Jump to content
Science Forums

ID Questions


pmaust

Recommended Posts

What is the basis for assuming that complexity cannot be non-created and natural?

 

A snow flake has patterns and complexity and no two are alike. I suppose it could be argued that the process that makes a snowflake a snowflake is the result of an intelligent designer. So, a snowflake can either be designed intelligently or, the product of an intelligently designed process. If we examine first the snowflake, then the process, then the science that explains the process and so on, then, wouldn't that reductionism eventually lead us right back to the beginning of all creation? And, wouldn't we be right back where we started ie., is it the result of natural process or an act of an intelligent designer?

 

It would seem to me, that every process along the way towards making a snowflake would be natural unless at some point you actually see the finger of god. And how would we recognize the finger of god if we saw it?

 

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

congrats, you've discovered what every other poster to the ID threads has pointed out. Any scientist who has no faith in God, will refuse to walk with eyes of faith, as he says you can't scientifically prove faith.

 

Any IDer who doesn't care whether there is actual proof, says that there is not actual hard proof of evolution, just a bunch of theories.

 

Why the controversy? Because only evolution has a chance of being proven before the Great Day of God Almighty comes ;-), which I suppose is what IDers expect will prove them right, though I contest wrong at the same time (though that is my stance on creation vs ID.)

 

And so will ensue another long fight where neither side will win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

here's another question...

 

Do you people consider Darwin a good scientist?

 

I do, whether Evolution is true or not, his theory surely helped science to understand biology better... just my stance...

 

I also find it kinda ironic that people hate Darwin, yet they don't have beef with Einstein, who was agnostic and would not have liked a god's existence...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the basis for assuming that complexity cannot be non-created and natural? A snow flake has patterns and complexity and no two are alike. I suppose it could be argued that the process that makes a snowflake a snowflake is the result of an intelligent designer.

 

That's a good question. Since I'm a hard-core advocate of Intelligent Design, I do believe, in an ultimate sense, that an Intelligent Designer created the physical laws which are responsible for creating snowflakes. However, that is a slightly different argument than for biology because in biology we see a different sort of complexity, a different sort of "information" than what is seen in a snowflake, and this supports Intelligent Design in a very direct way. Now, what's the difference?

 

A snowflake's complexity can be (and has been) accounted for by reference to physical laws which govern how ice crystalizes, the shapes it makes at different temperatures, etc. You might say that when moisture freezes and crystallizes, it's shape is determined by these pre-existing physical laws acting upon each flake.

 

Now, compare that to DNA. Sure, there are physical laws which hold a DNA molecule's component parts together… that's true. But, those physical laws cannot account for the sequencing of the nucleotide base pairs which make up the instructions which the DNA carries.

 

Think of your daily newspaper as an example… physical laws can and do account for why the ink sticks to the paper. But those laws do not account for the shape and sequencing of the letters on the page. And the message on the front page of your newspaper is carried in that sequencing. You could not communicate the same information by just dropping a blob of ink on the page.

 

Intelligent Design isn't based upon mere "complexity". Complexity in and of itself doesn't have to come from an intelligence. But the complexity in DNA goes far beyond what you see in a snowflake because it is specified, meaning that it follows an independently given pattern (the universal genetic code) and carries instructions for building and operating a specific living organism, and only THAT living organism. (you can't use goose DNA to build and operate a whale, for example) DNA for a goose is specific to a goose. DNA for humans is specific to humans. That DNA carries meaning, just like the instructions for building a house carry meaning.

 

You don't find that kind of information in a snowflake.

 

It would seem to me, that every process along the way towards making a snowflake would be natural unless at some point you actually see the finger of god. And how would we recognize the finger of god if we saw it?

 

I can't answer this objectively. I mean, I personally believe that, at least on a metaphorical level, we can see the finger of God when we look at DNA. While I can't prove that the Intelligent Designer is God, and while identifying the designer is not within the scope of the Intelligent Design theory (for that very reason), I do happen to believe the Intelligent Designer is God. Whether the Intelligent Designer is God or not, DNA is like fingerprints left at the scene of a crime. The fingerprints of an Intelligent Designer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Intelligent Design isn't based upon mere "complexity". Complexity in and of itself doesn't have to come from an intelligence. But the complexity in DNA goes far beyond what you see in a snowflake because it is specified, meaning that it follows an independently given pattern (the universal genetic code) and carries instructions for building and operating a specific living organism, and only THAT living organism. (you can't use goose DNA to build and operate a whale, for example) DNA for a goose is specific to a goose. DNA for humans is specific to humans. That DNA carries meaning, just like the instructions for building a house carry meaning.

