Biological Design Argument?

[rossum]

First of all, to make the discussion more accessible to amateurs like myself who don’t understand at a glance words like “exoplanet,” the word simply means planets outside the Solar System. rossum, it seems incredible to me that after reading Privileged Planet you think the overwhelming body of evidence contained therein can be rendered obsolete by a mere increase in the number of discovered planets.

The evidence in Gonzales’ book is far from “overwhelming”. If you don’t understand the meaning of “exoplanet”, then you are probably underqualified to pass judgement on the book. It is a book about science, and if you do not understand enough science it will be difficult for you to see the flaws in Gonzales’ arguments. For a sceptical review of the book see Review - The Privileged Planet.

As I summarized in the OP, it inferred design from the unnecessary pattern of correlation between Earth’s unique suitability for life and scientific learning.

There is a story of a Medieval monk who argues for the existence of God from the fact that He had placed a river through every large city for the convenience of its inhabitants. That argument fails, as does yours here. Earth is suitable for life because life on Earth has evolved here. Life has adapted to Earth, so Earth is indeed very suitable for life on Earth, just as cities were built on pre-existing rivers. There were times when Earth was very unsuitable for human life; study the Oxygen Catastrophe which wiped out a large proportion of the life then on Earth and greatly changed the composition of Earth’s atmosphere.

Gonzales’ argument relies on a knowledge not just of life on Earth, but of all possible forms of life. What conditions are suitable for some alien form of life? Since we cannot know how many possible forms of alien life there are we cannot tell how many planets may be suitable for one or other of those forms of life. Perhaps a silicon based life form might find Mercury a little on the chilly side. Something like Hoyle’s Black Cloud could live in interstellar space.

You tell the forum there is a growing list of planet candidates, and concerning some of those planets the scientists are still debating whether or not it is a gas giant. These planets are so far away, it’s hard to even clearly see their existence, let alone get near determining whether they have a fraction of these life-essential qualities. It is incredible to me that you disregard the book’s argument out of hand with such weak evidence.

You speak of “life-essential qualities”. Tell me, what are the “life-essential qualities” for the alien Pazaxi who live on a planet in the Andromeda galaxy? Unless you can tell me the answer to that question, then any probability calculations made on the basis of “life-essential qualities” must be faulty because one of the terms is unknown.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Accidents, disasters, diseases and deformities** are** instances of non-Design. They are unintended coincidences which are inevitable in any immensely complex system. In a word they are dysteleological, i.e. negative, irrational, harmful, destructive, valueless, purposeless and meaningless.

First, my apologies for misreading your post. I missed the “non-” bit.

What proof, beyond assertion do you have that these events are not designed? Maybe the designer used a disease to kill someone who would have been worse than Stalin had he survived. That would be a designed event, rather than a non-designed one.

Alternatively, you are telling me that the designer does not have 100% foresight. “I can foresee that this rock will fall down the mountain in 1,965 years,” is not possible?

That would seem to eliminate the Abrahamic God, who does have 100% foresight, as a possible candidate for the role of designer.

rossum

 

[DrTaffy]

A website that fails to appear is symbolic of your failure to give an adequate response to my posts and your failure to realise that Design includes Evolution…

That link works fine for me. In any case, it just details the famous “cdesign proponentsists” incident where an ‘Intelligent Design’ textbook was clearly shown to have been initially written as a creationism textbook, and then edited to remove the term ‘creationism’ once american schools were banned from teaching creationism in science class.

Which of your posts have I not responded to? I don’t read this forum often or thoroughly enough to guarantee catching every response to a comment of mine.

If you mean the one where you were making either a fine tuning argument or an argument about the improbability of abiogenesis, in a thread about the argument for a first cause, that I am afraid is deliberate. I had briefly explained my objections to your argument, and continuing to debate there would be derailing the thread, and probably contravening the ban on atheism/evolution debates. :tsktsk:

 

[tonyrey]

That link works fine for me. In any case, it just details the famous “cdesign proponentsists” incident where an ‘Intelligent Design’ textbook was clearly shown to have been initially written as a creationism textbook, and then edited to remove the term ‘creationism’ once american schools were banned from teaching creationism in science class.

