Are there Non-Religious Skeptics of Darwinian Evolution and Proponents of ID

Not very scientific but my gut feel tells  me that NS+RM is, at best, a contributing factor rather than a complete explanation for evolution. I think some religious creationists would be happy to deny evolution, period and I think that (atheist) Darwinists would have us believe that ID is creationism and that the argument is simply evolution vs creationism. 

Going back to my gut feel, I look at something like a feather and the complexity of its design and I can't be convinced that an explanation involving random mutation holds water. The irreducible complexity argument from ID proponents is, for me, far more compelling. Going further back and looking at what is going on in a cell; the perfectly managed protein factory involving DNA and codes that look remarkably similar to computer codes, then I am completely happy to accept that intelligence is at work. I am not religious therefore I don't have an idea of, or belief in, a personal God that religions insist must be that designer/creator. DNA is a requirement for all cells and evolution, by definition, doesn't even get started until there are living cells which can begin evolving. 

So for me, the question should be "what is the nature of the intelligence?" rather than "is it design or is it NS+RM?".

Not very scientific but my gut feel tells  me that NS+RM is, at best, a contributing factor rather than a complete explanation for evolution. I think some religious creationists would be happy to deny evolution, period and I think that (atheist) Darwinists would have us believe that ID is creationism and that the argument is simply evolution vs creationism. 

Going back to my gut feel, I look at something like a feather and the complexity of its design and I can't be convinced that an explanation involving random mutation holds water. The irreducible complexity argument from ID proponents is, for me, far more compelling. Going further back and looking at what is going on in a cell; the perfectly managed protein factory involving DNA and codes that look remarkably similar to computer codes, then I am completely happy to accept that intelligence is at work. I am not religious therefore I don't have an idea of, or belief in, a personal God that religions insist must be that designer/creator. DNA is a requirement for all cells and evolution, by definition, doesn't even get started until there are living cells which can begin evolving. 

So for me, the question should be "what is the nature of the intelligence?" rather than "is it design or is it NS+RM?".

I'd agree that intuitively it does seem that the processes that go on in biology can make one open to the idea of design.

I think trying to prove this in such a way that a layperson could conclude there were historical interventions by designers is harder. I tried digging into ID and like the Catholic theologian Feser I remain unclear how "information" is used in these arguments. It makes me think of the arguments for mind uploading and programs that magically turn the computers they run on conscious b/c (IMO) "information" is used in a slip-shod way there too. OTOH physicists such as [Brian] Josephson and Wolfgang Smith agree with ID conceptions of information and believe the idea of Complex Specified Information has merit.

There's a point where a layperson has to accept that the argument belongs in the hands of experts, which is unfortunate because it seems many who have this expertise are being biased b/c of their religious adherence to materialism or theism or something else.

Additionally we know that scientists continually seek to discuss their views with the public, hoping to get laypeople to come to their side on issues such as the correct interpretation of QM. But when the argument (or the counterargument) starts getting into complex math, to give an example, how many people can follow along?

Edit: This isn't to say there no design arguments that are accessible. I think the mystery of psycho-physical harmony (see here & here) is a good argument that can suggest design, though there are other options to explain it.

I'd agree that intuitively it does seem that the processes that go on in biology can make one open to the idea of design.

I think trying to prove this in such a way that a layperson could conclude there were historical interventions by designers is harder. I tried digging into ID and like the Catholic theologian Feser I remain unclear how "information" is used in these arguments. It makes me think of the arguments for mind uploading and programs that magically turn the computers they run on conscious b/c (IMO) "information" is used in a slip-shod way there too. OTOH physicists such as [Brian] Josephson and Wolfgang Smith agree with ID conceptions of information and believe the idea of Complex Specified Information has merit.

There's a point where a layperson has to accept that the argument belongs in the hands of experts, which is unfortunate because it seems many who have this expertise are being biased b/c of their religious adherence to materialism or theism or something else.

Additionally we know that scientists continually seek to discuss their views with the public, hoping to get laypeople to come to their side on issues such as the correct interpretation of QM. But when the argument (or the counterargument) starts getting into complex math, to give an example, how many people can follow along?

Edit: This isn't to say there no design arguments that are accessible. I think the mystery of psycho-physical harmony (see here & here) is a good argument that can suggest design, though there are other options to explain it.

Perhaps I could digress a little from the question of religious or non-religious acceptance of ID over NS+RM and look at a non-religious but spiritual alternative view. Please excuse the unfettered speculation that follows.