 

Thanks for your reply TroutMac.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. Thanks for the reply TroutMac.

 

You're welcome.

 

Is Intelligent Design a theory of complexity then? Is the ID theory specific and limited to biologoical evolution? I guess I should have first asked, is ID a theory?

 

Intelligent Design is primarily a theory of the origin of life, however it also has application to the origin of the universe as well. (the universe itself was designed as well) But more often than not, it's spoken of in the context of biology. As a theory, it competes against the idea of "particles to people" evolution which has the sudden appearance of the first single-celled animals then randomly evolving (undirected) slowly over long period time eventually populating the Earth with all kinds of life… plants, crustaceans, fish, mammals, reptiles, etc. ("macro-evolution") Intelligent Design does not compete against the idea of "micro-evolution", where natural selection can account for small changes within a species.

 

Intelligent Design is indeed a theory, and a damned good one at that. Here are some links to explore if you're interested:

 

http://www.ideacenter.org/

http://www.designinference.com/

http://www.discovery.org/csc/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TroutMac,

 

one of the criticisms of some subjects of science ie., Superstring theory, Cosmology, et cetera, is that these subjects suffer the limitations of the researcher. Therefore, they are speculative and non-empirical. They offer points of view and opinions that while interesting do not lead to any kind of truth. Are they science?

 

How can a grand theory of creation avoid the same kinds of limitations and pit falls? Can something that is speculative and non-empirical be considered science? :confused:

 

Thanks

 

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

here's another question...

 

Do you people consider Darwin a good scientist?

 

I do, whether Evolution is true or not, his theory surely helped science to understand biology better... just my stance...

 

I also find it kinda ironic that people hate Darwin, yet they don't have beef with Einstein, who was agnostic and would not have liked a god's existence...

 

I think Darwin was awesome! :naughty: I didn't know that Einstein "would not have liked god's existance". :confused: Why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Darwin was awesome! :naughty: I didn't know that Einstein "would not have liked god's existance". :confused: Why?

To be more specific, he didn't believe or refused to follow organized religion. Einstein wrote about religion. The "god" he believe in was the "god of nature" meaning that nature itself is god, not a god outside of the physical laws he made...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be more specific, he didn't believe or refused to follow organized religion. Einstein wrote about religion. The "god" he believe in was the "god of nature" meaning that nature itself is god, not a god outside of the physical laws he made...

 

Oh. I didn't know that. From different things that I have read, he seemed to wrestle with Determinism though. Interesting. That's why I like this place! :confused: I guess I am an atheist. I don't really have a theory or idea of god. Given the difficulties that confront scientist in some of the other disciplines such as Superstring theory and Cosmology I would think it nearly impossible to determine the existance of god from the study of these things. I guess that is why the idea of Intelligent Design is interesting to me. I need to read more about it. But, it seems to me that ID'ers would run into the same kinds of difficulties. How do you test or falsify a theory of god? There are a lot of very smart people here. I'll just keep reading and learning for now.

 

:cheers:

 

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

one of the criticisms of some subjects of science ie., Superstring theory, Cosmology, et cetera, is that these subjects suffer the limitations of the researcher. Therefore, they are speculative and non-empirical. They offer points of view and opinions that while interesting do not lead to any kind of truth. Are they science?

 

Quite honestly, I know far too little about string theory or superstring theory to comment much about whether it's "science" or not. I'll leave it at that.

 

How can a grand theory of creation avoid the same kinds of limitations and pit falls? Can something that is speculative and non-empirical be considered science?

 

Well, mainly by limiting the theory to what is testable and observable via the scientific method. You are under the impression that Intelligent Design is "non-emperical", and of course that's the usual rhetoric (no offense) offered by I.D. opponents (not that you are one, necessarily) but quite to the contrary, it's very empirical and not all that speculative, either.

 

There are many analogies one could make to illustrate, but one such analogy is the "phenomenon" of crop circles. I pick crop circles because there remains some controversy about who created them. Some remain convinced that aliens created them, others think humans (hoaxsters) have made them (count me in the latter group) but one thing is almost universally understood… they are the product of Intelligent Design, and I dare say you'd have a good laugh at my expense if I suggested they were the products of a random, undirected natural process. (and with good reason, too!)

