Intelligent design

[Boerseun]

For the millionth time, nobody dares suggest the Rosetta Stone is the product of random, undirected natural processes.

No. Intelligent Design isn't 'reasonable'. And Intelligent Design proponents keep on falling into the trap of false analogies.

 

For example, the above: The Rosetta Stone is indeed the result of millions of years of natural processes. As a stone, it was formed from molten magma that rolled down a volcano, etc., etc. The writing on it, though, was clearly put there by an Intelligent lifeform. And why do we know this? Simply because it's been written in three individual human languages. That's why we recognized it for what it was in the first place. But what ID proposes with the Rosetta analogy, is that DNA must be created by an intelligence of some sorts, because it looks like it must have been. Stromatolites should be caused by an intelligence, simply judged by the circular design of their deposits, if this analogy is anything to go by. And now that we understand how stromatolites work, we discount intelligence in their design. So, what's gonna happen in another year or three when we've delved deeper into the so-called 'intelligence' of DNA's design? Are ID-supporters going to come forward, agreeing they're wrong, or are they gonna look to the next level of complexity and say "Hah! -told you!" In which case ID's only use is to serve as a handy name for "What's Lying Beyond the Limits of Human Knowledge". Because with every forward step we take in science, ID conveniently moves on as well. And seeing as there's no limit to science and knowledge, ID will forever have a place amongst those who fall for false analogies.

 

It was the Flying Spaghetti Monster, lemme tell you. And you can't tell me that it wasn't.

 

Pastafarians, unite!

[questor]

why is evolution the whipping boy for the argument as to whether or not ID exists ?

if the theory of evolution is correct, how does that disprove ID ?

[TRoutMac]

No. Intelligent Design isn't 'reasonable'.

 

Okay, then… I guess the Rosetta Stone, Nazca Lines, Mt. Rushmore, statues of Easter Island, etc. actually are the product of random, undirected natural forces. Has to be, since "Intelligent Design" isn't "reasonable".

 

And, now let's shut down SETI, becuase they obviously have no way to distinguish between an intelligently designed "message" and ambient, random radio noise of deep space. "Intelligent Design" isn't "reasonable". I guess they should have checked with you first before starting their program. You would have set them straight.

 

The writing on it, though, was clearly put there by an Intelligent lifeform.

 

Thank you. Case closed.

[Boerseun]

TRoutMac, please read the rest of my post #479. And see the context in which I've placed the Rosetta stone argument. And understand the problem you'll have with stromatolites. And stalactites and stalacmites which grow together to form a handy load-bearing pillar for cave roofs. Was that done intelligently? Sure - if we didn't understand how they formed, ID must be a usable explanation for their existence. But now that we know how these pillars formed over millions of years, there goes ID out the window. Are you about to tell me that our knowledge of DNA is so complete that the only reasonable explanation is that is must have been designed? No, I tell you, as a humble human being I propose that any so-called complexity that we run into is simply a manifestation of our lack of knowledge, and simply doesn't require from us to invoke the supernatural. It gives us a reason to continue with scientific inquiry, so that we, too, can one day say that we have furthered the borders of human understanding.

 

"Intelligent Design" is not science, and should stop pretending to be.

[TRoutMac]

TRoutMac, please read the rest of my post #479. And see the context in which I've placed the Rosetta stone argument. And understand the problem you'll have with stromatolites. And stalactites and stalacmites which grow together to form a handy load-bearing pillar for cave roofs. Was that done intelligently? Sure - if we didn't understand how they formed, ID must be a usable explanation for their existence. But now that we know how these pillars formed over millions of years, there goes ID out the window. Are you about to tell me that our knowledge of DNA is so complete that the only reasonable explanation is that is must have been designed? No, I tell you, as a humble human being I propose that any so-called complexity that we run into is simply a manifestation of our lack of knowledge, and simply doesn't require from us to invoke the supernatural. It gives us a reason to continue with scientific inquiry, so that we, too, can one day say that we have furthered the borders of human understanding.

