Card games and dice are a useful example here. Which number comes up, or the order in which the cards come out, is random. However, we can nonetheless make mathematically precise predictions about these cards or numbers based on our understanding of the parameters of the system.

The same thing is going on with evolution. Natural selection is a theory about the parameters of the system of evolution. It claims that even though the specific mutations that come out are random, the system as a whole is not. We can evaluate this claim by looking at the predictions made by this theory and seeing if they match up with the actual outcomes as a whole.

In this sense, evolution is no more random than, say, quantum mechanics.

Yes, counter-intuitive. I am too quick to accept the spell checker suggestions.

I don't know of anyone who believed that the earth was square, and hardly anyone believed it was flat. School children are taught that Columbus had to fight against those who thought the world was flat to get funds for his voyages. This is false. Virtually everyone knew the world was round, but did not believe Columbus was correct in his assessment of the size of the globe and his mistaken believe that it was faster to reach India by sailing west. Apparently Columbus never admitted that he did not reach India, even to the day he died. Of course, that is how American Indians got their name.

As far as what is counter-intuitive, maybe I should have said "contrary to logic, in the absence of proof otherwise."

I think that it gets down to variations of the definition of ID. There are some who use ID as a way to argue against evolution and that is wrong. I personally do not think there is any conflict between ID and evolution. So when you say that I think ID is correct, I don't think you know what I am talking about, and you are only lumping me in with creationists whose goal is to use ID to deny evolution.

Certainly, there is no question that natural selection plays a part in evolution. I don't understand why any religious person would want to deny that. The question (which seems to be avoided) is how do the mutations happen? Science cannot answer that (except to suggest that they happen randomly), any more than it answer the question of how life began in the first place.

Unfortunately, science wants to make exorbitant claims about things that is knows nothing about and therefore claims doesn't exist. Science cannot answer the question of whether there was intelligence in the universe before it became instantiated in higher level animals and humans. Science cannot answer the question of whether evolution is an intelligent force in the universe or just the random actions of atoms and molecules.

You'll have to show some evidence of such a force existing before accepting it becomes intellectually viable.

This is just a progression from you asking these questions previously to you no categorically stating your view, especially with regards to the bolded. Something seeming a particular way to you is not meaningful evidence.

Huh. I'm pretty sure that almost all the ID proponents of which I'm aware would disagree with your claim that "So ID is not necessary for a "scientific" explanation of evolution..."

That being said, I disagree with you on the larger claim here--I think one of the things science has to explain is how something which never existed before (whether it be intelligence, hearts, or cockroaches) can come into existence. This is what the theory of evolution by natural selection (or the modern synthesis if you prefer) is meant to explain. If it can't, that is a problem for the theory.

I never said anyone claimed it was square. And to say that hardly anyone believed it was flat is just incredible. And wrong obviosuly.

I guess it is debatable about what you consider to be "many people" but it was commonly accepted that the earth was round since ancient Greek civilization in the 6th century BC. Obviously, I am talking about what educated people thought, not illiterates.

Many people up until Copernicus believed that the earth was the center of universe, but in order to believe that one had to believe it was round.

Okay, yes, I certainly assume that ID is a way to argue against natural selection as the main mechanism of evolution. If that is not your intention, then probably many of my comments in this thread don't apply to you.

However, I will note that you entered this thread by disagreeing with my characterization of Intelligent Design as a social movement. I'll stand by my claim that ID proponents are concerned with opposing natural selection. If you have some other view that is not opposed to natural selection that you also call Intelligent Design, fine, but you are just talking about something different and particular to you.

Well, regardless of your understanding why, a very sizable percentage of them do.

Huh? Science can answer both of these questions. There is no mystery about how mutations happen--this is basic genetics. While we don't know how life began, and we might never know how it began, it is certainly within science's aegis to tell us how it might have begun.

Maybe science can't give us a definitive answer about whether there was intelligence in the universe before it became instantiated in humans and animals, but it can answer the question of whether that intelligence is required to explain how intelligence evolved here on earth. If you want to believe in epicycles--feel free.

Sounds like you need to expand your horizons, instead of just debating arguments from people who can easily be defeated by their own folly.

