If Science Did Prove Intelligent Design, Would It Make Any Difference?

[PickyPicky]

No, because the math is accurate and I have no reason to doubt it. It is pure numbers,

I put a trillion balls, numbered one to a trillion, in a great big bag, close my eyes, fumble in the bag, take out a ball. It is number 15397. Do you exclaim that this is astonishing? That the odds of picking number 15397 are nearly a trillion to one against? No, you don’t.

It is only if I predicted the ball would be 15397, and it is 15397, that you are entitled to exclaim. It is when the event matches the prediction that the calculation applies. Evolution does not predict its result.

 

[rossum]

Sorry to come to this discussion late.

Science does recognise intelligent design. Science recognises that both Stonehenge and the Eiffel Tower are designed. Questions about ID are more usually about the Discovery Institute version of intelligent design in biology.

From a scientific point of view DI-ID is a hypothesis: “Complex systems require intelligent design.” The problem is that they have not advanced much from their basic hypothesis to make predictions: “If our hypothesis is true then we should observe …” Not having made any predictions as to what should, and what should not, be observed then DI-ID cannot make further scientific progress. Moreover, it is necessary that ID makes a different prediction to evolution, otherwise science will revert to the simpler explanation: evolution.

For example, Einstein made predictions as to what would be observed about starlight during an eclipse, ahd his predictions differend from Newton’s. Those predictions were confirmed by Eddington’s observations in 1919. DI-ID is not yet in any position to perform such experiments since it has no predictions to test.

DI-ID asserts that a certain level of complexity requires design. That leaves open the question of how complex their proposed Intelligent Designer is. If it/they are intelligent then that might imply that there is an infinite regress of intelligent meta-designers needed to provide the required complexity in the Intelligent Designer. Alternatively, intelligence does not reach that level of complexity, and so can arise in the absence of design, in effect that intelligence can evolve.

DI-ID would like to be science, but all too often it drifts into theology. For example, it usually assumes a single designer, rather than multiple designers. Why not one designer (or design team) designing gazelles to avoid cheetahs while a different designer designs cheetahs to catch gazelles? Those very obvious theological assumptions still present in DI-ID will put off scientists; theology is not science.

In short, DI-ID still shows its theological roots as an attempt to get creationism taught in US public schools. It has tried to look like science, but is failing. The DI-ID journal BIO-complexity has published three articles so far this year! That is a major indicator that DI-ID is not doing science but is doing something else.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

is starting with a finished product on the assumption that that is the aim of the process and then looking at the chances of that product being randomly produced.

No, I’m not. I’m starting with the number of possible combinations, and the number of those combinations which produce coherent data that results in the formation of a protein.

And what it does build is not random.

I didn’t say what it built was random, I said the the combinations are random.

And Douglas Axe? He is director of the Discovery Institute. A bunch of charlatans that promote ID.

So, they are charlatans for promoting the concept of intelligent design because intelligent design doesn’t exist? I don’t think that’s quite circular reasoning, but it’s certainly not a sound argument. If it does exist, they are not charlatans. Given that the underlying question of the discussion is if intelligent design is true, you cannot dismiss them by simply saying it isn’t. They present reasonable arguments for intelligent design, you simply dismiss them as unreasonable because you have already concluded that intelligent design is false.

The deal is random but what you end up with isn’t.

I have not once claimed that the end result is random. Have you even been bothering to read my posts? I have stated at least twice that the end result is dictated by what goes into it. Once the chain is formed it follows its function as prescribed. What I am dealing with this the initial mechanism of the creation of proteins.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I put a trillion balls, numbered one to a trillion, in a great big bag, close my eyes, fumble in the bag, take out a ball. It is number 15397. Do you exclaim that this is astonishing? That the odds of picking number 15397 are nearly a trillion to one against? No, you don’t.

It is only if I predicted the ball would be 15397, and it is 15397, that you are entitled to exclaim. It is when the event matches the prediction that the calculation applies. Evolution does not predict its result.

Prediction has nothing to do with it. I’m not sure you actually understand my argument. I am not claiming that it’s impressive because it wound up making a specific protein, I’m saying that, given the astronomical number of possible combinations, and the small subset of those possibilities that are usable (relatively speaking, it’s still a massive number), there is a statistically-negligible chance that we’d have seen even a single usable protein chain in the short span of life on Earth, let alone the multitude of protein chains that make up all the diverse life on our planet.

 

[PickyPicky]

Then I’m not sure you actually understand my argument. I think you are astray in your use of probability.

 

[rossum]

Prediction has nothing to do with it. I’m not sure you actually understand my argument. I am not claiming that it’s impressive because it wound up making a specific protein, I’m saying that, given the astronomical number of possible combinations, and the small subset of those possibilities that are usable (relatively speaking, it’s still a massive number), there is a statistically-negligible chance that we’d have seen even a single usable protein chain in the short span of life on Earth, let alone the multitude of protein chains that make up all the diverse life on our planet.

Your model of evolution is incorrect. You are correctly modelling random mutations; you are not including natural selection in your model. Hence you are not modelling evolution, only random mutation.