 

Are you really unable to see the distinction between specified complexity and unspecified complexity? I frankly don't know how I could make it any clearer. Stromatolites are not comparable to DNA. No way, no how. I'll try it yet again… the formation of these geological structures is easily explained (and observable, too) by reference to natural laws. Similarly, natural laws can explain why the sugar and phosphate molecules which form the backbone of DNA stick together to form that double helix backbone. Natural laws can even explain why the base pairs stick to the backbone. But as a simple problem of logic, natural laws cannot explain the sequencing (initially) If the initial sequencing could be explained by natural laws, then all DNA strands would share the same sequence. Why? Because every time you'd get the base pair "AT", you'd get whatever base pair that had to come next according to the natural laws. Let's say, "CG". And if every "CG" had to be followed by a "AT", then every DNA strand would read "ATCGATCGAT…" ad infinitum.

 

In DNA, it's quite easy to differentiate between that which can and cannot be explained by reference to natural laws. That line is drawn quite neatly between those features of DNA which are identical and common to every strand of DNA and those features which are different in every strand of DNA. What's different in every strand of DNA? Just one thing… the sequence. Again, the newspaper: Natural laws explain why the ink sticks to the paper, but they cannot explain the sequencing of the characters and words.

 

"Intelligent Design" is not science, and should stop pretending to be.

 

Evolutionists should stop acting so deathly afraid of Intelligent Design. It only reveals how precarious and vulnerable their theory is, and indeed it reveals how much faith they've invested in it.

[Edge]

One question, TRoutMac. If ID is indeed a scientific theory then it means that it can be proven or disproven.

 

How can it be proven? or how can it be disproven?

[TRoutMac]

One question, TRoutMac. If ID is indeed a scientific theory then it means that it can be proven or disproven. How can it be proven? or how can it be disproven?

 

I'm not sure that "proven" or "disproven" are the best words, only because scientific conclusions are always tentative to some degree. There is always room, at least on a theoretical level, for new data to emerge that may change the paradigm. (unless you're an evolutionist, then no new data can ever change your paradigm!! He, he) But I'll use those words anyway… I just don't intend them to indicate anything "absolute".

 

Below are four "predictions" made by the Intelligent Design theory. (the ID bashers on this forum will deny there are such predictions) Intelligent Design would be "disproven" if these predictions were not born out. Conversely, Intelligent Design would be supported very strongly (albeit not literally "proven" if these predictions were confirmed:

 

(1) Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information). [confirmed]

 

(2) Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors. [confirmed]

 

(3) Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in different and unrelated organisms. [confirmed]

 

(4) Much so-called “junk DNA” will turn out to perform valuable functions. [not confirmed yet, but research continues to uncover functions for "junk DNA", so it appears this will be confirmed at some point]

[Boerseun]

Well, TRoutMac old buddy...

(1) Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information). [confirmed]

This, of course, is keeping in mind that natural structures (like DNA, pray tell) can form over millennia to form a specific function, simply because those that couldn't do it, are, well, dead as a doornail.

(2) Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors. [confirmed]

Hahahaha!!!

 

Any first-year student battling with geology 101 will well you how difficult it is for an animal to become fossilised in the first place. So, as any scientist will tell you, the fossil record is at best a hit-or-miss affair, a work in progress, so to speak. And the above statement, or 'prediction', from ID, is a senseless exercise. You don't even have to dust off your baloney detector for that 'prediction' to fall flat on its face.

(3) Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in different and unrelated organisms. [confirmed]

So two animals, sharing a common ancestor, shares common genes. I fail to see the point here, apart from suuporting the case for evolution...

(4) Much so-called “junk DNA” will turn out to perform valuable functions. [not confirmed yet, but research continues to uncover functions for "junk DNA", so it appears this will be confirmed at some point]

...and?

[TRoutMac]

This, of course, is keeping in mind that natural structures (like DNA, pray tell) can form over millennia to form a specific function, simply because those that couldn't do it, are, well, dead as a doornail.

 

Has anyone found "those that couldn't do it", Boerseun? How would we know, at this late date, that "those that couldn't do it" died under the specific set of circumstances that you would have me believe they died under? Your statement above offers no evidence… if just restates the evolutionist dogma. It's just speculation, imagination. That's your explanation simply because for evolution to work, that has to be your explanation. There's no real objective evidence to support it.

 

It's a lot like what I call the "Victor Kiam Argument"... during the 80s Remington ran TV commercials for the Remington Microscreen Razor in which Victor Kiam explained how this shaver "... shaves as close as a blade, or your money back." In the commercial, Kiam explains in painstaking detail: "Here's why: The first blade shaves incredibly close. The second, even closer."