Did mathematics exist before humans or before the big bang? Did 2+2=4 (using whatever base system one wants) exist as truth before intelligent animals or humans evolved and were able to understand it?

Science cannot explain these things. That does not proof the existence of a higher being, but it does not allow science to say that such beings are not necessary to explain things. It depends on what level of explanation one is willing to settle for.

Science can explain how our brains got larger and more complex, but it cannot explain how we actually come to know things.

Plato demonstrated in the Meno (by merely asking a slave boy some questions) that knowledge of mathematics is really remembering something that you already knew, rather than it being taught to you.

So you're narrowing it down now to 'educated people'? My point obviously stands.

Okay, let's take another example of something that's not counter-intuitive - time is relative.

The way WN states it is fine (if uncompelling) but your example of a watch undermines your own/WN's point. You and Aaron have pointed out the difference between a human-designed object and a "natural" object. You surely want to be pointing out sameness instead.

So, why does a watch appear so different from, say, a tree (which is your own assertion, not mine), if you claim they are both the result of teleological design?

to be clear, I wasn't really intending my attempt at clarification to be an argument in favor of the universe being the result of intelligent design. I was just interested in starting with a reasonable definition of the phrase in a less controversial usage.

I'll be honest that I don't remember the specific nuance of how this was set up, but in my memory I remember watching a presentation in which there was a distinction made between complex-random objects and complex-designed objects.

I think the examples that were used were the Grand Canyon (as complex-random) and termite mounds (as complex-designed).

Thanks for the advice.

Not sure what you mean by mathematics existing here. Do you mean, did numbers exist as abstract objects before the existence of humans? If so, then I'm not sure, but I'm inclined to say no. If you mean, was the structure of number theory such that 2+2=4 before it was thought by humans? Then yes.

So you're saying that you think the truths of math came into existence?

Sure it can.

Eh, Plato's argument in the Meno was crap and anyways wouldn't have shown what he claimed. Also, Plato didn't think that the truths of math were created by some greater intelligence, so I'm not seeing much support for intelligent design here either...

By the way, I did notice how you dropped all the ID stuff and moved to philosophy of maths here. That doesn't actually help your argument. In discussions of ontology in the philosophy of maths we mostly just have our intuitions to go on (that is, very very weak evidence), whereas in ID discussions we have biology, genetics, geology, etc. (that is, very good evidence). So I'm much less likely to be convinced to change my view about something in evolution by discussions using philosophy of maths examples.

You and Aaron have pointed out the difference between a human-designed object and a "natural" object

This was not my intention.

So, why does a watch appear so different from, say, a tree (which is your own assertion, not mine),

I don't think I am asserting this.

Too late to edit:

Not meaning to be curt with the above.
I think you are emphasizing points I did not mean for emphasis.

The main thrust of what I wanted to say is, "things that look designed probably were designed". This applies to man made things and things that were made by God.

A rock looks designed to you? Or are you saying "things that look designed probably were designed" and "things that don't look designed probably were designed".

'Intelligent Design' is a term popularised by creationist propogandists. They tried and failed to legally get creationism labelled as a science and taught in schools in the US. So they rebranded creationism as 'intelligent design' in an attempt to Trojan Horse their lies into the education system.

So it's a term that can mean 'creationism', 'creationist movement' or 'religious argument' depending on the context. It's not however a 'theory' in the scientific sense despite anguished attempts of the creationist movement to redefine language to better suit their political agenda.

This seems like an oddly uncharitable reading. If I crumple up a piece of paper and throw it on the ground, it's both true that *I* made it and that it was not "designed."

FWIW, I'd consider both the manufacturing and the crumpling "design".

but is it intelligent design?

Haha.

Do you consider the random shards of rock that are leftover from creating an arrowhead to be "design" as well?

Pushing this further, if I take a dump in the woods and wipe myself with a leaf, is that design? (This removes the manufacturing of paper, which I would view as a "raw material" in context.)

I think an element of "design" that is absent in the crumpled paper is a sense of purpose and intention in the end product. There might be a way to work around that, but I don't see it.

Yes, I think both examples exhibit design.

Interesting. I think many people would disagree with you.

If I take a dump, is the fecal matter itself also designed?