Why I Am an ID Proponent

[Michael_Callen (Herculean Skeptic)]

Kudos to everyone for keeping this conversation enjoyable to read! I know that this is (and has been) a tempestuous topic and that, in the past, devolved quickly into ugliness.

There are many people who perceive weaknesses in the evolutionary explanations. The perception that things are designed seems to resonate with these same people. Are perceptions reality? That’s what is to be determined. But having the conversation and attempting to understand what another person sees (or why they do not see what you see) takes empathy, and empathy will lead to understanding.

@Rumraket

I am a proponent of the claim that there is no appearance of design in nature. I am honestly, and I mean this literally, baffled by the claim. I simply do not share that view, or intuition, or whatever you might want to call it.

I look at something in nature not created by humans, such as rocks, or trees, or clouds, and I see nothing at all that makes me think of design.

This really typifies why this issue is so challenging. Here’s a person who is honestly baffled by the claim of many who see design in nature. To me, this opinion is utterly baffling. But it is clearly and honestly articulated, so I have no reason to doubt that design is not perceived.

Thinking about Mikkel’s words causes me to see things differently, and moreover, it helps me to realize that if I were to state my perceptions to Mikkel as reasons why I struggle with this topic, Mikkel would not comprehend. What I would say would not resonate.

So, to continue the dialog, one has to pivot the conversation and to approach it from a different direction. One that is experienced in common, if there is to be any hope of actually conversing or discussing. To even begin to think that way causes cognitive dissonance. It is very uncomfortable to try to think outside of one’s paradigm and to meet another person where they are.

This is why this conversation becomes so emotional for everyone. There may be mistakes, weaknesses, and misunderstandings that contribute to the noise, but the bigger issue is that it takes a huge amount of effort to see something from another person’s perspective.

Many people see design everywhere.
Many other people do not see design anywhere.
Many people who see design cannot comprehend not seeing design.
Many people who do not see design cannot comprehend seeing design.

This is the nature of the frustration. The solution is to continue to dialog and work through. To be able to have conversations like this one, where someone is given enough grace to be able to say, I, too, reject weak arguments and I don’t know exactly where I stand… I think it is somewhere in the middle.

Please, keep this up.

[Patrick]

I see design in nature everywhere. It seems to be an engineer’s mentality to see design in everything. Termites design structures like modern architect’s do.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@Mung

… attempts to explain away the appearance of design fail to do so.

@mung

Yes, absolutely!

But what if EVERYONE agreed that Creation was designed!

And the only thing left to dispute was whether Design could be scientifically proven or not.

Do you think science can Prove design?

If so… you are saying that after 25 centuries of fruitless searching … that really will be an actual PROOF of God ?

[Mung]

@gbrooks9

Do you think science can Prove design?

I don’t think science can prove anything. And I don’t see ID arguments as being designed to prove the existence of God.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@glipsnort

It is sufficient reason to reject ID, even if one agrees that God created us.

The existence of bad arguments for design isn’t grounds for rejecting ID. The absence of any good arguments is grounds, however, at least provisionally.

I am not sure I agree. Let us say there are two arguments for design, A1 and A2. Let us say that A1 is a good argument, but A2 is a bad argument. What value is their in associating with an organization that promotes both A1 and A2, even going so far as to prohibit internal critique of A2? This ends up polluting trust in A1. Wouldn’t you trust someone merely making the A1 argument, and leaving the A2 argument in the dust? Now multiply A2 times 50, to proliferate bad arguments. What value is there now in staying? The fact that A1 is valid does not help much.

As for this situations e are looking at now, at appears that @Mung things that ID is ultimately right, but all their arguments are wrong. Now, we do not even have A1 to redeem the effort, just the fact that the final conclusion is the same all around.

It just seems more rational to take my path (and it appears your path too @glipsnort) of staying away from ID as a movement, even though believe God created us.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@Mung

I have to say that your views completely baffle me. Let’s enumerate them:

1]I don’t think science can prove anything. And
2] I don’t see ID arguments as being designed to prove the existence of God.
3] thus, @Mung , we can deduct that ID will not be able to confirm or prove Design. If it could, it would immediately prove the existence of God once someone eliminates “ancient aliens” as the only other contender.

