Darwin Unhinged: The Bugs in Evolution

Then there is always kick the can into the cosmos with panspermia raining in from the heavens as an option.
 I think the Christian fundamentalists (at the discovery institute)
 "faith have also aggrandized ID into something more than necessary" as well. It seems impossible to keep ones tribal social political religious leanings from influencing ones perception. 

"We see things not as they are, but as we are.

Because it is the 'I' behind the 'eye' that does the seeing.'"
  -Ainas Nin

p.s. As an aside, juxtapose this with the Nagel quote upthread and I think you get an idea of what NDEs are...maybe the paranormal including ID as a whole...

Then there is always kick the can into the cosmos with panspermia raining in from the heavens as an option.
 I think the Christian fundamentalists (at the discovery institute)
 "faith have also aggrandized ID into something more than necessary" as well. It seems impossible to keep ones tribal social political religious leanings from influencing ones perception. 

Dislike or hatred of Christianity can also cloud the mind to the point of not rationally and objectively evaluating the scientific arguments and evidence for ID presented by DI, the focus of that organization. As has been pointed out so many times, the validity of someone's (scientific) argument has nothing to do with his theological or other beliefs - it has everything to do with the evidence and the logical conclusions derived from it. It's an old and invalid debating tactic.

I would be more interested in reasoned rebuttals of the ID conclusions drawn from the scientific evidence, in areas such as Dr. Behe's recent book Darwin Devolves for instance.

And by the way, there are a number of advocates of ID professional and otherwise who are not Christian.

Discovery Institute is a think tank, and its Board members and Fellows represent a variety of religious traditions, predominantly mainline Protestant, but also Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Jewish, and even agnostic. Although it is not a religious organization, the Institute has a long record of supporting religious liberty and the legitimate role of faith-based institutions in a pluralistic society. Of course, militant materialist atheists oppose even the existence of such organizations and dismiss anything produced by them as tainted by supernaturalism.

From https://www.discovery.org/a/7501/:

"ID has scientific merit because it is does not try to address religious questions about the supernatural and limits its claims to what can be scientifically inferred from the empirical domain; this makes ID distinct from creationism and shows that ID respects the scientific method and methodological naturalism’s requirements that scientific claims be repeatable and reliable.

Intelligent design (ID) as a scientific theory limits its scientific claims to what can be learned from the empirical data and does not attempt to address religious questions about the identity or metaphysical nature of the designer. This makes ID distinct from creationism and shows that ID respects the limits of scientific inquiry.

Intelligent design does not study the designer, but rather studies natural objects to determine if they bear the tell-tale signs that they were designed by an intelligent cause."

I've listened to probably hundreds of hours of lectures and debates on ID. I read Darwins doubt and am familiar with Behe's work. I support their basic premise although in looking into the DI site it's plain to see that they support right wing conservative socio economic policies. Also they are not open or friendly toward psi research and their affiliation with conservative Christian schools I find problematic. You might notice that people like sheldrake and radin are not jumping on board with these folks.  I do support and argue in favor of their basic hypothosis I just can't get completely on board because of what I see as their conservative right wing Christian fundamentalist agenda which you don't have to look very deep into there publications and videos to notice.  I am aware that they make an attempt to separate themselves from the creationists (although they are pretty friendly with them). At any rate, i just don't have much patience for fundamentalism whether theistic, scientistic or otherwise.

There is also a corollary, in that the mainstream scientific lines of thought tend to lead to an extreme in not really having an openness towards acknowledging some role for a conscious creative force, even within ourselves. It seems an unfortunate consequence of taking that path is an aloofness towards such things as the warmth of human affection, discarding big-g God has led to rejecting the obvious. It's a kind of fragmented, broken pattern of thought which reduces the ability to think clearly. Which is ironic really.

I wanted to explain a little of my point of view. This is opinion of course.

In my previous post I made a leap between the concepts of "conscious creative force" and "warmth of human affection". Perhaps these things don't seem quite so interrelated to anyone else. However, I have this idea of a benevolence and generosity in the processes of creativity - and in the context of this thread, of 'design'. I realise this may not sit easily with others, however it is my feeling that across all scales from the smallest sub-atomic particles to the astronomically huge and inter-galactic scales, this benevolent creativity is permeating. I don't see it as a 'central control' which is sometimes how old-fashioned ideas are portrayed, but as distributed.

