Evolution questions from my creationist friend

[Coito ergo sum]

That's my point about this whole thing. We don't need to call stuff that humans do (or, aliens from the planet Krypton) "intelligent design." It's a useless redundancy and an unnecessary term. We just design spaceships. We don't intelligently design them.

I think the engineers at NASA, or Scaled Composites, might take umbrage at the notion that all their design work is not the product of intelligence.

I'm going to go over this one more time. I did not say that their work was not the product of intelligence. I said it wasn't "intelligent design" as that term is used in modern English usage. "Intelligent design" does not mean "any product of intelligence." It means what i've told you it means, and you can find iterations of that meaning in any dictionary or encyclopedia.

You said, and I quote, "We just design spaceships. We don't intelligently design them." Don't blame me for your imprecision in writing.

Whatever dude - I've stated and restated this several times, and you keep coming back to the silly notion that we somehow need to fight for the term "intelligent design." I don't agree. It doesn't mean what you say it means, and that's that. You think otherwise, but you've presented no sources, citations or examples of similar usages. This is just your invention and that's that. Far from wanting to engage in some effort to "take back" the term from ID-ers, I'm content with letting them have it - we know what the term means, and we know it's a crock. If you want to waste your energy trying to rename sciences like genetic engineering "intelligent design" then go for it.

I know what you want "Intelligent Design" to mean (note the capital letters), but as I've said, I'm not willing to abandon the field of "intelligent design" (note the lower-case letters) just because you dislike the Discovery Institute.

What field? There is no "field of 'intelligent design'" and the term means the same thing whether you capitalize the words or not. It's a "term" - an expression with more than one word is a "term." And, it's not what "I" want it to mean. It's what it means. I previously cited several sources to back me up. You've cited nothing except your personal opinion. If you have nothing more to add, then we'll have to let the readers decide whose case is the strongest at this point, because I'm not going to continue repeating myself and I'm not going to continue asking you to back up your claim only to have you restate your argument that anything that an intelligent being creates is "intelligent design." We know that's what you think. It's not correct usage and it doesn't mean that. There is no "field" of intelligent design OTHER THAN that which the ID-ers has created. Engineering sciences and genetics is not part of the "field" of ID. It never has been, and never was, and so it could not have been "abandoned" to the ID-ers. To be "abandoned" it must have been used in those sciences to begin with - it simply wasn't.

The concept of intelligent design (lower-case) is a perfectly valid field of scientific inquiry,

It's not "field." And, "genetic engineering" and "chemical engineering" and "chemistry" and that sort of thing - those are valid fields. Intelligent design is not a field. to the extent that you are misusing the term intelligent design to include the aforementioned fields, and things like "auto design" and "architecture" and stuff like that, under that "intelligent design" rubric, then I don't disagree that THOSE THINGS are valid fields of scientific inquiry.

and it's a perfectly valid and useful descriptor of the concept. You may object to the use of Intelligent Design (upper case, AKA "ID") as explicated by the Discovery Institute et al, but conflating their version of things with the broader concept is merely being a dog in the manger and is just an avoidance tactic to satisfy your visceral distaste for neo-Creationism.

No, it also satisfies my visceral distaste for the misuse of language and little sleight of hand shell games designed to bootstrap woo and crap onto the back of real sciences. It's your game that I'm refusing to play.

Quite obviously, the term "intelligent design" is intended to discriminate knowing, directed intelligent design from "natural" undirected evolution, so now you're just erecting strawmen stuffed with red herrings and adding a dash of semantic pettifoggery because you can't stand the idea of being anywhere in the vicinity of the Discovery Institute in your argumentation. That's just irrational niggling.

No - I'm just using the English language.

No, you're not. You're deliberately conflating Intelligent Design (capitalized to denote reference to a specific set of claims by the Discovery Institute) with intelligent design as a scientific concept.

There is no "intelligent design as a scientific concept." If you think there is, then please, let me see your sources. Who are the top thinkers in the field? What's a good book to read on it? On what basis do you claim it to be a scientific concept, other than your own mental machinations?

Yours is the semantic gamesmanship, Seth. You're the only one using the term "intelligent design" in the way you're using it - you're creating a special definition.

What's special about it?

I've told you several times. It doesn't mean what you say it means, and nobody uses it that way. So, that means it is your own special meaning.

