Does Intelligent Design = Creationism?

[buffalo]

It could mean life was seeded here by ET.

But most likely the inference is the Creator. But so what. Go where the evidence leads.

All it means is rossum, hecd and the like will be unhappy and step up their attacks.

 

[Michaelo]

rossum

Thanks for posting those graphs, I was looking for them

 

[Michaelo]

Intelligent Design consists of these ideas.

1. Living things as simple as cells are integrated systems. They cannot be reduced. If so, they will cease to function. Compared to a factory, a living cell is a lot more complex.
2. There is no credible explanation as to how new, functional information can be added to an organism’s DNA. A certain level of adaptation is built in, but that’s it.
3. There is no credible explanation as to how simple cells aggregated themselves, became more complex and then began to create organs. Increasing complexity requires detailed instructions – specified complexity.

Can you explain specifically why this indicates intelligent design?

 

[edwest2]

Can you explain specifically why this indicates intelligent design?

Sure. Life does not cause itself. It cannot generate itself from non-life. Just like flies were once thought to be generated by dirty rags.

Second, propability theory supports the idea that random and natural forces working together are incapable of specifying complex modifications to simple organisms to increase their complexity in an organized functional way. As scientists have recently discovered, birds have a fundamental difference in their body plans from therapod dinosaurs in order to use their lung capacity effectively.

There are interrelationships between macro organisms that are clearly related to living on earth, i.e. temperature, gravity, amount of sunlight reaching the earth, and the composition of the atmosphere. Their bodies are designed to function within those parameters effectively. Their brains are designed to interpret the outside world in a meaningful, functional way.

Probability theory is also against the idea that each macro animal can interact with its environment in a fully functional way by trial and error or as a result of a long line of random processes. Birds build nests. They select native materials. They construct the nest in a location where it is less likely to be disturbed by predators, or the wind. It is the right size and shape to insure incubation occurs. Mutation and random selection alone cannot explain this activity in a credible way. It would be unreasonable to assume that a process based on disorder selected and specified nests as a functional result. It would be more reasonable to assume that an intelligence that was reasonable created reasonable functional organisms.

Another example: Bees and flowers. How does a bee know what a flower is? How does it know what to do with the pollen?

To conclude: non-life cannot generate life, random and selected order is not possible in a closed system with a great many possible outcomes, probability theory does not allow for simple organisms to A) become more complex and to acquire new, specific functional information, B) to create new organs that would then need to be integrated into the existing machinery of the organism, and C) to develop new and complex behaviors as a result of their physical modifications.

Put another way, random and natural forces are given the highly improbable ability to upgrade organisms, make them more complex, create new organs and create new, functional behaviors. To make them more complex in a specific way. One does not define the fitness requirements of a given environment by simply listing the animals that live in it.

And perception does enter into it. If Richard Dawkins says that living things appear designed but rejects the idea, I have to ask, why? The Church certainly accepts actual design in nature.

Peace,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

Can you explain specifically why this indicates intelligent design?

Systems have purpose. One can design a system to function using known parts. These parts can sometimes be used elsewhere. But the unique combination is specified complexity. These systems are irreducibly complex for if parts are removed they cease to function for their intended purpose.

We can take the mousetrap and take parts away one by one. Once we removed the spring it no longer functions as a mousetrap. The spring and the rest of the parts still can be used in many other systems.

 

[Michaelo]

To conclude: non-life cannot generate life, random and selected order is not possible in a closed system with a great many possible outcomes, probability theory does not allow for simple organisms to A) become more complex and to acquire new, specific functional information, B) to create new organs that would then need to be integrated into the existing machinery of the organism, and C) to develop new and complex behaviors as a result of their physical modifications.

For the sake of argument, I’ll assume that what you have stated is valid.

But how is this evidence for intelligent design? You have merely critiqued evolution.

Systems have purpose. One can design a system to function using known parts. These parts can sometimes be used elsewhere. But the unique combination is specified complexity. These systems are irreducibly complex for if parts are removed they cease to function for their intended purpose.

We can take the mousetrap and take parts away one by one. Once we removed the spring it no longer functions as a mousetrap. The spring and the rest of the parts still can be used in many other systems.

Again, the specified complexity and irreducible complexity arguments are critical in nature. Do you have positive evidence for ID?