I wanted to explain a little of my point of view. This is opinion of course.

In my previous post I made a leap between the concepts of "conscious creative force" and "warmth of human affection". Perhaps these things don't seem quite so interrelated to anyone else. However, I have this idea of a benevolence and generosity in the processes of creativity - and in the context of this thread, of 'design'. I realize this may not sit easily with others, however it is my feeling that across all scales from the smallest sub-atomic particles to the astronomically huge and inter-galactic scales, this benevolent creativity is permeating. I don't see it as a 'central control' which is sometimes how old-fashioned ideas are portrayed, but as distributed.

I strongly agree with the connection of the "creative" process with the warmth of empathy.  Empathy being mental unity with another agent.  The relationship is at the top-level activity of mind.  The fundamental affordance of life is to see situational opportunity to love and help one another and to be warmed by help and affection from others.

These ideas are outside of a strictly physical or informational analysis and are active at different level of observation.  (hence, why my thinking is not Dualistic).  

Bringing it back to Bio-Evolution - and the natural level - altruism is a common behavior, especially in relation to off-spring and community.  Likewise it is a huge outlier in the "random mutation" conjecture, as it is not to the advantage to the individual. Claiming it works at the species level (or interspecies level) is problematic to explain.

On the other hand - the model for mind needs to be expounded and its role in evolution restored to Darwinism.  Minds do not exhibit forces (F=MA).  Force is a metaphor for mental activity.  The "force" of mind is the intention that leads to physical and informational action.

I've listened to probably hundreds of hours of lectures and debates on ID. I read Darwins doubt and am familiar with Behe's work. I support their basic premise although in looking into the DI site it's plain to see that they support right wing conservative socio economic policies. Also they are not open or friendly toward psi research and their affiliation with conservative Christian schools I find problematic. You might notice that people like sheldrake and radin are not jumping on board with these folks.  I do support and argue in favor of their basic hypothosis I just can't get completely on board because of what I see as their conservative right wing Christian fundamentalist agenda which you don't have to look very deep into there publications and videos to notice.  I am aware that they make an attempt to separate themselves from the creationists (although they are pretty friendly with them). At any rate, i just don't have much patience for fundamentalism whether theistic, scientistic or otherwise.

1 Corinthians 1:22-24  New International Version

 
22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,

If the conservative christians have an agenda within science, they are wasting their time.  You cannot find the christian God using science and logic.

1 Corinthians 1:22-24  New International Version

 
22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,

If the conservative christians have an agenda within science, they are wasting their time.  You cannot find the christian God using science and logic.

"If the conservative christians have an agenda within science, they are wasting their time.  You cannot find the christian God using science and logic."

True!
But if in using scientific methods and principals one could weaken orthodox sciences sacred cow (Darwinism) and subsume it under the mantle of ID one could infer some quasi theistic creator god similar to an Abrahamic image. This would not prove the existence of God but it would give the fundies a toe hold in  science and help assuage the cognitive dissonance the mind has to avert to believe in literalistic interpretations of the bible

I don't think that it is scientific to simply say, "Ah there's a designer draw your own conclusions as to who you think it is".

What would be the reason for not speculating besides leaving the door open for interpretation based on one's preconceived desires?

Those making an argument for ID should offer speculation on a designer or designers. Perhaps the foremost question is does the evidence somehow negate [nuts & bolts] aliens? Does it have to be entities we'd usually class as "spirits" or at least "immaterial"?

"If the conservative christians have an agenda within science, they are wasting their time.  You cannot find the christian God using science and logic."

True!
But if in using scientific methods and principals one could weaken orthodox sciences sacred cow (Darwinism) and subsume it under the mantle of ID one could infer some quasi theistic creator god similar to an Abrahamic image. This would not prove the existence of God but it would give the fundies a toe hold in  science and help assuage the cognitive dissonance the mind has to avert to believe in literalistic interpretations of the bible

I do understand this point of view.  I disagree that logic - in particular - is not a firm pathway to sorting fact from misinformation in exploring design and designing activities.  Understanding is from logical analysis and that includes understanding observable spiritual behavior.  To find the source of altruism, science's search of energy and materials is not very revealing.  However, information science observing, measuring and analyzing semantic meaning and how we mentally evolve is a direct route to the roots of our spirit.

