> Mark: “A car is ‘obviously designed’ because we KNOW who the designer(s) are.”

Question: Why are we spending good money on SETI programs if design is something that cannot be inferred without first-hand knowledge of the designer? SETI is premised on the notion that there may be intelligent extra-terrestrial life, and it absolutely depends on being able to tell the difference between a random (radio “static”) and a designed response (an attempt to communicate, perhaps).

> (Some of us may “know,” in the sense of faith, but that’s not like looking at the Vehicle Identification Number, and tracing the automobile back to the factory where it was assembled!)

Could a Honda Accord ever be mistaken for a rock formation? If some future race, long after we’re gone, were to discover a well-preserved Honda Accord, and knew nothing else about us, would they be justified in inferring that intelligent life designed it? After all, metal occurs in nature. Glass occurs in nature. Resins occur in nature. Rubber occurs in nature. Petroleum occurs in nature. Maybe there was a primordial salad of some sort that tossed these various ingredients into a time-lapsed blender that eventually resulted in this particular formation. After all, we’ve had billions of years for such coincidences to occur.

To complicate matters, what if deeper in the strata two other fossils emerged: a 1905 Stanley Steamer and a 1932 Model A. Would anyone start searching for the missing link that connected steam power with gasoline power? Would anyone hypothesize that natural selection must have favored the gasoline powered car, and noted other evolved improvements such as the mechanical starter?

Maybe. But I don’t think anyone would miss the fact that they had obviously been designed, even if no one in that distant age had ever seen an automobile factory.

> Similarly, if we unearth chipped spearheads at archeological sites, we know they were “obviously designed”…even though the design might not be sophisticated.

I don’t know how you can conclude that, based on your previous objections. Just because we’ve heard second-hand reports that primitive man used spears to kill the mighty mammoth doesn’t mean that natural geological formations could not have given rise to these rock-formational mutations.

I always find it so interesting that something as simple as a spear head provides conclusive proof of design, whereas something as complex as animal life could have, ostensibly, arisen spontaneously.

Mark, are you saying that had human beings never invented cars, and we were to find a 2005 Honda Accord buried in a slag heap somewhere in Mesopotamia, that we would not be able to infer that it had been designed because we don’t know who the designer was? In other words, unless we were to observe a Honda being built, we’d have to assume it was some sort of interesting but ultimately misleading rock formation?

After all, metal occurs in nature. Glass occurs in nature. Rubber occurs in nature. Pigment occurs in nature. Leather occurs in nature. Obviously, what has happened is that strong geological forces, over a long period of time, iron, silicon, rubber plants, and cow hide were tossed together in a primeval soup and — remember, we’re talking about billions of years — quite by accident, a Stanley Steamer was eventually formed. In the eons since, natural selection has tended to favor gasoline powered engines, due to the abundance in nature of petroleum and the relative scarcity of steam. We know that Stanley Steamers evolved into Model Ts somehow, and eventually into Honda Accords; what we’re missing, so far, is the transitional autos that bridge the evolutionary gap between steam and gasoline power. But we’re still working on that.

Here’s a thought: In the recent Delaware trial ID vs. Darwinism trial, SETI came up. It seems that we fund folks to listen to interstellar radio waves in the hopes of discerning an intelligent message from some unknown extraterrestrial and intelligent life form. That is, they are trying to listen to radio static and discern traces of… design.

Absolutely no one, so far, has objected to this research on the grounds that, since we cannot know who originated the broadcasts, we cannot therefore infer design should something come across that appears intelligible.

> We know they were “obviously designed,” merely because we don’t have any examples in nature of spearheads spontaneously appearing.

You’re telling me that in a span of billions of years, it is not possible that geological forces could have formed something as relatively simple as an arrowhead. On the other hand, something as complex as life just spontaneously formed out of pond scum.