Which of your posts have I not responded to? I don’t read this forum often or thoroughly enough to guarantee catching every response to a comment of mine.

No problem!

If you mean the one where you were making either a fine tuning argument or an argument about the improbability of abiogenesis, in a thread about the argument for a first cause, that I am afraid is deliberate. I had briefly explained my objections to your argument, and continuing to debate there would be derailing the thread, and probably contravening the ban on atheism/evolution debates.

Those topics are irrelevant to the following points:

1. There is no evidence that any other form of life and rational existence exists in** this universe**.
2. There may well be other entirely different universes but the possibility of their existence has no bearing on the immense improbability of life with the existing laws of nature.
   
   Quote:
   Also, while the theory formerly known as string theory is strongly supported, if far from proven, John Webb’s results are no ‘unverified theory’ but empirical evidence.
   Also, given implications from the theory formerly known as string theory that the universe can switch from one potential state to another over time, and empirical evidence that conditions vary over space, is it not reasonable to assume that life only exists in those regions of space time where life can exist?
3. Evolution does** not** explain the origin of life nor the increase in complexity.
4. There is no evidence that physical reality popped into existence by itself.
5. There is no evidence that physical reality has always existed.
6. There is no evidence that physical reality is the sum total of reality.
7. There is no evidence that purposeless particles can produce rational persons.
8. One Supreme Being is a more economical, rational, intelligible, coherent and fertile explanation than a vast number of quanta of energy which haven’t the slightest notion of what they are doing and are devoid of self-control, hindsight, insight and foresight, appreciation of beauty or capacity for love.
9. Design** includes** Evolution.

 

[rossum]

1. There is no evidence that any other form of life and rational existence exists in** this universe**.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Also, life can exist without being rational.

1. There may well be other entirely different universes but the possibility of their existence has no bearing on the immense improbability of life with the existing laws of nature.

Here you have to show your calculations of the level of probability. In particular, you have to describe all possible forms that life might take in this universe. Without that number, then any probability calculation you might make is nugatory. You are trying to estimate the probability of hitting a target without knowing the size of the target. Are you aiming as a penny or at a barn door? The probability of hitting the penny is obviously less than that of hitting the barn door.

1. Evolution does** not** explain the origin of life nor the increase in complexity.

Evolution does not explain the origin of life, that branch of science is called abiogenesis. Evolution does explain the increase in complexity; simple evolutionary processes can increase complexity.

1. There is no evidence that physical reality popped into existence by itself.

Cosmologists are still working on that problem, and are making progress.

1. There is no evidence that physical reality has always existed.

Indeed not, there is evidence to the contrary.

1. There is no evidence that physical reality is the sum total of reality.

Indeed not, there is faint evidence to the contrary. See Hints of ‘time before Big Bang’.

1. There is no evidence that purposeless particles can produce rational persons.

There is such evidence; the existence of humans on Earth.

1. One Supreme Being is a more economical, rational, intelligible, coherent and fertile explanation than a vast number of quanta of energy which haven’t the slightest notion of what they are doing and are devoid of self-control, hindsight, insight and foresight, appreciation of beauty or capacity for love.

Unwarranted extrapolation. Where is your evidence that a rational being, such as you describe, can exist without a cause?

1. Design** includes** Evolution.

Where is your tested design detector? What non-designed items have you tested it on?

rossum

 

[DrTaffy]

Those topics are irrelevant to the following points:

Yep, that does appear to be the article I thought. As long as this sticky remains in force I’ve discussed this as far as I am willing to. I’m a guest here, remember?

You got a fairly complete answer to your first ‘fine tuning’ argument, so you can probably extrapolate a lot of how I might respond to those points. Otherwise that sticky hints that such discussion might indeed be allowed on a different forum here - the Water Cooler, IIRC. If you can show me Moderatorial confirmation of that (it appears to be contradicted on the Water Cooler forum itself), I’d be willing to discuss this there.