Unless, of course, you want to cite your sources - any dictionaries or encyclopedias? Any texts on intelligent design that use the term like you do? Any scholars or researchers or scientists that use the term like you do? If there are, then that would be evidence of a secondary usage that I'm presently not aware of. As such, I do not think your individual definition can rise to the level of a secondary usage.

intelligent design
 
–noun
the theory that the universe and living things were designed and created by the purposeful action of an intelligent agent. Abbreviation: ID Compare scientific creationism.
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2011.

Exactly. You're using the word wrong. You've tried to redefine it to mean that ALL things created by humans or aliens is within the rubric of intelligent design. Obviously, this definition is not anywhere close to that. It refers to the universe AND living things - it's a theory regarding ultimate causation, and does not include human artificial selection, or genetic engineering, and not architecture or television repair.
[

World English Dictionary
intelligent design

—n
a theory that rejects the theory of natural selection, arguing that the complexities of the universe and of all life suggest an intelligent cause in the form of a supreme creator

What of that suggests that genetic engineering, and other hard sciences is "intelligent design?" Genetic engineering does not reject the theory of natural selection and doe snot argue that the complexities of the universe and of life suggest an intelligent cause, and certainly doesn't suggest a "supreme creator."

Main Entry: intelligent design
Part of Speech: n
Definition: a theory that nature and complex biological structures were designed by intelligent beings and were not created by chance; abbr. ID
Example: Intelligent design refers to the theory that intelligent causes are responsible for the origin of the universe and of life in all its diversity
Dictionary.com's 21st Century Lexicon
Copyright © 2003-2011 Dictionary.com, LLC

Once again - this definition supports my position. It's talking about the ultimate cause of the universe and life. Nothing in this suggests or implies that various hard sciences and human design of machines and buildings and artificial selection of organisms would be within the rubric.

Definition of INTELLIGENT DESIGN
: the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence
First Known Use of INTELLIGENT DESIGN
1847
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictiona ... t%20design

Once again - this does not support your position at all. You're trying to suggest that intelligent design doesn't just mean the above - you're trying to suggest it means that anything a human or alien creates is "intelligent design." That's not the above definition.

Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

What language are you reading this in Seth? Are you accustomed to citing things that absolutely, positively 180 degrees oppose your assertion and then call them proof of your assertion? How the hell does this suggest that genetic engineering or terraforming is "intelligent design?"

A conjecture claiming that biological life on Earth, or more broadly, the universe as a whole, was created by an unspecified intelligent agent rather than being the result of undirected natural processes
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/intelligent_design

Once again - this supports me, not you. This is getting funny. You call it a "field of scientific study." The definition you cite here to support it calls it a "conjecture." Not the same thing at all, Seth.

Intelligent Design is the scientific field that attempts to explain the origin and existence of life and the universe through a Designer. It is very much related to Creationism, though it allows some room for natural processes and does not identify the designer as a particular God. ...
lifeshandbook.wikidot.com/glossary

Intelligent design (ID) is the view that it is possible to infer from empirical evidence that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection" [1] Intelligent design cannot be inferred from complexity alone, since complex patterns often happen by chance. ID focuses on just those sorts of complex patterns that in human experience are produced by a mind that conceives and executes a plan. According to adherents, intelligent design can be detected in the natural laws and structure of the cosmos; it also can be detected in at least some features of living things.

Greater clarity on the topic may be gained from a discussion of what ID is not considered to be by its leading theorists. Intelligent design generally is not defined the same as creationism, with proponents maintaining that ID relies on scientific evidence rather than on Scripture or religious doctrines. ID makes no claims about biblical chronology, and technically a person does not have to believe in God to infer intelligent design in nature. As a theory, ID also does not specify the identity or nature of the designer, so it is not the same as natural theology, which reasons from nature to the existence and attributes of God. ID does not claim that all species of living things were created in their present forms, and it does not claim to provide a complete account of the history of the universe or of living things.

ID also is not considered by its theorists to be an "argument from ignorance"; that is, intelligent design is not to be inferred simply on the basis that the cause of something is unknown (any more than a person accused of willful intent can be convicted without evidence). According to various adherents, ID does not claim that design must be optimal; something may be intelligently designed even if it is flawed (as are many objects made by humans).