A car is “obviously designed” because we KNOW who the designer(s) are. A living organism is not “obviously designed,” in the sense that we do NOT know who the designers are/were. (Some of us may “know,” in the sense of faith, but that’s not like looking at the Vehicle Identification Number, and tracing the automobile back to the factory where it was assembled!)

Similarly, if we unearth chipped spearheads at archeological sites, we know they were “obviously designed”…even though the design might not be sophisticated. We know they were “obviously designed,” merely because we don’t have any examples in nature of spearheads spontaneously appearing. For example, even though my parents’ yard in Connecticut has plenty of rocks in and on the ground, none of them are shaped and chipped like spearheads.

I agree it does not necessarily rule out the idea of God. What it rules out is the idea of God as a Creator who is involved with His creation, who had man the finished product in mind before He set in motion the steps to create man. You’re right, insofar as the theory leaves open entirely the idea that God may exist, so long God is viewed as a mere spectator to His creation.

We can argue this all day, but won’t get anywhere until we accept each other’s definitions. When I refer to “random mutation” — chance mutation is put forth by some as a better phrase — I mean that mutations are arrived at totally by random, chance occurrence and are not guided. Every textbook I have read, and every article I have perused on the Internet by those who are apparently and even zealously pro-evolution, has spoken of “random mutation” in the same manner that I have. This includes Gould. Dawkins quibbles and plays word games, but still refuses to accept as a possibility that the mutations were somehow guided.

You, on the other hand, present me with the idea that “random mutation” can possibly mean “non-random mutation” — “random to us”, I think was your phrase. Sorry, I’m just not aware of any literature that puts that idea forth. The whole idea of natural selection is that it is capable, by itself, of explaining the diversity of all life from one single cell. If you know of any citations by respected evolutionists that argue that “random mutation” can incorporate “designed mutation” into its definition, please point me to an article or two, if you can.

Until you do, I’m going to stand by my argument that “random mutation” is the *opposite* of “designed mutation”, and that therefore God as a creative force is removed forcibly from the debate as an assumption rather than a conclusion.

> Does Dawkins personally believe that God guides evolution? No, he doesn’t, and that is his right as a person to hold non-theistic beliefs if he so chooses.

Does he speak as a scientist when he argues against religion? Does he get the kind of opprobrium in scientific circles for linking his science to his atheism that unscientific mutterings by Creationists tend to get? Would you like to take the opportunity, here and now, to state that when Dawkins tries to draw metaphysical principles from physical science, that he’s being unscientific?

> If you were to ask him whether the possibility exists that there is a God and that this God either set up evolution or somehow guides it, I don’t think he could honestly say that there is no possibility of this based on the science.

Do I need to go out and dig up some Dawkins quotes?

> Obviously designed systems like automobiles and biological systems that reproduce are like apples and oranges to each other.

I’m drawing an analogy. All analogies are imperfect. But bear with me: living organisms are complex things; so are automobiles. The fossil record shows a gradual increase in complexity as organisms have been around longer; so do automobiles. The fossil record shows extinct species in various rock strata with certain taxonomical similarites; you can also apply the principles of taxonomy to the classification of automobiles. New functions, or adaptations, are apparent in living organisms; they are also apparent in automobiles. My argument is simply that if evolutionary inprovements in design in automotive development cannot allow us to infer anything *more* than an evolution that took place in a designer’s brain, then similar evolutionary improvements in nature cannot either by necessity prove any more than that.

You say cars are “obviously designed”. Well, yes, they are, I agree. The interesting thing, though, is that a living organism is a lot more complicated than a car.

> Besides, you can’t make the assumption that the “intelligent designer” would make similar designs for life. The reason? Because IDists refuse to speculate about the nature of the designer, and even if they did, who’s to say that they are right. It’s tautological to say that the similarity of species on this planet proves design, while design proves the similarity.

It’s also tautological to argue that you believe in survival of the fittest, and then turn around and define the fittest as those who survive.

> Behe’s IC systems have not held up. Even if they do, genetic algorithms have produced IC systems through evolutionary processes, thus showing that IC systems are NOT a problem for evolution.