 

[tonyrey]

1. There is no evidence that any other form of life and rational existence exists in* this universe***

of their existence has no bearing on the immense improbability of life with the existing laws of nature. Here you have to show your calculations of the level of probability. In particular, you have to describe all possible forms that life might take in this universe. Without that number, then any probability calculation you might make is nugatory. You are trying to estimate the probability of hitting a target without knowing the size of the target. Are you aiming as a penny or at a barn door? The probability of hitting the penny is obviously less than that of hitting the barn door.1. The key words are “in this universe” which restricts the calculations to the existing laws of nature.
2. Life also has to be understood as “life as we know it” which restricts the calculations to established scientific facts about life.
3. Therefore the calculations of the probability of life based on physical constants are valid.

1. Evolution does** not**

explain the origin of life nor the increase in complexity. Evolution does not explain the origin of life, that branch of science is called abiogenesis. Evolution does explain the increase in complexity; simple evolutionary processes can increase complexity.Evolution presupposes but does not explain the increase in complexity.

1. There is no evidence that physical reality popped into existence by itself.

Cosmologists are still working on that problem, and are making progress.
There is **still **no evidence that physical reality popped into existence by itself!

1. There is no evidence that physical reality has always existed.

Indeed not, there is evidence to the contrary.
Therefore the universe is contingent and need not exist.

1. There is no evidence that physical reality is the sum total of reality.

Indeed not, there is faint evidence to the contrary. See Hints of ‘time before Big Bang’.
Therefore the universe doesn’t explain itself!

1. There is no evidence that purposeless particles can produce rational persons.

There is such evidence; the existence of humans on Earth.
The fallacy of Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc!

1. One Supreme Being is a more economical, rational, intelligible, coherent and fertile explanation than a vast number of quanta of energy which haven’t the slightest notion of what they are doing and are devoid of self-control, hindsight, insight and foresight, appreciation of beauty or capacity for love.

Unwarranted extrapolation. Where is your evidence that a rational being, such as you describe, can exist without a cause?You have agreed that the universe does not explain itself, has not always existed and need not exist. Therefore the most economical, rational, intelligible, adequate, coherent and fertile explanation is one eternal Supreme Being.

1. Design** includes**

Evolution.Where is your tested design detector? What non-designed items have you tested it on?Accidents, disasters, diseases and deformities are instances of non-Design. They are distinguished by the fact that they are dysteleological, i.e. negative, irrational, harmful, destructive, valueless, purposeless and meaningless.

[/QUOTE]

 

[tonyrey]

Yep, that does appear to be the article I thought. As long as this sticky remains in force I’ve discussed this as far as I am willing to. I’m a guest here, remember?

You got a fairly complete answer to your first ‘fine tuning’ argument, so you can probably extrapolate a lot of how I might respond to those points. Otherwise that sticky hints that such discussion might indeed be allowed on a different forum here - the Water Cooler, IIRC. If you can show me Moderatorial confirmation of that (it appears to be contradicted on the Water Cooler forum itself), I’d be willing to discuss this there.

There have been several discussions about fine tuning already which have not been censored…

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum

The designer’s role is pushed back to selecting the laws of the universe around the time of the Big Bang. Everything else, including both biology and evolution, follows from that initial act of design.

The designer’s role is most significant. When you plant a seed, you know in advance what you plan to grow, how long it will take to grow, and the different shapes and colors that will appear during the period of growth. What grows from that seed is made possible by the choice of that seed. The designers role in the case of the universe would be vastly more complex than anything we can imagine. Yet we can see great complexity in the universe, and we can see a historical path of the universe’s growth reaching all the way from a Big Bang to you and me.

The alternative is to regard the Big Bang as an absurd and pointless event … a seed that nobody ever planted for any purpose. How really rational is that?

 

[rossum]

The fact that rational life **does exist **has a direct bearing on the (im)probability of life.

Indeed. It shows that the probability of life existing is 100%. Since rational life does exist then its probability is obviously 100% in this universe.

1. The key words are “in this universe” which restricts the calculations to the existing laws of nature.

Agreed.

1. Life also has to be understood as “life as we know it” which restricts the calculations to established scientific facts about life.

