Here is one thing that most of us can agree on; that is “Intelligent Design”.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimmy_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jimmy,

If by “Intelligent Design” you mean the recent theories about “irreducible complexity” pointing to a designer of living organisms, then I think there are plenty of reasons to be skeptical. I’m going to answer “no” to your question, not because I necessarily reject Intelligent Design, but because I remain undecided.

That does not mean that I don’t agree with the larger and vaguer claim that there are reasons to believe that the universe is intelligently designed. Unfortunately, ID as a scientific (or some would claim pseudo-scientific) theory easily gets confused with this much bigger issue.

Edwin
 
If by “Intelligent Design” you mean a scientific explanation for complexity in living organisms, invoking the action of a supernatural designer at various points in the evolutionary process; then I reject the idea that such an explanation should be taught in science classes in school. Science, as understood in the modern West, looks for natural causes, not supernatural causes. Looking for supernatural causes takes you outside of science.

If by “Intelligent Design” you mean a philosophical explanation for why the universe itself seems to operate via laws that we humans can discover, and that these laws strongly indicate the existence of some sort of “intelligence” lying at the foundation of the universe; then I agree that such an explanation is perfectly teachable in history, sociology, theology, or philosophy classes in school.
 
Jimmy B, I think you would promote the discussion, and clarify the poll, if you told us what you mean by “Intellligent Design.” Are you referring to a general sense that God is in control of the world, including evolution, or are you referring to the US movement which challenges evolution?
 
There are developments in the history of life that defy statistical feasibility. These developments support the theory of intelligent design.

There are irreducibly complex systems that could not have developed according to evolutionary theory.

For example, if a retina developed without the rest of the eyeball and optical nerves, it would have provided no competitive advantage. For an eye to provide an advantage for survival, multiple components must come into existence at the same time.
 
I voted yes because
I see God as the Designer of the the universe,
and I believe he is Intelligent.
Colossians 1:16 “For by him (Christ) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible…”

Psalms 104:24 O LORD, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches. 25 So is this great and wide sea, wherein are things creeping innumerable, both small and great beasts…30 Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created:
 
If by “Intelligent Design” you mean a scientific explanation for complexity in living organisms, invoking the action of a supernatural designer at various points in the evolutionary process; then I reject the idea that such an explanation should be taught in science classes in school. Science, as understood in the modern West, looks for natural causes, not supernatural causes. Looking for supernatural causes takes you outside of science.

If by “Intelligent Design” you mean a philosophical explanation for why the universe itself seems to operate via laws that we humans can discover, and that these laws strongly indicate the existence of some sort of “intelligence” lying at the foundation of the universe; then I agree that such an explanation is perfectly teachable in history, sociology, theology, or philosophy classes in school.
You speak my mind.
 
I voted yes because
I see God as the Designer of the the universe,
and I believe he is Intelligent.
But that isn’t what the phrase “Intelligent Design” means in contemporary debates. Indeed, ID advocates insist that the “designer” could theoretically be an alien or something–not necessarily God at all. They are making a very limited argument based on what they see as the evidence. The confusion between this limited argument and the basic theistic belief you describe is hurting everyone. Most scientists say the ID folks are doing theology or philosophy rather than science, and many folks in the culture as a whole are getting the impression that the basic belief in God as the intelligent Creator stands or falls on these very limited, and somewhat dubious, arguments.

Edwin
 
For an eye to provide an advantage for survival, multiple components must come into existence at the same time.
That doesn’t have to the case. We can look at the currently existing species of mollusks, and notice that their eyes create an evolutionary path in which we see how the eyes in mollusks evolved from light-sensitive cells to a fully developed eye.

http://books.nap.edu/books/11876/xhtml/images/p20013a49g41001.jpg

Eyes in living mollusks. The octopus eye (bottom) is quite complex, with components similar to those of the human eye, such as a cornea, iris, refractive lens, and retina. Other mollusks have simpler eyes. The simplest eye is found in limpets (top), consisting of only a few pigmented cells, slightly modified from typical epithelial (skin) cells. Slit-shell mollusks (second from top) have a slightly more advanced organ, consisting of some pigmented cells shaped as a cup. Further elaborations and increasing complexity are found in the eyes of Nautilus and Murex, which are not as complex as the eyes of the squid and octopus.
 