I think what they may have shown is that IC systems are not a problem for genetic algorithms. I’m certainly not an expert in genetic algorithms, but as I understand it, for them to be useful, they have to be highly specific. Here’s a link, for example: http://www.generation5.org/content/2000/ga.asp

Here’s part of what they had to say:

> “The limitations of genetic programming lie in the huge search space the GAs have to search for – an infinite number of equations. Therefore, normally before running a GA to search for an equation, the user tells the program which operators and numerical ranges to search under.”

In other words, the writers of the genetic algorithm have to sort of help it along. If I understand them correctly, that starts to sound like… design.

> Perhaps you are unaware of the wedge document that clearly lays out the goals of the DI (namely to bring God back into science and the classroom.)

That doesn’t bother me too much. I don’t think ID belongs in grade school, but I don’t think evolution does either. From my perspective, both are teaching metaphysics. In the public school, I’d prefer they stick to verifiable facts — but if one side is allowed to present implicitly anti-God material, I’m fine with presenting implicitly pro-God material.

> Also, not one of them has ever come up with even one testable hypothesis.

Can you test whether all life orinated from a single cell? Evolutionists sure get worked up when others take a cue from their playbook.

It’s not a “propaganda ploy”. It’s called “science.” The fact that we see single-celled organisms, then multi-celled organisms, then increasingly complex organisms, fails to falsify the theory that it was a pattern of evolution.

Again, if you could find a thoroughly modern human skeleton that was 50 million years old (or even 5 or 10), that would falsify the theory that homo sapiens sapiens evolved from more primitive forms, e.g. homo heidelbergensis and homo erectus:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html#archaics

“Who’s to say whether similarities in fossils aren’t of the same type as similarities in autos? That is, they are similar not because they evolved randomly, but because they had a designer?”

No one can say. That’s why hypothesizing a designer exists is not a scientific hypothesis. Elephants in China are increasingly being born without tusks:

http://www2.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-07/16/content_460623.htm

Do we know that they are **evolving** that way because those elephants who happen to be born that way are less likely to be killed by poachers, or that God is now designing them that way because She sees them being killed by poachers? (Or even because it now pleases Her to do so?) We don’t know. That’s not a scientific question.

What *are* scientific questions (because they can be falsified) are:

1) Are a greater percentage of elephants in China now being born tuskless than in the past?

2) Is there any variation in the percentage born tuskless, such that those born in high-poaching areas are more likely to be born tuskless?

3) If there is a higher percentage born tuskless in high-poached versus low-poached areas, does this higher percentage disappear if the poaching is eliminated?

All those are scientific questions, because the answer can be shown to be “no.” What is not a scientific question is, “Is God doing all this?”…because the answer to that question can’t be conclusively shown to be “no.”

Ask Miller the same question.

What I am saying, and what you refuse to understand is that evolution is NOT atheistic and does NOT rule out the logical possibility of God. It does not speak of God at all. You seem to think that it rules out God, but it plainly does not, no matter how many times you stomp your feet and declare that it does.

Does Dawkins personally believe that God guides evolution? No, he doesn’t, and that is his right as a person to hold non-theistic beliefs if he so chooses. If you were to ask him whether the possibility exists that there is a God and that this God either set up evolution or somehow guides it, I don’t think he could honestly say that there is no possibility of this based on the science. Again, conflating the term, “random,” with atheism is not correct usage of the term.

Obviously designed systems like automobiles and biological systems that reproduce are like apples and oranges to each other. To belittle the argument from the fossil record simply because horse drawn carriages don’t reproduce is simply silly. Besides, you can’t make the assumption that the “intelligent designer” would make similar designs for life. The reason? Because IDists refuse to speculate about the nature of the designer, and even if they did, who’s to say that they are right. It’s tautological to say that the similarity of species on this planet proves design, while design proves the similarity.