In this -- Darwin is more substantial than commonly understood.  It was A. Weismann and his followers who formulated neoDarwinism that is the "sacred cow".   Darwin believed in acquired traits and in mental evolution.  Both of these die in neoDarwinism.  Hell, teleology was fundamental to Darwin.

 2.3.3 Selection, Adaptation and Teleology

Moreover, because Darwin was very fond of describing natural selection as a process that worked for the good of each species, Darwin’s followers seemed to have diametrically opposed views as to whether his theory eliminated final causes from natural science or breathed new life into them. In either case, there was also serious disagreement on whether this was a good thing or a bad thing.[8]

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/darwinism/

I don't think that it is scientific to simply say, "Ah there's a designer draw your own conclusions as to who you think it is".

What would be the reason for not speculating besides leaving the door open for interpretation based on one's preconceived desires?

Those making an argument for ID should offer speculation on a designer or designers. Perhaps the foremost question is does the evidence somehow negate [nuts & bolts] aliens? Does it have to be entities we'd usually class as "spirits" or at least "immaterial"?

The suggestion: Why not speculate about what the bare minimum intellectual capacities of a designer would be, given the incredibly complex, intricate, intertwined design of life especially as revealed in recent years? In for instance the human brain, which is very very far from being understood now after more than 100 years of scientific investigation. It’s not answering the ‘who’ question, of course. But think of it almost as programming question: to choose a very much simpler goal, what kind of knowledge would be needed for a designer to, say, design the physical biological mechanism of the irreducibly complex bacterial flagellum? Etc, etc.

There is abundant data to work with on that question. The designer of organic life on our planet needed temporal and physical access plus some extremely advanced (compared to current human technology) skills in biochemistry. Of course it is arguable whether biology, especially molecular biology, has in recent years perhaps revealed a degree of intricate complexity that may be beyond human intellectual capacity to comprehend. Of course biologists would deny this, but it is a legitimate proposition.

But for purpose of argument consider this. If our level of competence in biochemistry advances apace for say another 500 years (assuming our civilization persists that long) could we engineer artificial life that could survive and evolve on Mars, Europa, or Titan? I think just barely possible, requiring the assumption that there are other possible candidate chemical bases of "life" of some sort that are based on something other than long-chain carbon polymers and water. We could transport it there with the technology we have today. Nothing supernatural required.

Of course, this rapidly gets into philosophical and metaphysical speculation since the evidence so far indicates that mind, consciousness and will are not functions of the physical mechanisms of life or the brain. Because of that it seems unlikely that with such advanced technology we could create artificial life with mind, consciousness and will.

But could we eventually (or could very advanced alien beings from other planetary systems) engineer living organisms in the beginning of life, and engineer periodic major innovations in the design of life, on a scale of millions of years? It's a stretch, but the answer seems to be a provisional yes.

So aliens must be at least on the short list of major possibilities for the designer of much of life.

But there are major limitations or flaws in this concept mainly because:

(1) It just kicks the can down the road since these alien designers had to have some creative origin, and they some even earlier creative orgin, and so on. In other words, the who created the designer question.

The question of who created the designer, and so on, inevitably comes up, which inevitably brings up the seeming necessity of postulating some sort of immaterial supernatural ultimate source of design.

(2) As alluded to previously, many evidences and philosophical/metaphysical arguments and logic lead to the conclusion that mind, consciousness and will are not materialistic functions of the neurological structure of the brain. Given this, such alien designers using some sort of very greatly extrapolated human biological technology and knowledge might be the designers responsible for the sudden innovations periodically observed in the fossil record.
But such aliens would not presumably be able with such technology to create mind, consciousness and will. This appears to require some spiritual or immaterial source.

This line of reasoning seems to inevitably implicate some sort of immaterial spiritual beings of a very high order as being involved at least partially in the creative evolutionary process. 

The beings responsible whoever they are evidently exhibit characteristics we could term playfulness, aesthetic sense, capriciousness and total indifference to suffering, in addition to obvious extreme ingenuity in following engineering design principles. 

If advanced immaterial spiritual beings must be part of the process, why couldn't they totally be the agents responsible?

Does this line of reasoning require some sort of ultimate superintelligent Source? It seems so, but for all intents and purposes identifying such aliens and/or spiritual beings as possible proximal designers seems to be sufficient and it is not necessary to speculate further.   

Is all this speculation "scientific"? I don't think so. Does the lack of all this speculation make the research into the evident intelligent design of life "unscientific"? I don't think so.