 

Also, do you believe that the scientists who are listening for radio signals from deep space (SETI) in hopes of finding a signal from an intelligence have a reliable, testable and empirical method for determining whether a signal they've heard is from an intelligence? They'd better… 'cuz if they don't, if there is no such thing (and that's what opponents of I.D. would have me believe) then they are wasting their time. In the movie "Contact", SETI scientists hear a signal that is unmistakably from an intelligence… a series of pulses which, when decoded, turn out to be the first 100 prrime numbers. Specified complexity. And of course, they go nuts. Later, they get more signals and once they crack the code they end up with instructions for building and operating an interplanetary transportation device. Well, DNA is a code, right? What if you were to "translate" DNA into a broadcastable signal, a series of pulses? If the folks at SETI heard that code through the Very Large Array radio telescope, don't you think they'd recognize it as being from an intelligence? Similar to the code in that movie, DNA is instructions for building and operating a living organism.

 

The point is, either Intelligent Design is testable or it's not. And if it's not, that means you have to abandon many other fields of science which rely on design detection such as archaeology, for example. No one questions the science of design detection in the context of archaeology, so what's wrong with applying those same standards to biological systems? Is it wrong just because it doesn't point to humans?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TroutMaC, like other one suggested, maybe you should also visit other sections of the forums. There are also other interesting topics on here. It can be cool to see your opinions on other topics.

 

I also appreciated reading the ID proposal with more detail. After that, it does make good sense to even question evolution and I guess that's why it won in Kansas... it is just that it seems that most of the ID supporters are christians, making it seem like this has a religious objective, or that it is only a christians' idea...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TroutMaC, like other one suggested, maybe you should also visit other sections of the forums. There are also other interesting topics on here.

 

Yes, I will look around some more… I was originally invited to this forum by another participant. For whatever reason, this is where he directed me and that I haven't been elsewhere in the forum is mostly because, well, this is where I've started and this has been where the action has been. I appreciate the suggestions.

 

I also appreciated reading the ID proposal with more detail. After that, it does make sense... it is just that most of the ID supporters are christians, making it seem like this has a religious objective, or that it is only a christians' idea...

 

Of course, I realize this… after all, I am a Christian myself. While trying to avoid offending anyone, I must point out that if one were to reject I.D. for that reason would be, well… pretty silly. Certainly not "objective", anyway. The way I see it, you accept or reject a theory based on evidence and not based on the religious beliefs that may prevail among even a majority of supporters of a given theory.

 

Thanks, Edge. I appreciate your input.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, I realize this… after all, I am a Christian myself. While trying to avoid offending anyone, I must point out that if one were to reject I.D. for that reason would be, well… pretty silly. Certainly not "objective", anyway. The way I see it, you accept or reject a theory based on evidence and not based on the religious beliefs that may prevail among even a majority of supporters of a given theory.

True that. There's no objectiveness when you reject a theory or something just because of the beliefs of the proposer... however, we all know that people are mostly not objective when it comes to topics like this. Many of them still believe that ID is going to be taught in Kansas thanks to the title the media gave to this topic, when in reality it is just that it will be stated that macroevolution is still doubtful... or to be more specific: that evolution is not a fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TroutMac, I know far to little to be a critic of ID. I will read up on it. I appreciate your responses. I don't have an ax to grind one way or another in this debate. I really do love this web-site though. I wish I had 20 hours a day to read.

 

Thank you. In the interest of full disclosure, the opponents of I.D. such as you find at this forum will claim that the analogies I offered (and several others I have trotted out in other discussions) are fallacious. They have not been able to tell me why this is the case in any convincing manner. I insist, as do other I.D. supporters, that their validity and applicability is absolutely rock-solid and undeniable. I don't expect you to take my word for it, though. Weigh the evidence, measure it against your own common sense and decide for yourself.

 

Thanks for being open-minded.

 

And about Darwin, I for one do not "hate" Darwin. Nor do I have first-hand knowledge of his religious beliefs. But Darwin's time was the late 1800s and back then there was no knowledge of DNA and even the best scientists thought that a cell was "simple". The technology available at that time did not permit them to see how dazzlingly complex a single cell actually is, so in that context, the idea of abiogenesis and "particle to people" evolution doesn't sound so ludicrous. Besides which, Intelligent Design proponents aren't throwing out all of Darwin's theories. We're quite happy to accept natural selection and its role in micro-evolution. But it's beginning to look like natural selection actually prevents the creation of new species (macro-evolution) and this would obliterate the "particles to people" evolution that we've all been taught.

 

Again, thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...