This means, @mung , that the only thing left for the ID camp to demonstrate, is that regardless of science, there is good reason for Christians to accept God as the designer of all Creation. Not because of science, but because of Faith.

And yet, @mung , this doesn’t appear to be the axe you grind. You are grinding an axe enumerated somewhere in [1], [2] or [3].

Maybe you would like another stab at trying to build a coherent case for your discussions?

[Mung]

I don’t have an axe to grind. That would have been my grandfather, not me.

[glipsnort (Steve Schaffner)]

@swamidass

I am not sure I agree. Let us say there are two arguments for design, A1 and A2. Let us say that A1 is a good argument, but A2 is a bad argument. What value is their in associating with an organization that promotes both A1 and A2, even going so far as to prohibit internal critique of A2? This ends up polluting trust in A1. Wouldn’t you trust someone merely making the A1 argument, and leaving the A2 argument in the dust? Now multiply A2 times 50, to proliferate bad arguments. What value is there now in staying? The fact that A1 is valid does not help much.

You’re arguing against trusting an organization, which is not something I was addressing, i.e. you’re arguing that bad arguments for design are a reason for rejecting the DI, which need not be the same as rejecting ID.

@swamidass

It just seems more rational to take my path (and it appears your path too @glipsnort) of staying away from ID as a movement, even though believe God created us.

I think the only disagreement here is based on ambiguity in what “ID” means – is it a movement, or a concept? I was talking about the logical status of the latter, while you’re talking about the former.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@glipsnort

think the only disagreement here is based on ambiguity in what “ID” means – is it a movement, or a concept? I was talking about the logical status of the latter, while you’re talking about the former.

@glipsnort

If everyone in a room agrees that God designed creation , what percent of these room occupants can design an experiment where God or an operation of God can become the independent variable in an experiment?

Hint: think alchemists.

Answer: zero percent.

@marty, would you agree or disagree?

[Mung]

@swamidass

As for this situations e are looking at now, at appears that @Mung things that ID is ultimately right, but all their arguments are wrong.

That would not be a correct representation of my views on ID. I would never say that all ID arguments are wrong nor do I have reason to believe that all ID arguments are wrong. In fact, one of the questions I was asked was what argument of theirs do I find most convincing and I answered that question.

As always, if someone wants to ask me about a specific ID argument I am more than happy to share my thoughts about it. It simply goes to far to say I think that “all their arguments are wrong.”

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Mung, then answer the question. Which ones do you think are correct and valid? It is a straightforward question. Please answer it. If you can’t answer it, we could say:

@swamidass

As for the situations we are looking at now, at appears that @Mung things that ID is ultimately right, but cannot identify anything but false and invalid ID arguments.

[Mung]

@swamidass

@Mung, then answer the question. Which ones do you think are correct and valid? It is a straightforward question. Please answer it.

I don’t keep a list of ID arguments. I’ve repeatedly invited you to get specific. Present an ID argument and I’ll give you my honest opinion. And I have already given you one.

@swamidass

Please answer it. If you can’t answer it, we could say:

You could say that. It would not make it true.

What’s up with these demands Joshua? Don’t they tend to undermine dialog rather than encourage it?

[Marty]

@gbrooks9

where God or an operation of God can become the independent variable in an experiment?
Answer: zero percent.
@marty, would you agree or disagree?

I would agree. The answer is “Zero percent.”

[Michael_Callen (Herculean Skeptic)]

@Marty

I would agree. Zero percent.

Sorry. and totally off topic, but when I read your response, for a second, I thought you were my wife replying to me! Hahaha…

[Marty]

Thanks for pointing that out! Very funny the way it was. I made an edit…

[Marty]

@swamidass and @Mung
Perhaps I can propose a couple of design arguments for you guys to chew on:

1. The universe appears fine-tuned for life like us.
2. Given what we know about early earth and how biomolecules work, the first cell had to be designed.

Hope this helps!

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

I actually think their are good arguments, though the at you specified includes both good and bad arguments. I’m trying to figure out what @mung holds to here.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@mung which one did you give me?