ID explained (Introduction)
by David Turell 
, Thursday, January 28, 2021, 00:34 (1181 days ago)
Read the whole essay for full understanding of ID views of proof:
https://intelligentdesign.org/articles/yes-intelligent-design-is-detectable-by-science/
Comment: I have parroted the approach in many bits and pieces. It logically makes sense
ID explained
First part transferred from the misleadingly named thread on “human evolution: we are entirely improbable”
DAVID: Neither you nor I have any logical absolute proof. That is why some of us jump Pascal's chasm and some of us don't. To me the evidence is overwhelming, but for you it isn't. As two different humans with two different background we come to different conclusions. That is certainly reasonable and logical.
dhw: Not quite. I do not come to one definite conclusion, whereas you do. This applies both to first cause and to theories of evolution. You claim that you have evidence “beyond a reasonable doubt” for your theories and dismiss any alternatives, but you do not or cannot provide any logical answers to my questions. That is why you have now dodged the bolded objection to your God theory at the start of this post!
DAVID: Reproduced here: "only a living, conscious mind can design life and consciousness, and therefore our life and consciousness were designed by a living, conscious mind which was not designed by anything at all. Logical?" Of course logical. Design requires a designer and without a first cause there is nothing. Logical?
“Design requires a designer” is logical, and “without a first cause there is nothing” is logical, but if life and consciousness require a designer and your God is alive and conscious, then he must have been designed. And so you solve the mystery of life and consciousness by telling us that they had to be designed but they didn’t have to be designed.
ID explained
QUOTES: Yet Darwin argued that this appearance of design could be more simply explained as the product of a purely undirected mechanism, namely, natural selection and random variation. Modern neo-Darwinists have similarly asserted that the undirected process of natural selection and random mutation produced the intricate designed-like structures in living systems.
There is nothing in this article that we have not discussed over and over again. There are two chapters of life involved in such discussions: 1 is the origin of life itself. 2 is the origin of species, i.e. evolution. In Origin of Species, Darwin explicitly says he is not dealing with the origin of life, and in later editions he actually attributes it to “the Creator” and says that his theory “should not shock the religious feelings of anyone”. You and I have from the very start dismissed his theory of random mutations as the mechanism of evolutionary innovation.
“There is simply too much information in the cell to be explained by chance alone.”
Agreed donkey’s years ago.
QUOTE: “the theory of intelligent design is not based upon ignorance or “gaps” in our knowledge, but on scientific discoveries about DNA and on established scientific methods of reasoning in which our uniform experience of cause and effect guides our inferences about the kinds of causes that produce (or best explain) different types of events or sequences.”
No attempt to distinguish between Chapters 1 and 2 of life. So let me fill in the gaps: nobody knows the origin of life – i,e, of the complex cells which have evolved into every life form in history. No one will deny that common descent requires the restructuring of cell communities. If we reject random mutations as the driving force behind this restructuring, we are left with a stark choice: either every life form was designed by a designer (or a team of designers), or every life form was designed by the cell communities of which it is made, i.e. by cellular intelligence. The article makes absolutely no mention of this theory – it is stuck with chance in the form of Darwin’s random mutations, which we have agreed to reject. It’s called flogging a dead horse.
QUOTE: Since the 1960s physicists have recognized that the initial conditions and the laws and constants of physics are finely tuned, against all odds, to make life possible. Even extremely slight alterations in the values of many independent factors — such as the expansion rate of the universe, the speed of light, and the precise strength of gravitational or electromagnetic attraction — would render life impossible. Physicists refer to these factors as “anthropic coincidences” and to the fortunate convergence of all these coincidences as the “fine-tuning of the universe.”
And it goes on to attack the theory of multiverses.
Of course we can only have life as we know it if conditions are right for life as we know it! But how can anyone possibly know what other conditions might be conducive to other forms of life? How can anyone possibly know the extent or the history of our universe, since even the big bang (if it happened) may have been one episode in its history? We are talking here about infinity and eternity. The article never makes one single attempt to explain the origin or whereabouts of the designer. ID-ers dare not do so, because they know that this will raise just as many questions as the problem of the origin of life and species. You do not solve a mystery by creating another mystery!