“I think Behe is still waiting for an evolutionist to explain the evolution of irreducibly complex mechanisms. I guess it’s a question of who you think has the burden of proof.”

Behe’s IC systems have not held up. Even if they do, genetic algorithms have produced IC systems through evolutionary processes, thus showing that IC systems are NOT a problem for evolution. Even if they were a problem, once again, it would not be evidence of design. Another problem with Behe is that he is unable to even point out when the IC systems were designed, what the designer did to make these IC systems, etc.

“I don’t really have a horse in that particular race. I’ve read a lot of Behe, Johnson, Dembski, etc., and I find their arguments interesting. They seem to think an evolution of some sort happened. I’m not even willing to go that far. I’m just basically skeptical.”

Perhaps you are unaware of the wedge document that clearly lays out the goals of the DI (namely to bring God back into science and the classroom.) Also, not one of them has ever come up with even one testable hypothesis. Not one. To put their musings on the level of a theory that is widely accepted and has stood the test of time for 150+ years, been tested and retested over and over again is patently absurd. Maybe when they can come up with a hypothesis we can start to take them seriously.

“What makes evolution atheistic is the insistence that life must have evolved randomly. They weren’t content to say that it could have evolved randomly.”

Then, you must also say that quantum theory is atheistic. Once again, I will point out that random does not equal atheism in this sense and evolution does NOT rule out the logical possibility of God.

> GCT: “You still have the problem of the fact that even if evolution is wrong, it posits no positive evidence for ID. Do you have a hypothesis to share with us that we could test to find positive evidence for ID? Also, can you explain how it would show positive evidence for ID?”

I don’t really have a horse in that particular race. I’ve read a lot of Behe, Johnson, Dembski, etc., and I find their arguments interesting. They seem to think an evolution of some sort happened. I’m not even willing to go that far. I’m just basically skeptical.

> GCT: “How about this: evolution works under the same scientific method as all other science. So, what makes evolution any more atheistic than any other science?”

What makes evolution atheistic is the insistence that life must have evolved randomly. They weren’t content to say that it could have evolved randomly.

Now it’s clear which one of us doesn’t understand what is meant by the term, “random mutation”. You think it’s a perspective; I insist that it’s a specification. Tell you what: float past Richard Dawkins the idea that any apparent randomness in natural selection may be explicable by a deity, and see how much further he lets you fly before you get smacked. I just perused Darwin’s chapter on natural selection, and the word “chance” (i.e., random) came up 24 times. The word “God”? Zero. The word “deity”? Zero. The word “design”? Zero.

The whole idea behind natural selection — the part that excites atheists such as Dawkins, whom you approvingly quoted earlier — was that it posits a world where chance mutation rules. The feedback mechanism of “natural selection” has been rhetorically designed so that it serves as a placeholder for God.

> GCT: “I don’t think you can call Mark’s comment nonsense and then reply with this statement. No one is saying that Model A Fords are the result of horse carriages mating with each other.”

I’m perfectly comfortable with my analogy, here. The idea that common ancestry of all life is evinced by taxonomical similarities in the fossil record is one of the great propaganda ploys of evolutionists. Yet, as the auto analogy demonstrates, taxonomical similarity does not necessarily imply common ancestry. Who’s to say whether similarities in fossils aren’t of the same type as similarities in autos? That is, they are similar not because they evolved randomly, but because they had a designer?

> GCT: “Of course, the ID people try to go the other way with it. Because we have machines which are complex, and biological systems are more complex, then they must be designed, or so the argument goes.”

I think Behe is still waiting for an evolutionist to explain the evolution of irreducibly complex mechanisms. I guess it’s a question of who you think has the burden of proof.

You still have the problem of the fact that even if evolution is wrong, it posits no positive evidence for ID. Do you have a hypothesis to share with us that we could test to find positive evidence for ID? Also, can you explain how it would show positive evidence for ID?

How about this: evolution works under the same scientific method as all other science. So, what makes evolution any more atheistic than any other science?