Intelligent Design - theory, examples, implications

[C1ay]

I've given a number of examples of ID:

-eye

-neural connections between eye and brain

-non-linear differential equations

-origin of DNA not accounted for by natural causes

-bacterial flagellum

-fine tuning of the universe

 

Correction, you've theorized a number of examples of ID. You've still not proven that any of it is fact, only that you believe it is. There's nothing wrong with that but don't expect us to believe it just because you do.

[jp3089]

BTW- If we were created, how is there free will? Not to open a metaphisical can of worms, but I'm just interested in your view.

The point of free will according to the Biblical creationist standpoint is that God wants us to CHOOSE to love Him. He doesn't want robots, He wants love by choice. That's also why you never see Jesus forcing people to follow Him in the Bible. In a sermon I preached to my Junior Highers (I'm a Jr. High youth pastor at a good-sized church), I once preached that "God won't make you give Him anything, but He ASKS for everything". I hope that answers your question. Start a new thread in the Philosophy section and let me know if you need me to expound a bit.

 

Blessings,

 

jp

[TeleMad]

Correction, you've theorized a number of examples of ID. You've still not proven that any of it is fact, only that you believe it is. There's nothing wrong with that but don't expect us to believe it just because you do.

 

We have to be careful with the word prove - science has not literally proven that the origins for some of the things Lolic listed was by purely natural means. Science has provided a lot of evidence that supports the notion they were, but no actual proof. So I don't think it is correct to ask for proof from the IDists when the scientists can't provide proof themselves.

[Tormod]

why does it bother you so much that people do not agree with you?

 

It doesn't. I am challenging you, and you are not very good at accepting that challenge. Calm down, Lolic. I am not chasing you with a stick.

 

Science is not just as you discribed it. There is also forensic science, and others that look at evicence or artifacts and we must draw conclusions from evidence and logic because the situation cannot be recreated in lab. You can critize my posts by saying it does not follow scientific tenants, but I'm not too hopeful that I'll be able to recreate the big bang or the first DNA for anyone.

 

Nor am I. Not being able to recreate something does not imply much. I am unable to recreate a mountain, too, even though I know they exist. The Big Bang is merely a concept. DNA is indeed a mystery - a wonderful one at that. It was discovered using science, and it is being studied using science. We are able to replicate DNA. But we are not able to make DNA from the building blocks as of yet. This does not imply that intelligence is needed to create it.

 

Sometimes we have to use what we know via obdservation and induction, then make deductions from there.

 

Exactly. And then we back up those deductions by making predictions. And then we device experiments to help us test if those predictions are correct or not.

 

I have articulated the ID theory.

 

A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM

 

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

 

Interesting. I thought ID was not only about anti-evolutionism? If this is the ID theory then it's not very impressive.

 

This is not a theory. It is a statement about a position. It does not say that evolution does not happen, only that it might not explain everything. I assume there is more to ID than that.

 

and provided a list of scientists who are skeptical of Darwinian evolutionary claims. This is the first of 10 pages. If interested, you can find the entire list at:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vi...nd=view&id=2114

in total there about 300 people who signed it.

 

Luckily for the ID movement, science is not something that works by popular vote. 300 scientists is not a lot of people - but would it matter even if 3 billion people signed it? The case for evidence and facts would remain the same.

 

When I summarize things, I have given books or the source so people can check it out in detail, but you criticise me for not giving more detail. I can't include the detail of a 400 page book. You choose not to read it, yet say the evidence or theory is bad. That's your choice to be informed or not informed. I con't do your research for you.

 

Tell me - what did I not read? How on Earth do you know what I read and do not read? You might be surprised at what is on my booklist.

 

I want to engage with people who are interested in ID, that's why I moved to this thread. You use your power as a moderator to degrade my posts...imagine how fun that is for me!

 

:eek: I use my power as what to do what? How am I degrading your posts? FYI - I am the owner of this site, not a moderator. AFAIK I do not have a reputation to ruin people's discussion. Someone else please correct me if I am mistaken.

 

Why don't you read the book, "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" then talk to me about how stupid the ideas are.

 

I don't think I have used the word "stupid" in this discussion. I don't think your ideas are stupid, Lolic. I think, however, that we have seen all of your arguments here before and would like to see some real foundation behind the ID movement.

 

So far your posts have strengthened my feeling that ID is simply a set of skeptical attacks on a very real science, ridicule of scientists and people who agree with evolutionary theories. That is anti-science, not science. If you think that this is the same as attacking you, then I am sorry. It might help to detach yourself from the discussion. I'm trying to discuss the theory, not your person.