Disagree. For the purposes of this calculation, life has to be defined as, “Any form of life that is possible in this universe.” We are talking about the size of the target to be hit. If you arbitrarily restrict the size of the target then you can make the probability as small as you wish. However, the resulting probability is more a reflection of the restrictions you are using than of reality.

1. Therefore the calculations of the probability of life based on physical constants are valid.

I disagree. You have only calculated the probability of a subset of possible life. The actual probability is larger.

Evolution presupposes but does not explain the increase in complexity.

False. Gene duplication, an observed process, increases Shannon Information (= complexity). Gene duplication followed by a point mutation in one copy, (again an observed process) increases Kolmogorov Information (= complexity). We can observe evolution increasing complexity/information in a genome.

Therefore the universe is contingent and need not exist.

Agreed; the universe is indeed contingent.

Therefore the universe doesn’t explain itself!

That depends on your definition of “universe”. The current material universe is contingent and has a cause.

You have agreed that the universe does not explain itself, has not always existed and need not exist. Therefore the most economical, rational, intelligible, adequate, coherent and fertile explanation is one eternal Supreme Being.

I disagree. The current material universe is as you say, contingent. The properties you are ascribing to the cause of the material universe are mostly unsupported. How many of those properties apply to the multiverse proposed by cosmologists? Very few of your proposed properties also apply to the multiverse, and hence your logic is faulty somewhere.

If we define the universe as “all that exists” then it obviously has no external cause. As soon as you extend outside the material universe then a lot of assumptions, that are valid inside it will fail.

Accidents, disasters, diseases and deformities are instances of non-Design. They are distinguished by the fact that they are dysteleological, i.e. negative, irrational, harmful, destructive, valueless, purposeless and meaningless.

So, you are privy to the designer’s purposes? How about Noah’s Flood? That was certainly a disaster, yet it was deliberately caused by one of the candidates for the designer. Does that event disqualify God from being the designer? Why cannot a disaster be designed? The bombing of Hiroshima killed a lot of people and was a designed event. Design does not have to be all nice and good.

How do you propose to distinguish between a purposeless/non-designed disaster and a purposeful/designed disaster? We are back again to the need for a design detector, something which has been sadly lacking so far from the ID side. I myself have already made a proposal for such a detector, but the Discovery Institute does not seem to want to follow up on my idea. See Proposal for a Theistic Design Detector.

rossum

 

[rossum]

The designer’s role is pushed back to selecting the laws of the universe around the time of the Big Bang. Everything else, including both biology and evolution, follows from that initial act of design.

My point here is that Dr Dembski is actually conceding that evolution works. Since the universe has been selected by the designer from the small subset of universes in which evolution will work, then obviously evolution works in our current universe.

Dembski’s argument in “The Search for a Search” relies on our universe being in the small subset of evolution-friendly universes. If our universe is not evolution-friendly, then Dembski’s argument fails, because that great majority of possible universes are not evolution-friendly and so his probability argument no longer applies.

Essentially, Dembski argues for a deistic designer at the price of accepting that evolution is effective in our universe. That takes the discussion to a cosmological level, leaving biology far behind. Dembski’s argument works at the Big Bang, 13.7 billion years ago. Abiogenesis and evolution came along a lot later, only 3.7 billion years ago, and Dembski apparently no longer has any problem with either. He is talking about setting the stage; he is not longer talking about the actual play being performed.

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum

If our universe is not evolution-friendly, then Dembski’s argument fails, because that great majority of possible universes are not evolution-friendly and so his probability argument no longer applies.

I find this reasoning increasingly difficult to follow. Where is the science that allows for the existence of other universes? I’ve never seen the notion except as hypothesis. Science is supposed to be about provable hypothesis, not unprovable ones. What we have proof for only is the existence of one Big Bang and one universe growing out of that seed.

 

[DrTaffy]

There have been several discussions about fine tuning already which have not been censored…

Ah, we’re back full-circle to talking about fine tuning?

