Intelligent Design as a Fruitful Scientific Paradigm: Paleontology

T

The Pixie

Well-known member
The Discovery Institute (DI) have published an article where they try to make the case that ID is a fruitful scientific view.
evolutionnews.org

Science Stopper? ID as a Scientific Paradigm | Evolution News

When critics claim that research is not permitted to detect design because that would stop science, it is they who hold science back.
evolutionnews.org evolutionnews.org

They list a number of examples, and I have picked one to discuss for now. I may look at others later.

Paleontology: ID allows scientists to understand and predict patterns in the fossil record, showing explosions of biodiversity (as well as mass extinction) in the history of life.​

The footnote reference is:

Meyer et al., “The Cambrian Explosion: Biology’s Big Bang”; Meyer, “The Cambrian Information Explosion”; Meyer, “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories”; Lönnig, “Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis, and the origin of irreducible complexity.”​

Understanding​

So let us start with understanding the pattern. If we adopt the ID view, what should we understand to have happened? Do they take the view that the intelligent designer created all those basic body plans 550 million years ago, and all the species we see today evolved from them?

I have to admit, I have not read Meyer's book, from what I understand he is very careful not to say what he actually proposing! Perhaps others have read it, and assure me that that is not true. So exactly what understanding is the ID view offering here?


Predicting​

What is the prediction? The observation is that there was an explosion of new species 550 million years ago - are they saying that that is also the prediction? How many IDists even believe the planet is that old?

And what about mass extinctions? Why would that be a prediction from design? Are they saying the designer planned for them? If not, then how can that be a prediction of ID?


Fruitful Science​

What is the fruitful science that comes from this? More specifically, what science comes from this that would not from the evolutionist view? Should we be looking at the order in which the designer created each body plan? Should we be studying why he chose to inflict mass extinctions on them?

Has any ID scientist actually done any fruitful research in this area? I think we all know the answer to that one...
 
Cisco Qid said:
A response to Larry Moran from the DI.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that. From the article:

He thinks that the appearance of most of the animal phyla over 10 million years represents a considerable increase in biological information. ... The prior existence of algae, fungi, protozoa and bacteria is not disputed by Meyer. (Plants came later, Professor Moran.)​

So Meyer's position is that there were algae, fungi, protozoa and bacteria prior to the Cambrian explosion. it kind of implies that over the course of 10 million years, the designer created all the basic animal types, and at some later point he created plants.
  • What was the atmosphere like at this point, given "Plants came later"? Was there oxygen around?
  • Does Meyer believe the Chordata phylum was created at this time, and later invertebrates evolved from them? I cannot see many IDists getting behind that claim. Perhaps that is why Gauge skips over that.
  • Why does it take the designer 10 million years to create?
  • What was the designer doing for the previous 4 billion years?
  • In what way is Moran misrepresenting Meyer, besides the plants? Gauger is very sure he is, but what she describes seems to be what Moran attributes to Meyer.
Interesting that Gauger does not quote Meyer's book at all, despite assuring us his position is clear in there. In fact, when you read the article carefully, one realises that it does not actually say anything! What is Meyer's position on the Cambrian explosion? What does he actually believe happened?

As far as I can see, the article fails to actually say what Meyer's position is. The article is doing exactly what Moran is pointing out.

Have I read it wrong, Cisco? Can you tell me what Meyer believes happened during he Cambrian explosion? Given your terse reply, I strongly suspect you cannot.
 
The Pixie said:
Thanks for that. From the article:

He thinks that the appearance of most of the animal phyla over 10 million years represents a considerable increase in biological information. ... The prior existence of algae, fungi, protozoa and bacteria is not disputed by Meyer. (Plants came later, Professor Moran.)​

So Meyer's position is that there were algae, fungi, protozoa and bacteria prior to the Cambrian explosion. it kind of implies that over the course of 10 million years, the designer created all the basic animal types, and at some later point he created plants.
  • What was the atmosphere like at this point, given "Plants came later"? Was there oxygen around?
  • Does Meyer believe the Chordata phylum was created at this time, and later invertebrates evolved from them? I cannot see many IDists getting behind that claim. Perhaps that is why Gauge skips over that.
  • Why does it take the designer 10 million years to create?
  • What was the designer doing for the previous 4 billion years?
  • In what way is Moran misrepresenting Meyer, besides the plants? Gauger is very sure he is, but what she describes seems to be what Moran attributes to Meyer.
Interesting that Gauger does not quote Meyer's book at all, despite assuring us his position is clear in there. In fact, when you read the article carefully, one realises that it does not actually say anything! What is Meyer's position on the Cambrian explosion? What does he actually believe happened?