That doesn’t have to the case. We can look at the currently existing species of mollusks, and notice that their eyes create an evolutionary path in which we see how the eyes in mollusks evolved from light-sensitive cells to a fully developed eye.

http://books.nap.edu/books/11876/xhtml/images/p20013a49g41001.jpg

Eyes in living mollusks. The octopus eye (bottom) is quite complex, with components similar to those of the human eye, such as a cornea, iris, refractive lens, and retina. Other mollusks have simpler eyes. The simplest eye is found in limpets (top), consisting of only a few pigmented cells, slightly modified from typical epithelial (skin) cells. Slit-shell mollusks (second from top) have a slightly more advanced organ, consisting of some pigmented cells shaped as a cup. Further elaborations and increasing complexity are found in the eyes of Nautilus and Murex, which are not as complex as the eyes of the squid and octopus.
That’s a very good post and very interesting information.

I would still contend that even the limpet’s system of light sensing requires multiple cooperating components. It does not seem like a random mutation.

Do you agree?
 
That’s a very good post and very interesting information.

I would still contend that even the limpet’s system of light sensing requires multiple cooperating components. It does not seem like a random mutation.

Do you agree?
A mutation can be “random” in the sense that there is no obvious scientific reason why a particular mutation occurred at a particular time in a particular gene.

However, someone who believes in a Higher Being could say that no mutation is truly “random”, even if we can’t scientifically find the specific cause.
 
A mutation can be “random” in the sense that there is no obvious scientific reason why a particular mutation occurred at a particular time in a particular gene.

However, someone who believes in a Higher Being could say that no mutation is truly “random”, even if we can’t scientifically find the specific cause.
The chances of the multiple mutations necessary for sensing light to occur simultaneously must be small enough to be considered zero.
 
The chances of the multiple mutations necessary for sensing light to occur simultaneously must be small enough to be considered zero.
Not really. There are two broad types of light-sensitive molecules (or “opsins”). Type I evolved in bacteria. Type II evolved in multi-cellular animals. Both types share certain similar structural properties; these properties seem necessary for light-sensitivity. So, light-sensitivity evolved independently, at least twice, so the chance of it evolving is not zero.
 
That’s a very good post and very interesting information.

I would still contend that even the limpet’s system of light sensing requires multiple cooperating components. It does not seem like a random mutation.

Do you agree?
Please list these “multiple cooperating components” of which you speak. Be detailed. Feel free to reference any papers you may have published on the subject in scientific journals.

Limpets are fascinating creatures. I’ll be very interested in reading your publications.
 
Please list these “multiple cooperating components” of which you speak. Be detailed. Feel free to reference any papers you may have published on the subject in scientific journals.

Limpets are fascinating creatures. I’ll be very interested in reading your publications.
That’s right, everybody! If you aren’t a professional, you have no business discussing this topic. :rolleyes: Except to agree with cerad, of course.

The mollusk eye example is a good example of how evolutionary histories are concocted to fit the evidence and then asserted to be scientific when they are totally unfalsifiable, complete guesses with no virtue other than they fit the model popular with the masses. It’s just one more reason Darwinian evolution is going to look as silly as bleeding with leeches in a couple hundred years.
 
That’s right, everybody! If you aren’t a professional, you have no business discussing this topic. Except to agree with cerad, of course.
Yes, that’s right. Nonprofessionals really don’t know enough to discuss the topic. That’s why I stay away from it; I don’t know enough to argue it, and neither do you. How is one supposed to intelligently argue the topic of mollusk eyes without actually studying mollusk eyes?
 
Yes, that’s right. Nonprofessionals really don’t know enough to discuss the topic. That’s why I stay away from it; I don’t know enough to argue it, and neither do you. How is one supposed to intelligently argue the topic of mollusk eyes without actually studying mollusk eyes?
Surely you know that it’s an ancient practice to allow for discussions on multiple levels. For example, I am not Thomas Aquinas or even a priest, but I am here discussing theology. I am not allowed to learn natural science as an amateur the way I am allowed to learn theology as an amateur. Both are careful, reasoned, multidisciplinary studies that must be carried out meticulously. Why is that?
 
I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.

The first
and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

(The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top