, or did It front-load the primordial organism with all of the genetic information contained in the contemporary biosphere, or what?

  8. Eugen says:

    Hi Cubist

    Wow! You’ve been thinking about this quite a bit. I respect that.
    My scope is limited, I could probably attempt half answering one of the questions.

    Speaking generally about design…did you ever design something?

  9. ogremkv says:

    Eugen,

    Yes, I have designed something. So?

    As stated, the designs that we know result from intelligence are far inferior to the designs we know were evolved.

  10. Eugen says:

    Ogre

    Any design starts with a plan, goes through evaluation of constrains (which may modify plan), next is physical realization, then test and optimization phase and at the end implementation. There are problems at every stage which are solved through careful examination and intervention.

    Please tell me who or what does above steps without intelligence be it alien or supernatural. Are you aware that even Kaufman had to invent some strange sort of “sacred creative nature whatever” to explain design in nature.

  11. ogremkv says:

    That’s what I’m saying Eugen. That ‘designer’ is what evolution is. Mutation (and other things) plus natural selection. No intelligence required.

    Now, if the Intelligent Design proponents were just Design proponents, then I don’t think that anyone would really have any argument with the whole concept.

    But there is no evidence, anywhere and there is a significant amount of evidence against, the need for intelligence in design.

    Here’s the other problem with what you said with regards to biology: “Any design starts with a plan”

    This is incorrect for Biology. There is no plan. There is what came before and the changes brought on through evolutionary principles. That’s all. There is no perfect organism, there is no well designed organism, there is only ‘that which works good enough in a certain environment’.

    That’s one reason (my working hypothesis) that so many engineers of all stripes are creationists. They can see the parallels with their own work and just don’t have the background to know that their design work just doesn’t apply to biology.

    Don’t think of evolution as “the environment changed, how can I adapt”

    Think of it as “I have the neat mutation, what good is it?”

    Finally, I’ll repeat that in no instances that I’m aware of can a human designed thing effectively compete with an evolution designed thing. Everything from diesel engine settings to optical lens design to production workflows, human designed process and equipment always come in second place to evolution designed systems and processes (when an evolution designed process is available).

  12. Eugen says:

    Ogre

    ” That’s one reason (my working hypothesis) that so many engineers of all stripes are creationists. They can see the parallels with their own work and just don’t have the background to know that their design work just doesn’t apply to biology.”

    You may be correct there except in my case , I’m may be mildly religious but hopefully that doesn’t qualify me as creationist? I don’t think Creator was here 6000 years ago carving continents and stirring oceans.

    I will show you one of my diagrams created out of frustration. I have to visualize process to understand it but couldn’t find anything like that online. You are the first person to see this particular one and maybe last one on this type of blog/forum.

    imageshack.us/photo/my-images/851/poly31.png/

  13. fnxtr says:

    Eugen,

    The fact that you tried to make a flowchart of how the polymerase functions does not mean that the system was designed.

    I can draw a map of Vancouver Island, but that doesn’t mean Slartibarfast carved the Johnstone Strait.

    The polymerase system exists because it worked well enough to get passed on and, most likely, modified.

  14. ogremkv says:

    No, I don’t think you’re a creationist. You are at least thinking about things, instead of knee-jerk “Uh uh” reactions.

    Have you ever studied Mandelbrot fractals (and others)? These are simple, simple equations, that result in stunning complexity.

  15. Eugen says:

    fnxtr

    “The fact that you tried to make a flowchart of how the polymerase functions does not mean that the system was designed. ”

    Not at all. It is more of a clue to me. This is my “twist” and a weak attempt to fuse elements of biology (which I don’t know well) and automation engineering. It is just a glimpse of the possible future approach to biology of the cell.

    Diagram represents logical, orderly and repetitive relationship between operational elements regardless of what those elements are made of. This type of diagram (SFC) is normally used to program automated systems controlled by PLCs. Being visual tool it allows immediate overview of the logic flow in complex interrelated system.

    I also understand Polymerase III is a chemical assembly but after studying it a bit I can see orderly specialized operation.

    Ogre

    ” No, I don’t think you’re a creationist. You are at least thinking about things, instead of knee-jerk “Uh uh” reactions.”

    Thanks. I’m ashamed of how little Bible I know comparing to atheists. My side of discussion is not about convincing others and religion but about curiosity and search for patterns and clues.

    I know Mandelbrot sets produce amazing emergent shapes. Simple rules can create most amazing structures. Also, there are lots of versions of free cellular automata programs online which also produce all kinds interesting structures from simple rules. It’s very addictive.

    Anyway, I have more crazy ideas but you may not like them – they lead to clues.

  16. ogremkv says:

    I don’t mind anything that is evidence. I think most of us think there is evidence for whatever…

    the trick isn’t the evidence, it’s drawing a valid conclusion.

    For example: “It looks complicated therefore it’s designed.”

    That simple statement ignores the many things that we have seen that we know aren’t designed and are exceedingly complex. It also ignores alternate hypotheses.

    ID is really bad about the false dichotomy thing. It’s either ‘this’ or ‘that’. Well, what if it’s neither? Ook didn’t think of that.

    I fully agree that living things are designed. I just think that there is more evidence for evolution being the designer and there is no evidence that there is an ‘intelligent’ designer.

  17. Eugen says:

    Let me give a quick footnote. Orderly appearance of a diagram is somewhat deceiving. While my understanding is everything operates as shown, motions are rather “ratchety” ,jerky, halting. Reason is multiple bonds must be established and broken many times per second.

    I made the whole DNA replication diagram, it’s really big. I was not sure what to think of it. After hours of staring I decided ( with a shrug) to take it as a clue. It starts as a linear process which quickly establishes a cascade of parallel processing threads.

  18. Cubist says:

    sez eugen:
    >You’ve been thinking about this quite a bit.
    That remark could be construed as ‘damning with faint praise’. I mean, seriously, how much time does it take to read the ID mantra “some things about the Universe and/or Life on Earth are better explained by intelligent intervention” before you notice that said mantra is egregiously lacking in details? And once you notice that ID is egregiously lacking in details, how much time does it take to come up with questions to ask about those missing details?

    >My scope is limited, I could probably attempt half answering one of the questions.
    [shrug] That’s nice.

    >Speaking generally about design…did you ever design something?
    Yes. I’ve written stories, created graphic images, written poems, composed music, created websites, and built furniture. If I’m not a designer, nobody is. What of it?

  19. Eugen says:

    sez Cubist

    ” That remark could be construed as ‘damning with faint praise ”

    Don’t make things up. WYSIWYG and keep it simple. You are the first commenter here who seems angry. Are you are an angry elf?

    I asked if you designed something just to get feedback whether you understand what it takes.

    I don’t know most answers to hard questions about Designer. You think I don’t wonder why is he hiding so well ?

    You maybe didn’t notice but I’m not-in-the-mood-to-fight-and-convince-kind-of-technical-guy who thinks there may be some aspects of nature where Designer was involved. All that being said, I already mentioned before I can’t prove saints and angels were here manipulating DNA with nano tweezers.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s