 

The person you know who authored the cosmological book may not believe the anthropic prin. leads to design, many others do. The odds of the constants being what they are by chance is astronomical. I will discuss more later.

 

I do not know him. As a science reporter I have interviewed him a couple of times (another interview will appear here at Hypography soon). I am aware that AP is taken by many as proof of ID. That's fine. Nobody will ever be able to prove, nor disprove, that ID has not happened. This does not mean that it is a fact, and it does not mean that everyone needs to care about it (just like any other science, actually).

 

You will not see me claim any right to a "truth".

 

I would live to talk about this information in more detail, but you and TeleMad have been quite successful in diverting my attentions and getting me to respond to you comments. My fault for getting sidetracked.

 

Sorry for trying to get to the core of this discussion. I think we just found it, though - you feel supressed for not being able to publish what everyone else is saying. But we want to hear *your* ideas, Lolic, not those of the ID mentors and tutors. It's fine to publish quotes. But then you need to back them up with some ideas on why you think this and that is important. Otherwise you are simply acting as a propagandist. This would be true no matter what background you would have.

 

So, to repeat - you are very welcome to discuss ID here at Hypography. But we want to hear what you have to offer - the theories, examples, implications, and how they might prove evolution wrong. Is that too much to ask?

 

Some topics I'd like to see discussed are:

 

A) What are the theoretical foundations for ID?

:) How did these theories evolve? How can they be tested? What do they predict?

C) Did the designer plan everything and let the universe grow in its own, or is it being carefully groomed all along?

D) What is the relation between an intelligent designer and God? Is there any difference to us from a human POV? Considering the question in C), what does this say about the idea of "divine intervention"?

[Tormod]

We have to be careful with the word prove - science has not literally proven that the origins for some of the things Lolic listed was by purely natural means. Science has provided a lot of evidence that supports the notion they were, but no actual proof. So I don't think it is correct to ask for proof from the IDists when the scientists can't provide proof themselves.

 

A very good point. Science has not proven that the universe was not created. Most likely we will never be able to prove that.

 

But, like TeleMad says, the evidence must be considered. It must be replaced with theories that explain what we observe as evolution with a different theory that is better than the current one. That is how theories evolve.

 

There is no absolute truth in science. That belongs in religion.

[Tormod]

BTW- If we were created, how is there free will? Not to open a metaphisical can of worms, but I'm just interested in your view.

 

DS, Freewill vs Determinism is discussed in other threads. Like JP suggest, let's keep it out of this topic if you don't mind.

[Lolic]

There's nothing wrong with that but don't expect us to believe it just because you do.

I agree that you have every right to make up your own mind. :eek:

I will try to present the evidence that shows why this is a reasonable conclusion. Please be patient, there is a lot of evidence and logic that leads up to this conclusion. I don't know how to get it out all at once. I will try to do a much better job on not getting sidetracked in the future and staying more on topic.

thank you!

 

Please think of the following in light of both ID and natural causes...

 

1) without DNA there is no self replication

2) without self replication there is no natural selection

3) so one can’t use natural selection to explain the origin of DNA without assuming the existence of the very thing (DNA) they are trying to explain.

 

Macro evolution doesn’t make DNA possible. The information in DNA, which gives us self replication, existed first. Without the information in DNA to turn amino acids into proteins in the proper manner, provide assembly instructions, and build micro-machines for the cell, we wouldn’t have self replication. The information came first. The real question is where did the information come from for the first DNA, or what is the origin of the information found in DNA? And because Darwinian and natural science explanations can’t explain it, that is why we can’t just toss out the possibility of Intelligent Design.

 

Where do you believe the information in DNA came from?

 

My understanding of the topic is that this is why Phd Dean Kenyon repudiated his book, "Chemical Predistination".

 

I would enjoy reading your view on this!

[C1ay]

We have to be careful with the word prove - science has not literally proven that the origins for some of the things Lolic listed was by purely natural means. Science has provided a lot of evidence that supports the notion they were, but no actual proof. So I don't think it is correct to ask for proof from the IDists when the scientists can't provide proof themselves.

 

I think it's a fair term to use though and readily admit that none of the theories for a beginning of life have been proven.