In brief: yes to intelligent design in Chapter 2 of life. Unsolved mysteries: the origin of life itself, and what is the designing mechanism that has enabled living organisms to diversify into all the life forms that exist and have existed? The article makes no attempt to solve either of these mysteries.
ID explained
by David Turell , Thursday, January 28, 2021, 15:04 (1181 days ago) @ dhw
First part transferred from the misleadingly named thread on “human evolution: we are entirely improbable”
DAVID: Reproduced here: "only a living, conscious mind can design life and consciousness, and therefore our life and consciousness were designed by a living, conscious mind which was not designed by anything at all. Logical?" Of course logical. Design requires a designer and without a first cause there is nothing. Logical?
“Design requires a designer” is logical, and “without a first cause there is nothing” is logical, but if life and consciousness require a designer and your God is alive and conscious, then he must have been designed. And so you solve the mystery of life and consciousness by telling us that they had to be designed but they didn’t have to be designed.
You have left out the obvious: a first cause must be eternal and we may be the last and current iteration of His/Hers efforts.
ID explainedQUOTES: Yet Darwin argued that this appearance of design could be more simply explained as the product of a purely undirected mechanism, namely, natural selection and random variation. Modern neo-Darwinists have similarly asserted that the undirected process of natural selection and random mutation produced the intricate designed-like structures in living systems.
dhw: There is nothing in this article that we have not discussed over and over again. There are two chapters of life involved in such discussions: 1 is the origin of life itself. 2 is the origin of species, i.e. evolution. In Origin of Species, Darwin explicitly says he is not dealing with the origin of life, and in later editions he actually attributes it to “the Creator” and says that his theory “should not shock the religious feelings of anyone”. You and I have from the very start dismissed his theory of random mutations as the mechanism of evolutionary innovation.
“There is simply too much information in the cell to be explained by chance alone.”
d hw: Agreed donkey’s years ago.
QUOTE: “the theory of intelligent design is not based upon ignorance or “gaps” in our knowledge, but on scientific discoveries about DNA and on established scientific methods of reasoning in which our uniform experience of cause and effect guides our inferences about the kinds of causes that produce (or best explain) different types of events or sequences.”
dhw: No attempt to distinguish between Chapters 1 and 2 of life. So let me fill in the gaps: nobody knows the origin of life – i,e, of the complex cells which have evolved into every life form in history. No one will deny that common descent requires the restructuring of cell communities. If we reject random mutations as the driving force behind this restructuring, we are left with a stark choice: either every life form was designed by a designer (or a team of designers), or every life form was designed by the cell communities of which it is made, i.e. by cellular intelligence. The article makes absolutely no mention of this theory – it is stuck with chance in the form of Darwin’s random mutations, which we have agreed to reject. It’s called flogging a dead horse.
Cellular intelligence means the cells have knowledge and can plan by thinking. You never answer how they developed those abilities or where their knowledge came from. It is then a nebulous conjecture. Remember 50/50: either so-called intelligent cells simply follow intelligent instructions or they have arranged their own intelligent processes. The immerging understanding of the extreme complexity of a single operating cell demands a well-planned deesign by a designer.
dhw: Of course we can only have life as we know it if conditions are right for life as we know it! But how can anyone possibly know what other conditions might be conducive to other forms of life? How can anyone possibly know the extent or the history of our universe, since even the big bang (if it happened) may have been one episode in its history? We are talking here about infinity and eternity. The article never makes one single attempt to explain the origin or whereabouts of the designer. ID-ers dare not do so, because they know that this will raise just as many questions as the problem of the origin of life and species. You do not solve a mystery by creating another mystery!
There must be something or someone who is eternal. Something from nothing is impossible.
dhw: In brief: yes to intelligent design in Chapter 2 of life. Unsolved mysteries: the origin of life itself, and what is the designing mechanism that has enabled living organisms to diversify into all the life forms that exist and have existed? The article makes no attempt to solve either of these mysteries.
ID never dares to name God. They simply logically show design requires a designer. And you are trapped by it, and logically can't be an atheist. Your Devine foot is on exhibit, in the door..