That I am happy to discuss - in an appropriate thread. So we have three issues:

1. 
   *]Evolution/Atheism discussions. Banned. You may get away with ignoring that very explicit sticky, but I doubt I would. So brief comments I may make, but I will not enter into prolonged debate.
   *]Derailing threads. Neither this thread nor the first cause thread are about fine tuning. I’m happy to discuss this (it isn’t atheism or evolution, per se) but not here.
   *]Sticking to the point. You respond to a point about fine tuning with a post about how life is improbable - almost diametrically opposed to the fine tuning argument. You then respond to that with a series of comments about evolution, then return in the next post to talking about fine tuning. I’m happy to talk to you if you will stick to a subject.
   
   Equally I am happy to discuss the burden of proof. If you are proposing a ‘proof of God’ that relies on the assumption that there is only one universe, or that the physical ‘constants’ are the same all across spacetime, it is up to you to prove that assertion, not up to me to disprove it.
   
   Otherwise you have not ‘proved’ the existence of God.

 

[rossum]

I find this reasoning increasingly difficult to follow. Where is the science that allows for the existence of other universes? I’ve never seen the notion except as hypothesis. Science is supposed to be about provable hypothesis, not unprovable ones. What we have proof for only is the existence of one Big Bang and one universe growing out of that seed.

Dr Dembski is doing a mathematical calculation, not a scientific study. He first estimates the number of possible universes. These universes may, or may not exist, but they are possible. He then estimates the number of those possible universes in which evolution works. This is a much smaller number. By comparing the two numbers he comes to an estimate of the probability that our universe is, by chance rather than design, one of the universes in which evolution works.

His argument is mathematical, rather than scientific. The full horror of the mathematical derivation is found in his paper with Dr Marks: The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search.

Dembski’s argument boils down to the fact that his calculation shows that there is a vanishingly small probability that a random possible universe is suitable for evolution. Hence he derives the presence of design in the initial formation of our actual universe.

It is implicitly obvious that Dembski accepts that we live in a universe in which evolution, and abiogenesis, work as expected.

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum

It is implicitly obvious that Dembski accepts that we live in a universe in which evolution, and abiogenesis, work as expected.

Does anybody know how abiogenesis works?

 

[rossum]

Does anybody know how abiogenesis works?

Not yet. We know how parts of it probably worked, but we don’t have the full picture. We can see probable origins for amino acids, purines, pyrimidines, lipid bilayers, ribozymes and some other likely constituents of very early life.

Abiogenesis is still an open problem, with a lot of work still required. See Current Models of Abiogenesis for an overview. The references in that article will give a lot more detail.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

Ah, we’re back full-circle to talking about fine tuning?

That I am happy to discuss - in an appropriate thread. So we have three issues:

Evolution/Atheism discussions. Banned. You may get away with ignoring that very explicit sticky, but I doubt I would. So brief comments I may make, but I will not enter into prolonged debate.

There is no discrimination on this forum on the grounds of belief or disbelief.

Derailing threads. Neither this thread nor the first cause thread are about fine tuning. I’m happy to discuss this (it isn’t atheism or evolution, per se) but not here.

Fine tuning is directly relevant to Design because it demonstrates that Chance is a hopelessly inadequate explanation.

Sticking to the point. You respond to a point about fine tuning with a post about how life is improbable - almost diametrically opposed to the fine tuning argument.

The improbability of the fortuitous origin of life is direct evidence of fine tuning!

You then respond to that with a series of comments about evolution, then return in the next post to talking about fine tuning. I’m happy to talk to you if you will stick to a subject.

Invalid evasion!

Equally I am happy to discuss the burden of proof.

The burden of proof is on everyone who offers an explanation of the origin of life.

If you are proposing a ‘proof of God’ that relies on the assumption that there is only one universe…

The issue is not whether other universes exist but whether life in this universe is fortuitous or designed - and the topic is not the existence of God but Design!

… or that the physical ‘constants’ are the same all across spacetime, it is up to you to prove that assertion, not up to me to disprove it.

You seem to have to prove nothing whatsoever! Can you indicate what exactly you do believe - and why?

Otherwise you have not ‘proved’ the existence of God.

The topic is not the existence of God but Design!

NB Your post consists entirely of evasions and negative statements which make your position invulnerable but vacuous, ineffective and unconvincing!