 

Well, that's the sum total of your argument. You just restate the dogma as though it is undisputed, as though you yourself (or any scientist, for that matter) actually watched it happen. This despite the fact that you know damned good and well that nobody was around to see it, at least not anyone who bothered to document it.

 

You simply cannot demonstrate that natural structures (like DNA) actually can "form over millennia to form a specific function" and in fact, it's quite easy to demonstrate that they cannot. Only trouble is, if the demonstratee is too deeply invested in evolutionary philosophy, they'll simply look the other way while they claim that Intelligent Design is "not science".

 

So, as any scientist will tell you, the fossil record is at best a hit-or-miss affair, a work in progress, so to speak.

 

I'll remember that the next time someone cites fossils as evidence for evolution.

 

So two animals, sharing a common ancestor, shares common genes. I fail to see the point here, apart from suuporting the case for evolution...

 

So common features always means common ancestry, and can never mean common design, right? Okay. I guess my 1973 Triumph TR6 must have "evolved", then, from a 1967 Triumph TR4A-IRS. It must not have been designed and manufactured by an intelligent agent. After all, both models have the same wheelbase, same chassis, same suspension, both have a steering wheel. Plus, most of the hardware holding the cars together is identical. So, okay you win. My car evolved through a random, undirected process. And oh yeah, the Rosetta Stone was the result of natural, undirected processes, too.

 

Do you really not see the absolutely ludicrous, preposterous and hilarious logical conclusions that you force yourself into?

[Edge]

Thanks for the answers, TRoutMac.

I guess my 1973 Triumph TR6 must have "evolved", then, from a 1967 Triumph TR4A-IRS.

Anyway, why is this evidence against evolution? Cars in some way do evolve. Those are microevolution processes, the car itself it's the same, just with improvements.

[TRoutMac]

Anyway, why is this evidence against evolution? Cars in some way do evolve. Those are microevolution processes, the car itself it's the same, just with improvements.

 

Well, in the broadest sense, "evolution" simply means "change over time". So, in that sense, you're right… cars do "evolve". But of course, "evolution" in the context of biology is a little more specific than that. (tremendous understatement!)

 

Secondly, my analogy is not intended to be evidence against evolution. It's only intended to illustrate that common features, or "homology" among any assortment of objects be they live or inanimate has two possible explanations, not just one. One possible explanation is indeed common ancestry. But the other possible explanation is common design. Boerseun seems to want to ignore the second explanation and pretend that common ancestry is the only possible explanation. But to do so is to stack the deck with your subjective opinions. You've gotta look at both possibilities and see which one makes the best explanation.

 

Now, back to my analogy with Triumphs (now you know why the TR in "TRoutMac" are capitalized!!)… You could say that a TR6 "evolved" from a TR3… and in many ways that's true, in the most general sense of the word "evolve". But, there's a couple very big distinctions… The first, is obvious… cars don't reproduce themselves. So, there were no mutations, no combining of genetic information from different parents with different body colors or trim packages, overdrive and non-overdrive gearboxes, etc.

 

Second, the engineering drawings and tooling for a TR3 produce a TR3. They can't produce a TR4, TR5, TR250 or a TR6. In order to produce a TR4, intelligent engineers had to create new drawings, new tooling (or modify existing tooling) design a new chassis, design and specify certain new components, (like roll-up windows, for example) and only after all of this intelligent input could a TR4 be manufactured. Same is true for the TR5/TR250 and same is true for the TR6. Every major model change and in fact every little change to the models between production years had to be designed and specified. No "mutations". So, in that sense, you cannot say that cars "evolve" and I think you'll agree that if you properly define the terms, comparing the "evolution" of a range of car models with the "evolution" believed by many to have taken place in the realm of biology is really quite impossible.

 

I hope that makes sense.

[clapstyx]

Intelligent design is obviously a false concept because nature favours perfection. That is to say the more perfect flower, the one that is more attractive, is more likley to reproduce and therefore more likely to multi generational reproduction. Things with inherent flaws of creation or lifestyle have a lower chance of eternal survival and so they last for a lesser period of time.

 

We can backsolve this hypothesis by examining the foundational logic of the success behind other long term species. Those that move closer to perfection and harmony with the ecosystem by creating symbiotic relationships with other species which satisfy lifecycle completion pre requisites ultimately benefit by having their own chances of survival increased by the primal drive of the other species.