ID explained
DAVID: Reproduced here: "only a living, conscious mind can design life and consciousness, and therefore our life and consciousness were designed by a living, conscious mind which was not designed by anything at all. Logical?" Of course logical. Design requires a designer and without a first cause there is nothing. Logical?
dhw: “Design requires a designer” is logical, and “without a first cause there is nothing” is logical, but if life and consciousness require a designer and your God is alive and conscious, then he must have been designed. And so you solve the mystery of life and consciousness by telling us that they had to be designed but they didn’t have to be designed.
DAVID: You have left out the obvious: a first cause must be eternal and we may be the last and current iteration of His/Hers efforts.
Of course a first cause must be eternal, but that does not make a conscious first cause any more logical than an unconscious first cause. Your speculation that humans may be the purpose and last product of evolution has nothing to do with the illogicality of your belief that life and consciousness must be designed but were not designed.
QUOTE: “the theory of intelligent design is not based upon ignorance or “gaps” in our knowledge, but on scientific discoveries about DNA and on established scientific methods of reasoning in which our uniform experience of cause and effect guides our inferences about the kinds of causes that produce (or best explain) different types of events or sequences.”
dhw: No attempt to distinguish between Chapters 1 and 2 of life. So let me fill in the gaps: nobody knows the origin of life – i,e, of the complex cells which have evolved into every life form in history. No one will deny that common descent requires the restructuring of cell communities. If we reject random mutations as the driving force behind this restructuring, we are left with a stark choice: either every life form was designed by a designer (or a team of designers), or every life form was designed by the cell communities of which it is made, i.e. by cellular intelligence. The article makes absolutely no mention of this theory – it is stuck with chance in the form of Darwin’s random mutations, which we have agreed to reject. It’s called flogging a dead horse.
DAVID: Cellular intelligence means the cells have knowledge and can plan by thinking.
It certainly means they have knowledge, but it does not mean they plan in the sense of foreseeing the future. My proposal is that cells RESPOND to requirements.
DAVID: You never answer how they developed those abilities or where their knowledge came from. It is then a nebulous conjecture.
I merely repeat ad nauseam that we do not know the origin, and that your God – so nebulous a conjecture that your ID-ers dare not even mention him - is one possible explanation, and others are chance and some sort of panpsychism. Why do you keep pretending you’ve never heard this before?
DAVID: Remember 50/50: either so-called intelligent cells simply follow intelligent instructions or they have arranged their own intelligent processes.
Precisely. That is what I have said in the bold above. If it’s 50/50, even you have no reason to reject it.
DAVID: The immerging understanding of the extreme complexity of a single operating cell demands a well-planned design by a designer.
Back you go to the origin! Our disagreement is over Chapter 2 of life, with your claim that your God’s sole purpose was to design H. sapiens, but he directly designed every life form that ever existed, 99% of which had no connection with humans.
dhw [on “fine tuning”]: Of course we can only have life as we know it if conditions are right for life as we know it! But how can anyone possibly know what other conditions might be conducive to other forms of life? How can anyone possibly know the extent or the history of our universe, since even the big bang (if it happened) may have been one episode in its history? We are talking here about infinity and eternity. The article never makes one single attempt to explain the origin or whereabouts of the designer. ID-ers dare not do so, because they know that this will raise just as many questions as the problem of the origin of life and species. You do not solve a mystery by creating another mystery! [...]
DAVID: ID never dares to name God.
I have just said so, and I have said why.
DAVID: They simply logically show design requires a designer. And you are trapped by it, and logically can't be an atheist. Your Devine foot is on exhibit, in the door..
Why are you telling me what I keep telling you? I accept the logic behind the design argument, so I’m not an atheist. I accept that there is no logic behind the argument that life and consciousness have to be designed, but the life and consciousness of a designer do not have to be designed, so I’m not a theist. I have one foot inside and one foot outside the door, or I remain sitting on the fence. This is called agnosticism.