 

[tonyrey]

The fact that rational life does exist has a direct bearing on the (im)probability of life.
Indeed. It shows that the probability of life existing is 100%. Since rational life does exist then its probability is obviously 100% in this universe.

The issue is the probability of rational life **before **it existed.

1. The key words are “in this universe” which restricts the calculations to the existing laws of nature.

Agreed.

Good!

1. Life also has to be understood as “life as we know it” which restricts the calculations to established scientific facts about life.

Disagree. For the purposes of this calculation, life has to be defined as, “Any form of life that is possible in this universe.” We are talking about the size of the target to be hit. If you arbitrarily restrict the size of the target then you can make the probability as small as you wish. However, the resulting probability is more a reflection of the restrictions you are using than of reality.

To be precise, the issue is “Any form of life that is possible in this universe with the existing laws of nature”.

1. Therefore the calculations of the probability of life based on physical constants are valid.

I disagree. You have only calculated the probability of a subset of possible life. The actual probability is larger.

We are concerned with the probability of any form of life that is possible in this universe with the existing laws of nature, i.e. with physical constants **the value of which may vary.
**

Evolution presupposes but does not explain the increase in complexity.

False. Gene duplication, an observed process, increases Shannon Information (= complexity). Gene duplication followed by a point mutation in one copy, (again an observed process) increases Kolmogorov Information (= complexity). We can observe evolution increasing complexity/information in a genome.

Observation is not explanation! The occurrence of an event does not imply that it is, was or will be inevitable.

Therefore the universe is contingent and need not exist.

Agreed; the universe is indeed contingent.

Therefore it requires a cause.

Therefore the universe doesn’t explain itself!

That depends on your definition of “universe”. The current material universe is contingent and has a cause.

What is the cause of the physical cause?!

You have agreed that the universe does not explain itself, has not always existed and need not exist. Therefore the most economical, rational, intelligible, adequate, coherent and fertile explanation is one eternal Supreme Being.

I disagree. The current material universe is as you say, contingent. The properties you are ascribing to the cause of the material universe are mostly unsupported. How many of those properties apply to the multiverse proposed by cosmologists? Very few of your proposed properties also apply to the multiverse, and hence your logic is faulty somewhere.

You are taking for granted that the multiverse is an established fact. Hence it is your logic that is faulty because it is based on an unverified hypothesis for which there is no tangible evidence. It is purely speculative and has yielded no practical consequences.

The properties I ascribe to the Cause of the universe are based on facts about the universe in which we live, notably the existence of rationality without which all your arguments are worthless…

If we define the universe as “all that exists” then it obviously has no external cause. As soon as you extend outside the material universe then a lot of assumptions, that are valid inside it will fail.

That definition is based on the false assumption - even by your standards - that the material universe comprises the whole of reality. Do you regard souls as part of the universe? Are they material objects?

Accidents, disasters, diseases and deformities are instances of non-Design. They are distinguished by the fact that they are dysteleological, i.e. negative, irrational, harmful, destructive, valueless, purposeless and meaningless.

So, you are privy to the designer’s purposes? How about Noah’s Flood?

Non sequitur. This is a philosophy forum - and the issue is Design not God.

That was certainly a disaster, yet it was deliberately caused by one of the candidates for the designer. Does that event disqualify God from being the designer? Why cannot a disaster be designed? The bombing of Hiroshima killed a lot of people and was a designed event. Design does not have to be all nice and good.

The immense value of life is sufficient evidence that Design is fundamentally good. Accidents, disasters, diseases and deformities are the exception rather than the rule. As Leibniz pointed out, houses are far more common than hospitals - and human atrocities have no bearing on the origin of the universe.

How do you propose to distinguish between a purposeless/non-designed disaster and a purposeful/designed disaster? We are back again to the need for a design detector, something which has been sadly lacking so far from the ID side. I myself have already made a proposal for such a detector, but the Discovery Institute does not seem to want to follow up on my idea. See Proposal for a Theistic Design Detector.