 

Take the first flower for instance. Its scent attracted a weevil population looking to mate, which they did, and in the process completed the mating process of the cycad by transfering pollen from the male to the female cycad. The weevil was driven to reproduce, and the cycad made the chances of weevil reproduction increase by giving them a popular meeting place..and in so doing benefited itself and its own survival by ensuring the popular survival of another species.

 

My question to you is..whether a fundraisng dinner for the environment held near to the worlds oldest pair of this flowering tree for single nature loving humans..would be creating a human symbiotic relationship with nature ? Or alternatively whether there is any advantage in humans seeking to create such relationships in order to increase our own long term chances of survival..which I personally think we should be doing at every opportunity to ensure we remain above the 50/50 line of long term survival probability thresh-hold.

 

Most things we have done in the last 200 years have decreased our chances and so this will be the ultimate disproof of intelligent design. Would something or someone (ie God) not be smart enough to design us in such a way that our chances would be better than they presently seem to be ie if Intelligent design is the truth then why did they design us to be so destructive ? Surely thats not very smart.

 

We dont even pursue ecological harmony..dont understand the logic of nature be it our own or that expressed by the other species who have proven their ability to survive long term unaided by divine intervention.

 

Is not longevity the best way to guage the success of a species? Is not the most successful lifestyle one that can be replicated into infinity without any forseeable flaw to trip up any future regenerations of yourselves ?

 

If we as individuals began to think of ourselves as individual species, looking to strengthen our genetic line by collecting genetic and intellectual advantages related to extending the long term survival probabilities of our own personal species of man I think we would ultimately do better as a collection known as humanity for we would all be working toward a common goal for the first time. Imagine that..the first time the entire population of humans is consciously pursuing a common goal. Now that for me would be harmony.

 

Are we not yet smart enough to collectively sit down and design a lifestyle that we can live with that we all can foresee being successfully maintained into infinity. Surely once we have designed this we can then objectively analyse any changes we wish to make to forward plan the elimination of unintended consequences..such as rising CO2 which now threatens us all as a species. This would be more like intelligent design..and a more pertinent and useful discussion to be having rather than worrying about who is right about how we got here. We should instead be focussing our minds on how we increase the chances of staying here.

[lindagarrette]

Intelligent design is obviously a false concept because nature favours perfection. That is to say the more perfect flower, the one that is more attractive, is more likley to reproduce and therefore more likely to multi generational reproduction. Things with inherent flaws of creation or lifestyle have a lower chance of eternal survival and so they last for a lesser period of time.

 

Maybe But survival mostly depends on the environmental changes that occur during the lifetime of a species. Every one is perfect in its own way at the time. The dinosaurs certainly proved that as long as conditions remained the same. The cockroach and the crocodile are good examples of nature's selection of survivable species in our time. We could eliminate ourselves through war or disease at any time. Nature doesn't care one way or the other.

[clapstyx]

The chances of survival are directly proportionate to a species ability to remain completely compatible on a long term basis with the ecosystem that made their existence possible in the first place. The environment will dictate the long term size of a population of any species because none can live perpetually beyond its means on any matter relevent to its physical existence..be this food, water, energy or spiritual cohesion in the pursuit of the longest possible existence term. Any action which foreseebly reduces the chances of long term survival if it is continued into perpetuity should not be chosen..lest there be no mechanism for reversing the negative direction, or by virtue of the fact that the problem may become so great as to exceed the capacity of the species to create a solution of equal proportions.

[TRoutMac]

Intelligent design is obviously a false concept because nature favours perfection.

 

First, what if I told you that "evolution is obviously a false concept because nature was designed."? My guess is that you would berate me for circular reasoning. And yet, that is exactly what you've done with your statement, which then provides the foundation for the rest of your post.

 

In no way does the idea that nature favors perfection disprove Intelligent Design. As an IDer myself, I am quite comfortable conceding that, yes, nature does favor perfection ecause it can easily serve as evidence for Intelligent Design. And if that's not frustrating enough for you, that nature favors perfection is actually evidence against macro-evolution!! Okay, that's a bold statement, so now allow me to back it up.