ID explained
by David Turell , Friday, January 29, 2021, 23:06 (1179 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: You have left out the obvious: a first cause must be eternal and we may be the last and current iteration of His/Hers efforts.
dhw: Of course a first cause must be eternal, but that does not make a conscious first cause any more logical than an unconscious first cause. Your speculation that humans may be the purpose and last product of evolution has nothing to do with the illogicality of your belief that life and consciousness must be designed but were not designed.
What is logical despite your circular reasoning, is an uncaused productive first cause must exist. Eternal means always.
DAVID: Cellular intelligence means the cells have knowledge and can plan by thinking.dhw: It certainly means they have knowledge, but it does not mean they plan in the sense of foreseeing the future. My proposal is that cells RESPOND to requirements.
You haven't told us how they know to respond.
DAVID: Remember 50/50: either so-called intelligent cells simply follow intelligent instructions or they have arranged their own intelligent processes.dhw: Precisely. That is what I have said in the bold above. If it’s 50/50, even you have no reason to reject it.
I have a perfect right to choose one side, based on evidence.
DAVID: The immerging understanding of the extreme complexity of a single operating cell demands a well-planned design by a designer.dhw: Back you go to the origin! Our disagreement is over Chapter 2 of life, with your claim that your God’s sole purpose was to design H. sapiens, but he directly designed every life form that ever existed, 99% of which had no connection with humans.
Silly. The connection is evolution starting from bacteria. It is not discontinuous.
ID explained
DAVID: You have left out the obvious: a first cause must be eternal and we may be the last and current iteration of His/Hers efforts.
dhw: Of course a first cause must be eternal, but that does not make a conscious first cause any more logical than an unconscious first cause. Your speculation that humans may be the purpose and last product of evolution has nothing to do with the illogicality of your belief that life and consciousness must be designed but were not designed.
DAVID: What is logical despite your circular reasoning, is an uncaused productive first cause must exist. Eternal means always.
Of course an uncaused first cause must exist, and of course eternal means always. But that does not make a conscious first cause any more logical than an unconscious first cause! I have listed three possible first causes (your eternal conscious God, an eternal unconscious universe of constantly changing energy and matter, and an eternal, vaguely panpsychist universe), and I find all of them equally unconvincing. You are taking us round in circles.
DAVID: Cellular intelligence means the cells have knowledge and can plan by thinking.
dhw: It certainly means they have knowledge, but it does not mean they plan in the sense of foreseeing the future. My proposal is that cells RESPOND to requirements.
DAVID: You haven't told us how they know to respond.
How often do I have to repeat that NOBODY knows how speciation happens, and NOBODY knows the origin of life or intelligence, but your God is one of the three possible first causes mentioned above.
DAVID: Remember 50/50: either so-called intelligent cells simply follow intelligent instructions or they have arranged their own intelligent processes.
dhw: Precisely. [...] If it’s 50/50, even you have no reason to reject it.
DAVID: I have a perfect right to choose one side, based on evidence.
Yes, of course you do. And Shapiro and I have a perfect right to interpret the evidence of intelligence as evidence of intelligence. Problems only arise when, for instance, we start discussing possible explanations for the history of evolution.
DAVID: The immerging understanding of the extreme complexity of a single operating cell demands a well-planned design by a designer.
dhw: Back you go to the origin! Our disagreement is over Chapter 2 of life, with your claim that your God’s sole purpose was to design H. sapiens, but he directly designed every life form that ever existed, 99% of which had no connection with humans.
DAVID: Silly. The connection is evolution starting from bacteria. It is not discontinuous.
We keep going over this. What is discontinuous is the branching out of evolution from bacteria to millions of DIFFERENT life forms, 99% of which have died out – literally reached a dead end – and have no connection with humans, although you claim that every single one of them was part of the goal of evolving humans! You have no idea why your God would have chosen this method of fulfilling his only goal, and we agreed to leave it at that. Now you are starting the silly dodging game all over again, and you even repeat it in the theodicy thread! 
ID explained
by David Turell , Saturday, January 30, 2021, 14:02 (1179 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: What is logical despite your circular reasoning, is an uncaused productive first cause must exist. Eternal means always.
dhw: Of course an uncaused first cause must exist, and of course eternal means always. But that does not make a conscious first cause any more logical than an unconscious first cause! I have listed three possible first causes (your eternal conscious God, an eternal unconscious universe of constantly changing energy and matter, and an eternal, vaguely panpsychist universe), and I find all of them equally unconvincing. You are taking us round in circles.