 

[buffalo]

For the sake of argument, I’ll assume that what you have stated is valid.

But how is this evidence for intelligent design? You have merely critiqued evolution.

Again, the specified complexity and irreducible complexity arguments are critical in nature. Do you have positive evidence for ID?

We know it when we see it. For example look around you , you can see things that have purpose and are designed. You can see things that are not. The problem is how to make this empirical.

I have to think that if a formula is ever come up with that it will include shapes, angles, textures, reflectivity, noise, purpose, among other things. It may take a supercomputer to crunch the information and give us an answer whether something is designed or not.

 

[Michaelo]

We know it when we see it. For example look around you , you can see things that have purpose and are designed. You can see things that are not. The problem is how to make this empirical.

It seems like the distinction between design and non-design is fairly vague and arbitrary. How can you reliably decide which is which?

 

[buffalo]

It seems like the distinction between design and non-design is fairly vague and arbitrary. How can you reliably decide which is which?

Vague and arbitrary? Do you deny you cannot tell the difference? You cannot tell the difference between a ladder and a tree?

 

[Michaelo]

Vague and arbitrary? Do you deny you cannot tell the difference? You cannot tell the difference between a ladder and a tree?

What scientific test can we use to determine whether something was designed?

 

[buffalo]

What scientific test can we use to determine whether something was designed?

Both the tree and ladder can be climbed. One can be climbed because of its natural shape. The ladder on the otherhand was designed to climb. So it has purpose. The system has several parts each with specifications to handle loads.

So let’s think about it.

What are the distinguishing features? One is patterns. Nature definitely exhibits a constant mandlebrot pattern. The ladder does not.

 

[reggieM]

First, determine if it could be produced by natural laws or random chance alone. If not, then the best possible explanation is that it was designed for that function or purpose.

 

[edwest2]

It seems like the distinction between design and non-design is fairly vague and arbitrary. How can you reliably decide which is which?

Archaoeligists make reliable determinations all the time. The SETI Project has established parameters to ignore noise and determine an intelligent signal.

Peace,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

You look for symmetry and purpose against a background of what random events produce.

One example would be a beaver-dam in a stream. Is that designed? Yes. Is it the product of intelligence? Yes – animal intelligence working for a purpose. Is it the product of random, natural forces? No. How can you tell? You can tell because the random forces of the stream do not arrange the logs and mud into a dam like that.

 

[Mike_BioProf]

The assumption with this argument is that “science can possible, or will inevitably” fill all gaps in knowledge of the universe and nature. That is basically scientism, or materialistic philosophy. To quote you – not explicitly stated as such by the idea is always there.

Hi Reggie. Well, sort of. But even if we don’t assume science will inevitably fill all gaps, the entire argument is based on a false premise. That is, that God’s existence is in any way dependent on human knowledge. God either exists, or He does not. But the status of His existence can not change as human knowledge changes.

When the argument shifts to “theistic evolution” we will see a very large number of problems with that idea. One of the most famous “Catholic” promoters of theistic evolutionary theory had to create his own “god” in order to protect evolutionary ideas from being challenged.

Well I should say that I am completely in the same camp as Ken Miller and Martinez Hewlett, if that is who you are referring to. I am not sure why the quotation marks around Catholic, but I think I know what you are implying. I am not playing that game.

Thus, we have “Catholics” thinking that the human soul, intelligence, consciousness, memory, imagination and spiritual capacity emerged from unintelligent, unconscious, accidental physical laws. This is not only heretical, it’s completely illogical and absurd on the face of it.

How do you know God did not choose to use the mechanism of evolution to imbue us with these things? You certainly can not argue that God is not capable of doing it that way. You can not say that God could not have had the foresight to know what was coming. What you are really saying is that God did not create humans the way you think He should have, or not the way you would have expected Him to. (Or that accepting evolution means that God did not create us according to a literal reading of Genesis, but if you believe in a literal interpretation of a young earth six-day creation, then why are we even having this conversation?).

Mike

 

[buffalo]

Hi Reggie. Well, sort of. But even if we don’t assume science will inevitably fill all gaps, the entire argument is based on a false premise. That is, that God’s existence is in any way dependent on human knowledge. God either exists, or He does not. But the status of His existence can not change as human knowledge changes.