ID may be considered to consist only of the minimal assertion that it is possible to infer from empirical evidence that some features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent agent. It conflicts with views claiming that there is no real design in the cosmos (e.g., materialistic philosophy) or in living things (e.g., Darwinian evolution) or that design, though real, is undetectable (e.g., some forms of theistic evolution). Because of such conflicts, ID has generated considerable controversy.
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/ent ... ent_design

[/quote]

Once again - that supports me - note the use of the term "ID" in caps, which suggests that it is the standard usage of ID as I've described it. The entire passage above parrots what the Discovery Institute and Behe consider ID to be. And, note the sentence that states "ID may be considered to consist ONLY of the minimal assertion that it is possible to infer from empirical evidence that some features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent agent." The things like "genetic engineering and terraforming" that you were trying to squeeze into the rubric of "ID" are not related to any assertion that it's possible to infer that some features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent agent.

See - you're wrong even under the authority you cite.

Moreover, it is by no means bickering or quibbling over trifles to want to use the meaning of the term "intelligent design" correctly. That's fundamental to this issue.

I am using it correctly,

Not - and I just proved it above, and you proved you were not using it correctly by attempt to blast the thread with a bunch of definitions - obviously you didn't expect anyone to read them, since they don't support your position at all.

in its broadest, non-capitalized sense, to refer to the various scientific arguments about the genesis of life and its course on earth as being potentially the product of intelligent design at least in part. That Behe and others have differing views, or models that have been rebutted by others is entirely irrelevant to the core issue here, which is whether the concept of an intelligent designer is an inherently theistic and religious concept, or whether it is a scientific concept that may have been appropriated by theists for reasons having nothing to do with science.

I maintain the latter is the case. Therefore, I repudiate the misappropriation of the field as a smokescreen for neo-Creationism while defending the valid scientific propositions that have been misused by religionists.

And, you're the one who created this "semantic" argument. That's all it is - you're suggesting a new meaning to the term "intelligent design." That's, by definition, semantics. And, since you're the one who started the argument, it can't be pettifogery to clarify that your invented definition is just that, something you have invented and not in general use in modern English.

No, I'm not, as the citations above prove.

[/quote]

Your list of citations doesn't prove anything of the kind - you're assertion was that anything humans or aliens design or create is intelligent design. That's not what ANY of the sources you cited show, and none of the sources you cited shows that genetic engineering or terraforming are part of the "field" of intelligent design, which your source actually called a "conjecture" and not a "field."

[Coito ergo sum]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RnygS7o ... ture=feedu[/youtube]

[apophenia]

The concept of intelligent design (lower-case) is a perfectly valid field of scientific inquiry, and it's a perfectly valid and useful descriptor of the concept. You may object to the use of Intelligent Design (upper case, AKA "ID") as explicated by the Discovery Institute et al, but conflating their version of things with the broader concept is merely being a dog in the manger and is just an avoidance tactic to satisfy your visceral distaste for neo-Creationism.

Could you please provide some citations from the scientific literature supporting your use of the term as a "valid field of scientific inquiry". I do not have access to a good scientific database -- mine only indexing ~200 periodicals -- yet I am finding nothing to support your usage. The thee usages I am finding are (1) that of the creationist brain-child we know as ID (in caps), (2) referring to materials engineering in which specific useful properties are engineered into a material explicitly, and (3) systems that make use of control systems to achieve desired ends, specifically those involving using electronics or computers. And of the three, the first outnumbers the other two combined by 10 to 1.

Your idea of "intelligent design" appears to be more properly a variant of Panspermia. One of the flaws, I think, with the ID -- in caps -- movement is in positing intelligence as some sort of discontinuity with other natural processes. To paraphrase Democritus, indeed there are only atoms and the void. In the same vein in which Clausewitz asserted that, "War is merely the continuation of politics by other means," your so-called "intelligent design" (lower case) is simply carrying on evolution through other means. Nowhere in this process do atoms stop being atoms, nor void cease to be void. As noted, that something "might" have happened is only the slimmest of evidence that it "did" happen (and even that's equivocal, as our notions of possible are not adequately constrained to those things which indeed are possible and only those things). But let's assume it did, what then?

I confess to some confusion, as I only paged back one page -- what exactly are you trying to argue for (or against) ?

[charlou]

Does the concept of intelligent design (lower case) presuppose the existence of an intelligent designer? If so, like any hypothesis that presumes a base premise without evidence, it would seem to me to be an exercise in confirmation bias, not science.