Of course you are unconvinced. It is illogical to propose that an unconscious first cause can plan like a conscious first cause. As for constantly changing energy/matter, where did it come from? It is chance in sheep's clothing. And of course panpsychism is 'vague'. So much for your three concocted choices.
DAVID: Cellular intelligence means the cells have knowledge and can plan by thinking.dhw: It certainly means they have knowledge, but it does not mean they plan in the sense of foreseeing the future. My proposal is that cells RESPOND to requirements.
DAVID: You haven't told us how they know to respond.
dhw: How often do I have to repeat that NOBODY knows how speciation happens, and NOBODY knows the origin of life or intelligence, but your God is one of the three possible first causes mentioned above.
Thanks for the sop.
DAVID: Remember 50/50: either so-called intelligent cells simply follow intelligent instructions or they have arranged their own intelligent processes.dhw: Precisely. [...] If it’s 50/50, even you have no reason to reject it.
DAVID: I have a perfect right to choose one side, based on evidence.
dhw: Yes, of course you do. And Shapiro and I have a perfect right to interpret the evidence of intelligence as evidence of intelligence. Problems only arise when, for instance, we start discussing possible explanations for the history of evolution.
DAVID: The immerging understanding of the extreme complexity of a single operating cell demands a well-planned design by a designer.
dhw: Back you go to the origin! Our disagreement is over Chapter 2 of life, with your claim that your God’s sole purpose was to design H. sapiens, but he directly designed every life form that ever existed, 99% of which had no connection with humans.
DAVID: Silly. The connection is evolution starting from bacteria. It is not discontinuous.
dhw: We keep going over this. What is discontinuous is the branching out of evolution from bacteria to millions of DIFFERENT life forms, 99% of which have died out – literally reached a dead end – and have no connection with humans, although you claim that every single one of them was part of the goal of evolving humans! You have no idea why your God would have chosen this method of fulfilling his only goal, and we agreed to leave it at that. Now you are starting the silly dodging game all over again, and you even repeat it in the theodicy thread!
Each branch of the bush is continuous from the origin. So is the branch to humans. Did we just jump time to where we are? Your approach is so illogical. Evolution evolves, doesn't it?
ID explained
dhw: […] I have listed three possible first causes (your eternal conscious God, an eternal unconscious universe of constantly changing energy and matter, and an eternal, vaguely panpsychist universe), and I find all of them equally unconvincing.
DAVID: Of course you are unconvinced. It is illogical to propose that an unconscious first cause can plan like a conscious first cause.
Agreed.
DAVID: As for constantly changing energy/matter, where did it come from? It is chance in sheep's clothing.
A first cause did not “come from” anywhere. In your own immortal words, “eternal means always”. If by “chance” you mean the infinite and eternal process of matter and energy eventually producing life and consciousness, it is not chance in sheep’s clothing, it is simply chance.
DAVID: And of course panpsychism is 'vague'. So much for your three concocted choices.
But you’ve left one out! You’ve forgotten to turn your justified scepticism on the concept of an unknown, unknowable, eternally conscious mind (in this case, you don’t you ask: “where did it come from?”) with psychokinetic powers that can create and manipulate a whole universe as well as dabble with tiny organisms invisible to the naked eye. I am as unconvinced by your concocted choice as I am by the other two.
DAVID: Cellular intelligence means the cells have knowledge and can plan by thinking.
dhw: It certainly means they have knowledge, but it does not mean they plan in the sense of foreseeing the future. My proposal is that cells RESPOND to requirements.
DAVID: You haven't told us how they know to respond.
dhw: How often do I have to repeat that NOBODY knows how speciation happens, and NOBODY knows the origin of life or intelligence, but your God is one of the three possible first causes mentioned above.
DAVID: Thanks for the sop.
It is not a sop. One of the three “concocted choices” must be closer to the truth than the other two. I am not anti-God, any more than I am anti-chance or anti-panpsychism.