 

As an example I claim to be agnostic but I can also say with certainty that I do not believe in God. OTOH, I do not claim that there is no God because it is something I cannot prove. It is fair for the believers to ask that I prove there is no God if I claim there is not one, so I accept that it is possible even though I do not believe it, only because I cannot disprove it. Some would call me a freethinker for this logic.

 

I do not believe in ID but I readily admit that I cannot disprove it either. As a result I accept that it is a possibility. For me it is a remote possibility but a valid one none-the-less. If I were to state or claim that it is simply not possible at all then it would be fair for the believers to ask that I prove it. I simply say that I do not believe in it.

 

I tend to believe in abiogenesis but admit that it is something I cannot prove either. As such I see it as a leap of faith just like other beliefs. As a beginning of life it has no more and no less proof than other beliefs. As such, I do not claim that it is so, just that I believe in it.

 

Beyond the beginning of life I believe in evolution. Here I do see evidence that at least some evolution exists. I do not see any conclusive evidence of ID thus, I ask for proof and feel it is fair to do so. So far I have not met any of the believers in ID that can provide any proof that evolution is a result of ID.

 

In summary, I believe we are all entitled to our beliefs but that none of us can claim them as fact without proof. This is simply treating others as I would have them treat me.

[Lolic]

That's also why you never see Jesus forcing people to follow Him in the Bible.

 

Well said, God is not a cosmic rapist. He doesn't force himself on anyone.

[Buffy]

Well said, God is not a cosmic rapist. He doesn't force himself on anyone.

According to some though, He's not above extortion and threats: "Youse guys bettah get youselfs baptised by the right preacha, or you ain't gonna be raptured, and if youse don't get da message den, fuggedaboudit! Jews, Catholics, Muslims, Buddists youse is ALL gonna be sleepin wid da fishes!"

 

"We not a gang, we a club man!"

Buffy

[Tormod]

Well, Buffy, that was a rather uncalled for off-topic post, no? :eek:

[lindagarrette]

The point of free will according to the Biblical creationist standpoint is that God wants us to CHOOSE to love Him. He doesn't want robots, He wants love by choice.

 

jp

I think ID is an invalid hypothesis because of my education, experience, and abilty to reason. Of course some people would make a different choice based on different backgrounds. If you were to sample a group of people who all have identical knowledge, experience and ability to reason, then how would it be possible some would choose God and others wouldn't? Some supernatural intervention?

[TeleMad]

Your responses are analogous to the following:

“I went to a junk yard today and saw a truck tire. Therefore I believe that a tornado or hurricane going through the junk yard many years ago turned tires and other parts into trucks and that’s how we have trucks today.”

 

Neither tires nor trucks can reproduce or evolve, but organisms can do both. The analogy doesn't work.

 

Lolic: Many things are correlated in life, that does not mean that one caused the other or one derived/evolved/was the ancestor of the other. This appeal to commonality as evidence of evolution is common, but it can just as well be attributed to a common designer using common aspects of design in different species.

 

Let me try to nail down your hypothesis. Your version of ID has God continually intervening in nature throughout history to create this or that: billions of years ago he created flagella for bacteria; later he decided to take preexisting myglobin and tweak it just a tad (something Behe believes evolution could do) to create hemoglobin - not just one type for humans but various types for various different organisms; later he decided to create eyes - not one eye, but individual eyes for each different kind of animal; and at some point he decided to create hearts - not one heart, but individual types of hearts for various types of animals.

 

Okay, so what evidence do you have for your hypotheses? Let's start with two key points.

 

1) Do you have scientific evidence of God's existence?

 

2) Do you have evidence that God actually created the eye, or hemoglobin, or the heart? Note, not evidence that you believe the eye or whatever is too complex to have evolved, therefore, you conclude it must have been God: no, rather, actual evidence that God created eyes, hemoglobin, or hearts.

[Lolic]

This is simply treating others as I would have them treat me.

Thank you for your open-mindedness and kindness in your posts. I find the following information interesting and wish to share it. I don't offer it as proof, but as a sample providing evidence in this rather large topic. This roughly fits in with the question of "where did the information in DNA originate from?"

 

Francis Hitching wrote a fascinating book entitled “The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin went wrong”. In it he showed some evidence for the genetic code having built-in safeguards and controls that limited genetic variations as part of a system to preserve the integrity of each species.