I've read (as I'm sure many others on this forum have) accounts of spiritual entities in, shall we say, other dimensions who are advanced creative beings. These souls actually manifest novel plant and animal life forms by some sort of creative process that is never really explained. Perhaps those abilities are beyond our ken. When I say "manifest" I mean that I have read about what we might describe as "prototypes" so there does appear to be some sort of design process involved. However, we are not talking about God (in the religious sense) we are talking about groups of advanced souls whose "job" it is to create and maintain physical, organic life forms. Perhaps there are other creator souls who design eco-systems? Why not? Is that any more outlandish an idea than a single creator-God? For all we know, the group-creators might be considered to be local gods - not totally dissimilar to the pagan gods of old.

If we delve deeper into that idea we are bound to hit a sort of road-block when it comes to the question of how any designed life-form might be introduced into the physical biosphere. I am not inclined to believe that a pair of fully-formed humans a-la Adam & Eve were dropped into the garden. I do think that the painstakingly discovered biological processes are probably respected and followed. Therefore I assume that the designed DNA of a new species might be introduced into some kind of evolutionary close host and well-known evolutionary mechanisms such as NS and Epigenetics take over from there. I am not sure, however, that this process would fully explain the Cambrian Explosion and I suspect a more direct intervention from those other dimensions might have taken place back then.

When it comes to pondering these issues I have to remind myself that I am essentially an idealist so all of what we call "physical" or "biological" as well as the environment in which life evolves is actually mind-stuff. Precisely and meticulously organised mind-stuff to be sure but manifested and organised by consciousness.

Sci - I still find it difficult to think of you as a 'layman' - LOL - but you do have a maths degree.

Sorry David but do you really think this is something that can be assessed by laypersons not in the field?

Well I carefully framed that in a way that didn't introduce technicalities.

To me this is akin to the mathematical parts of physics arguments - I majored in mathematics in my younger years but I don't feel that even with a lot of refresh I could completely judge the arguments for one QM interpretation [over] another. I can look at the variety of opinions among physicists that allows a place for consciousness - going back to Einsein's openness to Psi - and rationally conclude that there is a live possibility that consciousness is an important piece of physics.

Let's face it, the reason why QM needs multiple 'interpretations' is that it is at heart very radical. I think the way to tackle this is to take one really simple QM system - such as the simple harmonic oscillator and follow the maths through. See that you have an eigenvalue equation and the ground state still has some residual energy - there is no solution where the particle just sits at the bottom of the potential well doing nothing!

It seems to me, that once you get to know what the QM equations - preferably in a fairly concrete form, your interpretation is the same as anyone else's!

I think similarly the best a layperson not in the field of biology can say about ID is that it's a live possibility. I do think the RM + NS picture is incomplete but I don't think I could tell you whether millions of years is an "eye-blink" for evolution, whether the fossil record in the Cambrian period shows the intervention of intelligence, whether the eye itself has to be designed, etc.

I don't rely on the Cambrian explosion - though it is interesting because I think it reveals some of the thinking of the designer(s). I rely on the fact that DNA coding is rather like a really complex piece of equipment. Damage just degrades it, so the idea that NS picks out the best, fails because there is no 'best' worth picking out! That is putting it a bit crudely, I know.

I have always thought of you as being well versed technically, are you sure you aren't suffering some sort of mood swing?

David

There's a point where a layperson has to accept that the argument belongs in the hands of experts

That would be so much easier to do if these experts weren't so often caught making assertions about things completely out of their sphere of expertise.  For me this makes it almost impossible to see where their expertise begins/ends and by extension what I can actually rely upon.

I can't do the math either Sci, but there's a familiar arrogance to the 'RM+NS full stop' response.  I have 100% faith (yup, used that word  ) that there's much more to the story and intelligence/design is part of it.

Sci - I still find it difficult to think of you as a 'layman' - LOL - but you do have a maths degree.

It seems to me, that once you get to know what the QM equations - preferably in a fairly concrete form, your interpretation is the same as anyone else's!

I have always thought of you as being well versed technically, are you sure you aren't suffering some sort of mood swing?

David

What QM intepretation do you think that is? Or do you mean everyone would come to the same interpretation?

Also - heh, no mood swing - I've never been sold on ID as presented by Dembski, Behe, etc. People tell me this is because of an aversion to traditional Christianity or somesuch, but I've no problem going through lots of Christian Apologetics and have probably been the most prolific poster of those philosophers...

That would be so much easier to do if these experts weren't so often caught making assertions about things completely out of their sphere of expertise.  For me this makes it almost impossible to see where their expertise begins/ends and by extension what I can actually rely upon.

I can't do the math either Sci, but there's a familiar arrogance to the 'RM+NS full stop' response.  I have 100% faith (yup, used that word  ) that there's much more to the story and intelligence/design is part of it.