DAVID: The immerging understanding of the extreme complexity of a single operating cell demands a well-planned design by a designer.
dhw: Back you go to the origin! Our disagreement is over Chapter 2 of life, with your claim that your God’s sole purpose was to design H. sapiens, but he directly designed every life form that ever existed, 99% of which had no connection with humans. […]
DAVID: Each branch of the bush is continuous from the origin. So is the branch to humans. Did we just jump time to where we are? Your approach is so illogical. Evolution evolves, doesn't it?
Of course each branch is/was continuous from its origin. But you claim that EVERY branch is/was directly designed as part of your God’s goal of evolving humans, whereas 99% of them had no connection with humans. You have no idea why he would have chosen such a method to fulfil such a purpose, and so you continue to play the silly game of leaving out the bits of your theory that make it illogical.
ID explained
by David Turell , Sunday, January 31, 2021, 18:17 (1178 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Cellular intelligence means the cells have knowledge and can plan by thinking.
dhw: It certainly means they have knowledge, but it does not mean they plan in the sense of foreseeing the future. My proposal is that cells RESPOND to requirements.
DAVID: You haven't told us how they know to respond.
dhw: How often do I have to repeat that NOBODY knows how speciation happens, and NOBODY knows the origin of life or intelligence, but your God is one of the three possible first causes mentioned above.
DAVID: Thanks for the sop.
dhw: It is not a sop. One of the three “concocted choices” must be closer to the truth than the other two. I am not anti-God, any more than I am anti-chance or anti-panpsychism.
DAVID: The immerging understanding of the extreme complexity of a single operating cell demands a well-planned design by a designer.
dhw: Back you go to the origin! Our disagreement is over Chapter 2 of life, with your claim that your God’s sole purpose was to design H. sapiens, but he directly designed every life form that ever existed, 99% of which had no connection with humans. […]
DAVID: Each branch of the bush is continuous from the origin. So is the branch to humans. Did we just jump time to where we are? Your approach is so illogical. Evolution evolves, doesn't it?
dhw: Of course each branch is/was continuous from its origin. But you claim that EVERY branch is/was directly designed as part of your God’s goal of evolving humans, whereas 99% of them had no connection with humans. You have no idea why he would have chosen such a method to fulfil such a purpose, and so you continue to play the silly game of leaving out the bits of your theory that make it illogical.
I've left out nothing. I've explained to you the whole bush is very necessary food supply. You are the one who looks disconnectedly at all the interlocking parts of my approach. I've put it all together for you and somehow you only manage to see disconnected parts.
ID explained: are cells intelligent
by David Turell , Sunday, March 07, 2021, 15:27 (1143 days ago) @ David Turell
The point is they are intelligently instructed:
https://mindmatters.ai/2020/10/why-do-many-scientists-see-cells-as-intelligent/
"Researchers into antibiotic resistance must deal with the surprisingly complex ways bacteria “think” in order to counter them. For example, some bacteria may warn others while dying from antibiotics. But what about individual cells in our bodies?
"A skeptic might say that bacteria are, after all, individual entities like dogs or cats. There is evidence that individual life forms can show intelligence even with no brain. But dependent cells?
"Surprisingly, cells that are not independent at all but part of a body can also show something that looks like intelligence, as Michael Denton discusses in Miracle of the Cell (2020):
"No one who has observed a leucocyte (a white blood cell) purposefully—one might even say single-mindedly—chasing after a bacterium in a blood smear would disagree.
"MICHAEL DENTON, MIRACLE OF THE CELL, P. 15
He references this classic video by David Rogers, from the University of New South Wales, called “Neutrophil Chasing Bacteria”:
https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/images/3/36/Neutrophil_chasing_bacteria_m...
"What one witnesses there seems to transcend all our intuitions: A tiny speck of matter, invisible to the naked eye, so small that one hundred of them could be lined up across the top of a pin, is seemingly endowed with intention and agency. It’s like watching a house cat chasing a mouse, or a cheetah chasing a gazelle on the African savanna, or indeed a man chasing down a kudu in the Kalahari.
***
"To be clear, most researchers do not think that white blood cells or bacteria are conscious, like dogs or cats. They are, however, often thought to be sentient (capable of feeling).