 

If an organism needs to, let's say, grow a new feature (becoming a new species in the process) in order to adapt and survive in a particular environment, then nature will not allow that organism a large span of time in which to slowly and incrementally develop said feature. Either the organism needs the feature as a survival advantage, or it doesn't. A fraction of a new feature does the organism no good whatsoever. It needs the whole thing. Nature favors perfection, remember? Well… a new feature that is incomplete and therefore non-functional is hardly "perfection", is it? Consequently, the organism that lacks the fully-formed "perfect" new feature will be selected out for extinction before it ever sees the completion of the new feature.

 

That "nature favors perfection" is evidence of Intelligent Design… Every (good) human designer strives to design machines that serve a purpose and serve it well, and serve that purpose for as long as practical given a variety of different design objectives. In other words, we know that Intelligent Designers seek designs which are "perfectly" suited for a particular purpose. We see it every day… And we see evidence of the same thing in living systems… systems which serve a particular purpose and serve that purpose very well indeed, and when certain systems are damaged, (no longer perfect) the life of the organism is threatened.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Isn't it a moot point?

The real issue is related to gang warfare and what will happen to our education system if enough people believe we are 'designed'.

Isn't that the real issue here? Fear? Fear of what kinds of insane conclusions we'll draw and subsequent actions we'll take depending on who wins the vote?

The funny thing is that it really doesn't matter. Irrationality already rules the day, so what difference does it make? Another false premise on which to base another societal norm?

[Brad_1234]

May I assume, by the lack of responses to my questions, that the proponents of Intelligent Design are unable to answer these questions?

 

Hi everyone.

 

I saw this topic, and how wonderful to be able to seek solutions with people who are in-the-know. I am opinionated on this and respect everyone who disagrees, I may disagree with posted opinions, but thats part of dialog.

 

ID must be taught in all public schools. To impose an Evolution-only agenda is no different than the Taliban imposing their extremist views forcibly on their victims.

 

Evolution of life is one concept, but where did life begin? People who utterly abhor the Jewish/Christian concept of the universe being created in 6 literal earth days, holding fast to all physical science claims in Scripture as inerrant fact, etc. want to force upon everyone their own specific "religion" of atheism. This is not fair. Just as forcing any specific religion onto people who didnt willingly choose it, is not fair. Imagine a world religion marching into science classes and demanding they change what is printed and taught? They have. Evolutionism and the evolution-atheist concept. Its religion, not science.

 

Evolution-ists tend to be atheists. Atheists tend to prefer communism, they always have, just as Red China is, just as Cuba is just as the former USSR was. Taking away any shred of "religion" from society seems to be the actual goal, not discussion of science. Sort of a hijacked pseudo-science, evolutionism is a fraud. It uses some big words, professors teach it, its got a (cult) following as they say, but if the interest was in literal, actual, fundamental, foundational, practical and genuine "SCIENCE"? Then our "science" would be saying something like: here are the widely held beliefs for how life began, 1. Creation literally as the bible says; 2. Intelligent Design 3. Spark of life/random mutation and evolution

 

The debate over ID isnt a real debate, even the nonsense that "since God or Creationism cannot be falsified? it doesnt exist" is further proof this isnt about getting facts. Lets reword the falsify-able thing there:

 

1. "If ID isn’t Darwinian Evolutionism? Then it is not valid, and may not be taught in school"

 

It is not 'teaching religion' to tell students that MOST of the human population believes in Creation, it is the correct and responsible approach.

 

Can YOU travel back in time 4.5 billion years or whatever guesstimate it is, and measure the creation of life? ouch! no, you cant. If you don’t have the means to disprove religion other than throw aspersions? It (Creation or ID) is to be taught in science class as one of the currently held beliefs of how life began, God did it.

 

2. But... its... religion? And we hate religion!

 

Then here is a comfortable solution, use provable science to DISprove any claims in any religion.

 

How about this one: "the earth is flat and carried along on the backs of giant Elephants. When an elephant sneezes? that’s an earthquake..." Do you trust science or that ancient folklore recorded as absolute fact? I trust science to disprove such an idiotic, misguided claim.

 

But science doesn’t want to go there, because they will have to eventually challenge what is written in the bible, at least the physical science claims which have stood as inerrant for centuries. So lastly, ID and Creationism must be taught in public schools. We need people to keep trying to disprove physical science claims in the bible, no one ever has. But now, all evolutionists want to do is give up and just hide the bible from the public and then claim victory...