The flaw in your detector, as far as I can make it out, is its assumption that it is necessary to prove the Designer is omniscient. Yet that is not essential in order to establish the superiority of Design over non-Design, which is a hopelessly inadequate and self-destructive explanation. No reasonable person would rely on fortuitous events to solve the problems of daily life, let alone explain spiritual development, truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love.

 

[Bradski]

The author of the article in wikipedia makes the common mistake of confusing Intelligent Design with Creationism! There are extracts from the book online.

The writer, Meyer, is a director of the Discovery Institute. There is a book available called Of Pandas and People, written by Senior Fellows of the DI (the 1993 second edition had an intro written by Meyer himself). The original editions talked simply about Creationism. Intelligent design was never mentioned.

However, when it was clear that Creationism was never going to be allowed to be taught in schools, they simply replaced all references to Creationism in the book with Intelligent Design. Read here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People

The judge in the Dover trial specifically referred to Pandas in his decision, stating:

"As Plaintiffs meticulously and effectively presented to the Court, Pandas went through many drafts, several of which were completed prior to and some after the Supreme Court’s decision in Edwards, which held that the Constitution forbids teaching creationism as science. By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge:

(1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID;

(2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times, were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and

(3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards. This word substitution is telling, significant, and reveals that a purposeful change of words was effected without any corresponding change in content … The weight of the evidence clearly demonstrates, as noted, that the systemic change from “creation” to “intelligent design” occurred sometime in 1987, after the Supreme Court’s important Edwards decision".

If you wanted to show that Creationism and ID are in fact the same thing, then what better proof could you have.

Yeah, Tony. Lots of people confuse the two. Maybe you have an explanation for the above?

 

[rossum]

The issue is the probability of rational life **before **it existed.

Is God rational? Then there is no “before”. Remember that creationism is not an explanation for the origin of life. Psalm 42:2 applies.

The occurrence of an event does not imply that it is, was or will be inevitable.

The occurrence of an event does show that the event is definitely not impossible.

What is the cause of the physical cause?!

What is the cause of your proposed non-physical cause?

You are taking for granted that the multiverse is an established fact.

No. I am saying that the multiverse is one of the possible causes of our current universe that has been proposed. Another proposed cause is the Abrahamic God. You are asserting that certain properties are required of any possible cause. I am saying that the multiverse lacks some of your ‘required’ properties, and that hence they are not actually required, but have to be separately established. The proposed multiverse meets all the requirements for a cause of the universe, yet lacks many of the properties assigned to the Abrahamic God. Thus we can see that those additional properties are not essential for a cause of the material universe.

The properties I ascribe to the Cause of the universe are based on facts about the universe in which we live, notably the existence of rationality without which all your arguments are worthless…

Rationality is a derived property, not a basic property. It is possible for there to be a material universe without rationality. Such a universe may well have existed for the first 13 billion years of our current universe. Humans are only a recent arrival on the scene.

That definition is based on the false assumption - even by your standards - that the material universe comprises the whole of reality. Do you regard souls as part of the universe? Are they material objects?

Souls, gods, angels, kinnaras, gandhabbas etc are all components of the “all that exists” universe. At no point did I limit my definition to only material things. Note that the Abrahamic God is also included in “all that exists”.

The flaw in your detector, as far as I can make it out, is its assumption that it is necessary to prove the Designer is omniscient.

Indeed. I make it clear that the ability to detect design is limited to certain types of design only. You could usefully consider how many material objects would cause the detector not to detect design. Every grain of sand in the bed of any river would trigger a detection of design. Your assertion of design is useless because everything is designed.

Yet that is not essential in order to establish the superiority of Design over non-Design, which is a hopelessly inadequate and self-destructive explanation.

You are merely asserting your position here. You have not provided us with any evidence that non-design is inadequate. We can see non-design operating in real life and in the laboratory. Dembski’s “Search for a Search” argument requires that non-design works on Earth.

No reasonable person would rely on fortuitous events to solve the problems of daily life, let alone explain spiritual development, truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love.

Such questions do not relate to biological design. Is a bacterium intent on freedom, justice and beauty? A bacterium is a living biological entity.

rossum