"At the very least, like complex machines, they are full of critical, interacting information. And sometimes, also like complex machines, they spookily manage to behave as if they were conscious.
"Except for one thing: Cells are vastly more complex than any machine we have built. So if we have seen a high level of artificial intelligence in action, perhaps we should not be surprised by cells, which are so much more complex, to the point where a cell can be viewed as a third infinity, the first two being the universe and the atom. But this third infinity is mainly one of information, not matter.
"Electrical engineer Perry Marshall looked into the question of cell sentience and intelligence and commented,
The huge realization I had when I started this was the incredible parallels between DNA and Ethernet, because I had written an Ethernet book. The similarities were almost scary. Encoding, decoding, error detection, error correction, checksums, layers. On and on.
"PERRY MARSHALL, “ARE CELLS INTELLIGENT?” AT EVOLUTION 2.0 (MARCH 2, 2017)
In Marshall’s view, there is an intelligence behind the cell that is not the intelligence of the cell itself. He uses another computer analogy: “Even if a computer is automatically generating emails, they always originated from a conscious source.'”
Comment: Since we are on the outside of cells our answer is a 50/50 probability as to which interpretation is correct, that is, primary intelligent activity or following intelligent instructions?. All ID folks side with the latter.
ID explained
by David Turell , Saturday, March 27, 2021, 17:17 (1123 days ago) @ dhw
Why God is not mentioned:
https://evolutionnews.org/2021/03/whats-wrong-with-calling-intelligent-design-anti-evol...
"There are three general definitions of evolution used in the scientific literature:
"Evolution #1: Change over time: small-scale changes in a population of organisms.
"Evolution #2: Universal common descent: the view that all organisms are related and are descended from a single common ancestor.
"Evolution #3: Natural selection: The view that an unguided process of natural selection acting upon random mutation has been the primary mechanism driving the evolution of life.
"Everyone agrees that ID is compatible with Evolution #1 and Evolution #2. Everyone also agrees that Evolution #1 is true. There is a diversity of views within the ID camp about Evolution #2. But design proponents all agree that as a scientific theory ID is at least potentially compatible with some form of common descent. Whether the evidence supports common descent is a separate question.
"All ID proponents also agree that Evolution #3 has some merit and explains at least some features of nature. The vast majority of ID proponents would hold that Evolution #3 has explanatory limits, meaning there are many complex features of biology not amenable to neo-Darwinian explanations, nor explanation by other related blind mechanisms (e.g., neutral mutations, genetic drift, etc.). But everyone agrees that natural selection and random mutation are real forces in nature with at least some explanatory power. We’d all agree that neutral evolution occurs as well.
"Because ID proponents (a) agree with certain definitions of evolution and/or (b) agree that certain definitions of evolution are true, to use the term “anti-evolution” against ID misrepresents us. ID is not “anti-evolution” and in fact, depending on how you define evolution, ID may be quite comfortable with evolution. Depending on how you see ID, it could even form a type of theory of evolution.
***
"If ID is anti-anything, it’s anti-presupposed answers. What accounts for life’s complexity and diversify? If the answer is evolution (in one or more of its various definitions), then great — the ID community wants to know that. For my part I’ve taken or TA’d over a dozen courses covering evolution at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. I did this because I wanted to learn about and study evolution. I’m not anti-evolution – I want to know more about what evolution can and cannot explain!
"In my view, the term “anti-evolution” ought to be rejected by everyone in the ID debate because (a) it is inaccurate as a description of ID, and (b) it aims to paint ID in an unfair and negative light. As I said, the term has a long history of use by ID critics who want to obscure what ID is. Such a low level of dialogue — seeking to win by obfuscation — is unworthy of serious debate."
Comment: ID simply accepts that obvious design in life forms indicates a designer at work. Many will admit in public writings it reinforces their belief in God, but they will never use God in their scientific papers on design. When dhw wonders if ID'ers support my theories, the answer is obviously no. I use their theories and plug God in. I am not limited by their self-imposed restraints about references to God as the designer. They refer to the need for a designing mind. I just give it a name.