Natural selection is not a random process so you cannot use the mathematics of random probability to model it. You have to use a different set of mathematical tools. For example, to make a 100 amino acid protein by pure random mutation would take about 6.4e130 generations. Once natural selection is included, the time taken drops to about 2.1e6 generations; that is about 10^124 times faster. See The Evolution of Boojumase for details of the calculation. Two million generations is well within the lifetime of the earth. For some bacteria it could be as short as 120 years.

Evolution includes the process of natural selection. Any calculation which does not include natural selection is not relevant to evolution.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Your model of evolution is incorrect. You are correctly modelling random mutations; you are not including natural selection in your model. Hence you are not modelling evolution, only random mutation.

That is because I’m not addressing the full length of the evolutionary process, as I have stated, repeatedly.

I am addressing the unlikelihood of even a single coherent mutation. It doesn’t matter how easy it is for the mutation to get passed on, it has to happen first.

 

[rossum]

It doesn’t matter how easy it is for the mutation to get passed on, it has to happen first.

Mutations happen all the time. The average human has about 75 mutations in their DNA – something they didn’t inherit from either parent. With a population of 7 billion, that is 75 * 7e9 = 5.25e11 mutations in the entire human population. Since we have 3e9 base pairs in our DNA, that is 5.25e11 / 3e9 = 175 mutations per base pair over the whole human population. Since there are only four possibilities at any base pair, then every possible point mutation will happen somewhere in the human population somewhere, multiple times.

There is no problem with a particular mutation happening somewhere in a reasonably large population. Remember that bacterial populations can get very large with smaller genomes than ours. If a mutation can happen then it will happen.

Evolution is a population effect. You always need to consider the size of the population where necessary. “Individuals reproduce; populations evolve.”

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

And what it does build is not random.

I didn’t say what it built was random, I said the the combinations are random.

So are the cards dealt in a poker game. So getting that Royal Flush using random combinations (a new deal each time) is the equivalent of what you are doing. But that’s not how it works. You get to keep what is beneficial at each deal. Your hand improves every few deals.

That’s how evolution works. It isn’t a random shuffle of genetic material every generation. Your impressively big numbers aren’t applicable.

And the DI isn’t pushing Intelligent Design as a scientific exercise. Anyone who tells you that is misinformed. A quote from the DI itself tells you what their aim is:

To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"

 

[John10]

Science has already proved it, although not everybody accepts it. Just as Jesus proved He was God, but not everybody believed Him.

It simply stacks the balance heavily against materialism and naturalism.

 

[IWantGod]

It simply stacks the balance heavily against materialism and naturalism.

I think what science has discovered favours a teleological view of reality regardless of whether natural evolution is true or not; but science does not prove it.

Intelligent design theorists have tried to pit design against the natural theory of evolution, but i don’t see why it has to be either or. It could just be that some types of design arguments are wrong.

 

[John10]

Many things “could” be, however the devil is in the details. What type of design argument is wrong and based on what evidence ?

It has been proven that life on Earth requires a very precise and delicate balance of many variables and things to precisely occur (both at the Universe level and also at the planet level), for life to even have a chance to exist.

The other major roadblock for a purely natural theory of evolution is DNA, which we know is full of information, and that can only come from an intelligent being.

 

[rossum]

The other major roadblock for a purely natural theory of evolution is DNA, which we know is full of information, and that can only come from an intelligent being.

This is incorrect. At the very simple level, a mutation can reduce information in DNA, so the reverse mutation can increase information again. If GATTACA → GATGACA reduces information then GATGACA → GATTACA must increase information.

On a more complex level, how much information is needed to make an “intelligent being”? If none, then there is no obstacle to an intelligent being arising from natural non-intelligent forces. If information is needed, then what was the source of the information inherent in the intelligent being. There is a very obvious infinite regress here.

 

[John10]

If GATTACA → GAT G ACA reduces information then GATGACA → GAT T ACA must increase information.

Not necessarily, it can also be gibberish, changing letters do not equate to adding information (just as randomly changing computer code does not create an operating system) the issue is who put all that information we see in nature in the first place, this is something evolution does not address and cannot.

If information is needed, then what was the source of the information inherent in the intelligent being.

Of course it is needed, that proves there had to be a source of all the information that we see in nature, which both transcends and depends entirely on it.

 

[rossum]

Not necessarily

Correct. A mutation may reduce the information in DNA, may leave the information unchanged or may increase information. A blanket statement that no mutation can increase information is demonstrably incorrect. A back mutation is just an obvious example.

Of course it is needed, that proves there had to be a source of all the information that we see in nature

If your initial statement were correct, then your designer requires the (name removed by moderator)ut of intelligently designed information so you need a meta-designer to supply the information inherent in that designer. Similarly for the meta-designer; a meta-meta-designer is required. That gives an infinite regress of meta^n-designers.

The only way out of such a regress is that at some point in the chain there is a meta-designer that is not intelligent or not designed. A scientist will point to a non-intelligent process, such as chemistry or evolution, as the origin of undesigned information. A theologian will point to God/Allah/Vishnu as containing undesigned information. In both cases there is information that was not intelligently designed. Hence, the claim that information must be intelligently designed is false. Evolution is not intelligent and God was not designed.