As far as I can see, the article fails to actually say what Meyer's position is. The article is doing exactly what Moran is pointing out.

Have I read it wrong, Cisco? Can you tell me what Meyer believes happened during he Cambrian explosion? Given your terse reply, I strongly suspect you cannot.
Click to expand...
First of all, it is hypocritical of Moran to criticize ID for not explaining how intelligence did it when in fact he can't explain how naturalism did it nor can any naturalist since there is no explanation for the origin of life. The ID view is that intelligence is the better candidate for an explanation since ID is the only known source of CSI. The how, what and when are answered from the available data. Why does the designer take 10 million years and what was the designer doing the previous 4 billion years are theological questions and are beyond the scope of science.

I have read both books by Meyers, Darwin's Doubt, and Signature in the Cell, and he is very precise on what he states and believes. So this leads me to believe that Moran is simply like some of the secularists on this forum who resort to ad hominem.
 
Cisco Qid said:
First of all, it is hypocritical of Moran to criticize ID for not explaining how intelligence did it when in fact he can't explain how naturalism did it nor can any naturalist since there is no explanation for the origin of life.
Click to expand...
But he can at least point to research on-going in that area, and some likely speculation as to what happened. Further, as far as I know Moran a book about these thinks.

Contrast to Meyer. He has written a book about the Cambrian explosion, and yet seems very cage about what he actually believes happened at that time.

Cisco Qid said:
The ID view is that intelligence is the better candidate for an explanation since ID is the only known source of CSI. The how, what and when are answered from the available data.
Click to expand...
So answer the questions.
  • What was the atmosphere like at this point, given "Plants came later"? Was there oxygen around?
  • Does Meyer believe the Chordata phylum was created at this time, and later invertebrates evolved from them? I cannot see many IDists getting behind that claim. Perhaps that is why Gauge skips over that.
  • In what way is Moran misrepresenting Meyer, besides the plants? Gauger is very sure he is, but what she describes seems to be what Moran attributes to Meyer.
The bigger question is whether Meyer believes people are related to chimps, and indeed fish. Are you able to answer that one? Or is that another one Meyer carefully evades.

Cisco Qid said:
Why does the designer take 10 million years and what was the designer doing the previous 4 billion years are theological questions and are beyond the scope of science.
Click to expand...
Hence, ID is a science stopper. It has declared that some areas of research are beyond science.

Cisco Qid said:
I have read both books by Meyers, Darwin's Doubt, and Signature in the Cell, and he is very precise on what he states and believes. So this leads me to believe that Moran is simply like some of the secularists on this forum who resort to ad hominem.
Click to expand...
And yet you cannot tell me what Meyer believes happened.
 
The Pixie said:
Hence, ID is a science stopper. It has declared that some areas of research are beyond science.
Click to expand...
In science you have to accept the reality of what you can achieve and what might not be able to achieve. For instance, in anthropology you can unearth the pottery, tools and other remains of a culture but you might never know what they thought unless they had a written language. You can achieve more by facing reality than running from it. for instance if scientists had listened to ID, the functionality in "junk DNA" would have been discovered sooner.
The Pixie said:
And yet you cannot tell me what Meyer believes happened.
Click to expand...
It's been several years since I read the book so you will have to read it your self. You can probably check it out of the library if you don't want to spend the money.
 
Cisco Qid said:
In science you have to accept the reality of what you can achieve and what might not be able to achieve. For instance, in anthropology you can unearth the pottery, tools and other remains of a culture but you might never know what they thought unless they had a written language. You can achieve more by facing reality than running from it. for instance if scientists had listened to ID, the functionality in "junk DNA" would have been discovered sooner.
Click to expand...
But, as I pointed out in the OP, IDists claim:

Paleontology: ID allows scientists to understand and predict patterns in the fossil record, showing explosions of biodiversity (as well as mass extinction) in the history of life.​

Turns out that is not true. All they can say is ID is supposedly a better candidate to explain the Cambrian explosion. There is no real understanding of what happened, just excuses for why we cannot look deeper. There are certainly no predictions of what we might see in the fossil record. There is no fruitful research.

As usual, what we have is the façade of science. It kind of looks like ID makes predictions, but scratch beneath the surface, and there is nothing there. It kind of looks like Meyer has a position on the Cambrian explosion, but scratch beneath the surface, and there is nothing there. When are you going to realise it is all smoke and mirrors, Cisco?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top