 

“In a remarkable series of experiments, mutant genes were paired to create an eyeless fly. When these flies in turn were interbred, the predictable result was offspring that were also eyeless. And so it continued for a few generations. But then, contrary to all expectations, a few flies began to hatch out with eyes. Somehow, the genetic code had a built-in repair mechanism that re-established the missing genes. The natural order reasserted itself. There are also built-in constraints. Plants reach a certain size and refuse to grow any larger. Fruit flies refuse to become anything but fruit flies under any circumstances yet devised. The genetic system, as its first priority, conserves, blocks, and stabilizes.”

 

C1ay, what are your thoughts if we have a situation where:

1) DNA existed before self replication was possible and mutation could take place,

2) We now have some evidence that, “Somehow, the genetic code had a built-in repair mechanism that re-established the missing genes. The natural order reasserted itself….. Fruit flies refuse to become anything but fruit flies under any circumstances yet devised. The genetic system, as its first priority, conserves, blocks, and stabilizes.”

 

Then ask, “if biological systems were designed, what would I expect to see as evidence of this design?”

 

I have an attachment I would like to add but don't know if we can attach files in this site. Any advice?

[Lolic]

Do you have scientific evidence of God's existence?

This is the only portion of this post I will be responding to.

 

You can find interesting evidence in the following books:

1) "Signature of God", by Grant Jeffrey

2) "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist", by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek

3) "Evidence that demands a verdict" by John McDowell

4) "Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel

 

In fact, if you obtain #2 and decide you don't like it,(cost about $10-11 new) send it to me and I will send you a check for $10. Tormod, I make the same offer to you. You have my word.

[TeleMad]

However, you leave out the part about:

 

1. negative mutations (which far outweigh positive ones)

 

It's not like that isn't already taken into account in evolutionary theory.

 

For negative mutations, the possessing organisms would be less fit and less likely to survive and reproduce, therefore making it less likely that those deleterious mutations would continue to make it into future generations. That's what negative selection does.

 

The few beneficial mutations that do occur make their possessor more fit and more likely to survive and reproduce, therefore making it more likely that those beneficial mutations would continue to make it into future generations. That's what positive selection does.

 

There's more to it than that (far more organisms are born than can survive and reproduce, etc.), but that should do the trick.

 

Lolic: 2. assembly instructions being needed to assembly new biological structures

 

Genetic instructions are nucleotide sequences. We know that nucleotide sequences can change: point mutations, duplication, etc. As mentioned just above, the many changes that are detrimental are generally eliminated from the population while the few that are beneficial are generally retained. Over time, new sequences arise that produce modified structures: an ocellus with a flat patch of photoreceptors invaginates and gives better directional information, then a jellatinous substance fills the cup, and so on; the dozen or so axons that make up the optic nerve running from the ocellus to the ganglion increase in number to a few hundred; the ganglion continues to increase in size and number of interconnections until it becomes a simple brain; the number of axons in the optic nerve continues to increase in number to a few thousand; and so on. Slowly over time the instructions needed to build an ocellus become the instructions needed to build an eye.

 

Lolic: 3. the need for a functional advantage for mutated parts to be selected in future generations while waiting for the other needed parts to mutate into being.

 

How about some details. For example, what parts would those be in moving from an ocellus to an eye?

 

Lolic: 4. you forget about the important parts like a million nerves growing from the eye and defying great odds and finding the corresponding individual nerve growing from the brain…

 

I didn't forget about that, I just don't consider it good evidence of design. Lots of nerves exit the spinal column and grow out to varous targets, be they muscles, glands, or receptors. And this occurs in chickens, mice, cows, birds, squirrels, wombats, etc., not just in humans. And scientists have learned how this occurs, naturally, during development by studying the directional movements of growth cones and what influences it. What's so special about the optic nerve that it requires design while the others don't?

 

Lolic: 5. You’re arguments make huge leaps of faith that the evolutionary genie can accomplish what modern biochemical expertise cannot.

 

Evolution has been in the business of designing organisms and cellular structures for about 4 billion years: humans, about 100 years. We're catching up, but evolution did have a huge head start. Give us some time.

 

Lolic: 6. Your arguments defy the second law of thermodynamics and assume blind natural forces can create a more ordered state of information.

 

Nothing I have said defies the second law. You seemed to be confused about the second law a few days ago when your version of it would reject the formation of a star by gravitational collapse of a cloud of gas molecules, instead requiring intelligent direction for this to occur.

[Tormod]

Well said, God is not a cosmic rapist. He doesn't force himself on anyone.

 

Sorry, but please don't turn this into a religious discussion - unless that is the point of it all (in which case we are discussion creationism, not ID).