 

[John10]

A mutation may reduce the information in DNA, may leave the information unchanged or may increase information.

Mutations alter existing genetic information, they do not add new information. Most mutations do not produce useful outcomes, and mutations have never been observed to add new information.

If your initial statement were correct, then your designer requires the (name removed by moderator)ut of intelligently designed information

That is one possibility, however if that intelligent designer is eternal and exists outside of time/space/matter then no need to infinitely regress or go back. This is also the simplest explanation and the one with the fewest assumptions.

 

[lelinator]

This is also the simplest explanation and the one with the fewest assumptions.

To refer to it as the simplest explanation is definitely a subjective point of view. I on the other hand would opt for the explanation that both relativity and quantum mechanics suggest. Reality is its own designer.

 

[IWantGod]

If your initial statement were correct, then your designer requires the (name removed by moderator)ut of intelligently designed information

Why? I wouldn’t argue that information couldn’t naturally occur as a by-product, depending on what we are talking about. But what are we talking about here? The reason people see DNA as evidence of design is because that information does not necessarily exist. It begins to exist. And if that information can be reasoned to be intelligent then it follows true that the source is intelligent. Also intelligence produces information either through knowledge of the self or knowledge of other things, and so an infinite regress doesn’t necessarily follow. You could assert that D.N.A information is existentially necessary, but that is not convincing and certainly not a necessary conclusion.

What is interesting to me is that D.N.A acts like a blueprint for various structures, complex or otherwise, and many of those structures presuppose an environment and an end which nature itself has no conscious foresight of. Thus to say that this kind of information is best explained by natural processes alone isn’t incredibly convincing.To say that the physical structure of D.N.A naturally occurs or that the sequencing of D.N.A information is a natural process is irrelevant, in fact i am happy to assume for the sake of argument that this is true, because it doesn’t follow that the information it produces is ultimately natural. And why should we think it’s natural? After all physical reality is meant to be a blind process that doesn’t act for a purpose or goal, and so when we see the emergence of systems that replicate and produce traits that unmistakably act specifically for the goal of staying alive (survival), one cannot be anything but puzzled by a purely naturalist or materialistic opinion about the ultimate nature of reality, because it’s completely unjustified and flies in the face of human experience.

 

[rossum]

Mutations alter existing genetic information, they do not add new information. Most mutations do not produce useful outcomes, and mutations have never been observed to add new information.

You are misinformed. A duplication mutation increases Shannon information in DNA:

GATTACA → GATTACAGATTACA

A subsequent point mutation to one of the copies will increase Kolmogorov information:

GATTACAGATTACA → GATTATAGATTACA

Both duplication mutations and point mutations are observed in living species. If you are using a different measure of information then you will have to specify how you are objectively calculating information using that measure.

You are correct that most mutations do not produce useful outcomes. The majority of mutations are neutral, and the majority of the remainder deleterious. However, there are a small number that are beneficial – “useful” in your terminology.

That is one possibility, however if that intelligent designer is eternal and exists outside of time/space/matter then no need to infinitely regress or go back. This is also the simplest explanation and the one with the fewest assumptions.

So, you agree that the information contained in your proposed eternal intelligent designer was not itself designed. Hence your claim that information requires an intelligent designer is falsified. The information in your eternal designer exists and was not designed. Hence your initial claim is shown to be false by your own argument: information does not have to be intelligently designed.

 

[rossum]

And if that information can be reasoned to be intelligent then it follows true that the source is intelligent.

I disagree. Intelligence is an emergent property that is not present in the individual components. Is a human egg cell intelligent? No. Is a human sperm cell intelligent? No. Then by your argument humans cannot be intelligent either. You are obviously incorrect here.

Also intelligence produces information

It can, but there are other processes that can produce information. You are assuming that those other processes do not exist. They do. In my previous post I showed two ways unintelligent mutations can increase the information in DNA.

What is interesting to me is that D.N.A acts like a blueprint for various structures, complex or otherwise, and many of those structures presuppose an environment and an end which nature itself has no conscious foresight of.

Correct. Evolution does not have foresight. Natural selection is only affected by the current environment. Organisms in an environment adapt through natural selection to suit that particular environment, not any other possible or future environment.

After all physical reality is meant to be a blind process that doesn’t act for a purpose or goal, and so when we see the emergence of systems that replicate and produce traits that unmistakably act specifically for the goal of staying alive (survival), one cannot be anything but puzzled by a purely naturalist or materialistic opinion about the ultimate nature of reality, because it’s completely unjustified and flies in the face of human experience.

The “goal” is something added by humans, it is a reification. Organisms reproduce, or they do not reproduce. The successful reproducers have large populations while the unsuccessful reproducers go extinct. There is nothing more to it than that: “If your parents didn’t have any children then the chances are you won’t have any either.”

Science does not deal with “ultimate nature”, that is for theology or philosophy. For me it is a reification and can be ignored.