Agreed on all points. I just remain unconvinced by the ID arguments from Complex Specified Information, Cambrian Explosion, and so on. I do think the ID argument from Psycho-Physical Harmony is strong, because the "Proponent Stance" doesn't need an Omni-God (All Good/Knowing/Powerful) just the live possibility that consciousness goes beyond brains. (There are materialist arguments for Psi and even Survival, but immaterialist ontologies are more Psi/Survival friendly IMO)

There's also certain Psi/Survival data I question (Bengson's stuff for example), tho I accept enough cases (in tandem with varied philosophical arguments) that I believe in both Psi & Survival.

Agreed on all points. I just remain unconvinced by the ID arguments from Complex Specified Information, Cambrian Explosion, and so on. I do think the ID argument from Psycho-Physical Harmony is strong, because the "Proponent Stance" doesn't need an Omni-God (All Good/Knowing/Powerful) just the live possibility that consciousness goes beyond brains. (There are materialist arguments for Psi and even Survival, but immaterialist ontologies are more Psi/Survival friendly IMO)

There's also certain Psi/Survival data I question (Bengson's stuff for example), tho I accept enough cases (in tandem with varied philosophical arguments) that I believe in both Psi & Survival.

I think your problem is that you are not a design engineer and therefore have not become acutely aware due to hard experience that intricate irreducibly complex machines whether electronic or mechanical do not come together without a lot of intelligent imaginative and foresightful mental work on the part of an intelligent focused conscious designer or designers. Once you have gone through that difficult learning by experience, imagining that such an end product (even though biological not technological) could have arisen through undirected unintelligent unconscious basically mechanistic semi-random walk processes is immediately rejected as obvious ridiculous fantasy.

I think your problem is that you are not a design engineer and therefore have not become acutely aware due to hard experience that intricate irreducibly complex machines whether electronic or mechanical do not come together without a lot of intelligent imaginative and foresightful mental work on the part of an intelligent focused conscious designer or designers. Once you have gone through that difficult learning by experience, imagining that such an end product (even though biological not technological) could have arisen through undirected unintelligent unconscious basically mechanistic semi-random walk processes is immediately rejected as obvious ridiculous fantasy.

Maybe, but I'm sure I can find a lot of engineers who reject ID. This person [who's a Christian engineer] seems to think there could be good design arguments though [he also notes some ID arguments are bad in his opinion] ->



Here's the opinion of a med school professor:

Intelligent design? No smart engineer designed our bodies, Sherman tells premeds in class on Darwinian medicine

By Krishna Ramanujan

"Unintelligent design." That is how Cornell evolutionary biologist Paul Sherman refers to the architecture of the human body...

"As soon as you begin to look at our bodies from an evolutionary perspective you see more and more we are not intelligently designed," said Sherman. For example, he pointed out that no engineer would design our throats with a windpipe that crosses the tube where food passes. "If you were going to design this to eliminate choking you'd probably put your mouth in your forehead or your nasal opening in your throat. It [the human body] is as one would expect from random mutations of previously existing structures and selection over eons."

See also -> Top 10 Design Flaws in the Human Body (Chip Rowe)

I guess one can argue that some of the design is good and some of it is bad, but also the good design was constrained by manipulating probabilities that occur in RM + NS across millennia? Again, not sure how a layperson can make any judgement other than saying ID is a live possibility. Even more so [of a live possibility] for what I'd call the Proponent Stance, where an Omni-God may exist but what's important is showing consciousness acting beyond the usual confines of our skulls.

Though let's also not forget Dembski's remark that the ID evidence can be explained by an "impersonal" force...also IIRC Dawkins said that ID may be true but concluding the designers are aliens is more reasonable than anything supernatural.

Psycho-Physical Harmony is just a more easily graspable ID argument because it at most demands some knowledge of Bayesian reasoning though I'd contend Richard Oxenberg's argument gets the issue across with only some basic knowledge of philosophy and evolution [being required].

There's a discussion by Emerson Green (atheist), Phillip Goff (agnostic), and Dustin Crummet (Christian) and they bring up Cosmological Fine Tuning but I don't recall them mentioning the ID evidence from biology at all. Somewhat telling IMO...

What QM intepretation do you think that is? Or do you mean everyone would come to the same interpretation?

I like the one which says that the wave function is collapsed by an observation (by a conscious observer).

Also - heh, no mood swing - I've never been sold on ID as presented by Dembski, Behe, etc. People tell me this is because of an aversion to traditional Christianity or somesuch, but I've no problem going through lots of Christian Apologetics and have probably been the most prolific poster of those philosophers...

Well think of the DI as too organisations. One pushes a brand of Christianity, the other proves over and over that RM+NS just doesn't work as an explanation of life.

The proof that life did not get here by RM+NS is pretty much done and dusted as far as I can see.

David