Well I should say that I am completely in the same camp as Ken Miller and Martinez Hewlett, if that is who you are referring to. I am not sure why the quotation marks around Catholic, but I think I know what you are implying. I am not playing that game.

How do you know God did not choose to use the mechanism of evolution to imbue us with these things? You certainly can not argue that God is not capable of doing it that way. You can not say that God could not have had the foresight to know what was coming. What you are really saying is that God did not create humans the way you think He should have, or not the way you would have expected Him to. (Or that accepting evolution means that God did not create us according to a literal reading of Genesis, but if you believe in a literal interpretation of a young earth six-day creation, then why are we even having this conversation?).

Mike

Did God know what Adam would look like?

 

[Michaelo]

Both the tree and ladder can be climbed. One can be climbed because of its natural shape. The ladder on the otherhand was designed to climb. So it has purpose. The system has several parts each with specifications to handle loads.

So let’s think about it.

What are the distinguishing features? One is patterns. Nature definitely exhibits a constant mandlebrot pattern. The ladder does not.

You are searching for patterns that humans can generate based on your prior observation of human capabilities–a sort of retroactive reasoning. The implication of this method is that the designer is human unless you have prior observation of another designer’s work.

First, determine if it could be produced by natural laws or random chance alone. If not, then the best possible explanation is that it was designed for that function or purpose.

More negative reasoning

Archaoeligists make reliable determinations all the time. The SETI Project has established parameters to ignore noise and determine an intelligent signal.

Please read:

talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI191.html

talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI190.html

 

[Della]

Standard evolutionary theory is overwhelmingly supported by tons of evidence from multiple fields. The evidence in favor of evolution so completely outweighs any alternative theory that it is at this point absurd to consider them. That could, of course, change with new data but I would not hold my breath. As such, concepts like ID should not be taught alongside established theories in science class. This has nothing to do with whether anyone likes or dislikes the possible religious implications.

Well, I’m not so convinced by the “overwhelming evidence”. I think it appears overwhelming mainly because it is the accepted theory and not because the evidence alone supports it–there is a difference between the two after all.

No one has bothered to seek out ID in the fossil evidence because it isn’t accepted by most scientists not because it could not be done. I think people have been so engrained in evolutionary theories that none others are considered or even allowed to be considered. G. K. Chesterton warned us against relying on the “experts” to tell us how things are/ought to be. Experts not only can be wrong they can be influenced by their own biases.

I see design quite clearly in nature. It is beyond reasonable to think that a single cell just came into being when it is so complex as to be mind boggling–and that’s just one example. It just doesn’t wash nor explain enough. Evolution is really the theory of the gaps not ID.

 

[buffalo]

You are searching for patterns that humans can generate based on your prior observation of human capabilities–a sort of retroactive reasoning. The implication of this method is that the designer is human unless you have prior observation of another designer’s work.

l

Sure, we know human designs when we see them. If ET visited and left symbols, we would know they were designed. We would have never seen these before.

 

[Mike_BioProf]

Hi Mike,

Too many people accept a slogan as a valid idea without examining it. I don’t believe in slogans but I do know there is actual design in nature. My faith doesn’t rest on science but science is a partly useful tool. However, when this tool is used to further the agenda of a secular belief system, i.e. evolution, the engine that builds itself, runs itself, and spits out functioning life forms, I think, no, that’s not possible.

Peace,
Ed

Evolution is not a belief system. It is a branch of biology whose goal is to explain the diversity of life on earth. It is very successful in that goal. Yes, there are some people who make the illogical argument that since evolution (as a process) could exist in the absence of God, its existence therefore proves the absence of God. This is a silly argument because evolution could also exist in the presence of God (theistic evolution). Regardless, how someone uses science to further an agenda does not change the science. Evolutionary theory explains the diversity (and apparent design) better than any other theory, and does so very convincingly. What sort of philosophical position someone tries to further based on evolution does not change that.

The bigger question for me is, why fight this fight? The truth of evolution does not negate the existence of God, (although it does negate a literal reading of Genesis). So why twist yourself up trying to support alternatives to evolution, when they fly in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence? If your answer is that Richard Dawkins told you that if you accept evolution you can’t believe in God, well, then, you’ve let Dawkins win by letting him define the question.

Mike