Intelligent Design is Self-refuting

[buffalo]

When Theory and Experiment Collide

…As other scientists have found with other enzymes, it turned out not to be a snap. The technical details are reported in a paper just published in BIO-Complexity . [2] Here we’ll keep it simple.
Based on our experimental observations and on calculations we made using a published population model [3], we estimated that Darwin’s mechanism would need a truly staggering amount of time—a trillion trillion years or more—to accomplish the seemingly subtle change in enzyme function that we studied.
Now, if I were a Darwinist a result like this would bother me. I’m sure some of my fellow Darwinists would try to dismiss it as irrelevant… but that would bother me all the more.
The excuse for shrugging it off would, I expect, be that the transition we examined isn’t actually one that anyone thinks occurred in the history of life. That’s true, but it badly misses the point. As Ann and I made clear in the paper, our aim wasn’t to replicate a historical transition, but rather to identify what ought to be a relatively easy transition and find out how hard or easy it really is. We put it this way in the paper [2]:

Whether or not a particular conversion ever occurred as a paralogous innovation (or the direction in which it occurred if it did) is not the point of interest here. Rather, the point is to identify the kind of functional innovation that ought to be among the most feasible […] and then to assess how feasible this innovation is.
So, if I had a Darwinist alter ego, here’s the problem he’d be facing right now. To dismiss our study as irrelevant, he’d have to say (in effect) that he sees no inconsistency between these two assessments of the power of Darwin’s mechanism:

 

[rossum]

The technical details are reported in a paper just published in BIO-Complexity . [2]

Your lack of scientific knowledge is showing here, buffalo. That “[2]” is a link to the original paper in BIO-Complexity. You do not give the link either in your post here or in your blog post. You do not give either the title of the paper or the date of publication.

If you want to do science, as you appear to want to, then a failure to provide references is a big mistake. You need to make it easy for your readers to find the original source of your claims. You have not done that.

What is the name of the article, who wrote it and what year was it published?

 

[o_mlly]

Read the OP. I do not deny that intelligent design happens, as with the examples you give. I point out that at some point in the line of intelligent designers, and meta-designers, there must be an intelligent designer that was not intelligently designed. Either God or some organism developed through an unintelligent process. The alternative is an infinite regress, which is obviously false.

Evolution as a theory of man’s existence does not explain the first living being. Intelligent Design does not explain the first intelligent being. Why task one theory to explain what it does not claim and give another a pass?

Applying a similar criticism to the theory of evolution ends in the same conclusion:

I do not deny that life happens, as with the examples you give. I point out that at some point in the line of living things there must be a living being that was not living. Either God or some organism developed through a non-living being. The alternative is an infinite regress, which is obviously false.

Which of the theories will be better at explaining life from non-life? The evoluitonists are still in their kitchens tinkering unsuccessfully with primordial soup recipes like Mary Shelley’s Dr. Frankenstein. Time will tell.

 

[rossum]

Evolution as a theory of man’s existence does not explain the first living being. Intelligent Design does not explain the first intelligent being. Why task one theory to explain what it does not claim and give another a pass?

Evolution explains the origin of species, not the origin of life. The origin of life is a separate area of study: Abiogenesis.

If it were shown that aliens had started life on earth, then Abiogenesis would change out of all recognition. Evolution would not change at all; all its standard mechanisms would still be in place.

ID can be seen as a theory about complex specified systems. Since intelligence is a complex specified system, then ID is self-referential. Hence the possibility of an infinite regress. Evolution has never had an infinite regress. It has always gone back to a starting point of the initial life on earth:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

Darwin, Origin (6th edition), Chapter 15.

Evolution cannot have an infinite regress. In order to avoid its own infinite regress ID has to break its basic premise. It needs some initial complexity that was not intelligently designed.

I do not deny that life happens, as with the examples you give. I point out that at some point in the line of living things there must be a living being that was not living . Either God or some organism developed through a non-living being . The alternative is an infinite regress, which is obviously false.

As Darwin said, evolution is not refuted by God (or abiogenesis) starting life. Evolution only takes over after life has been started by some non-evolutionary process.

ID has no way to start intelligence by some non-ID process. That is where it falls down.

 

[o_mlly]

Evolution explains the origin of species, not the origin of life. The origin of life is a separate area of study: Abiogenesis.

Intelligent Design explains the origin of species.

Since intelligence is a complex specified system, then ID is self-referential.

Not so. ID along with evolution theory begin with a living cell. ID claims the first cell possessed a complex specified system, i.e. intelligence. ID does not claim the intelligence in that first cell was supernatural, only that it existed.

ID has no way to start intelligence by some non-ID process. That is where it falls down.

ID cannot fail in supporting a claim it does not make. ID does not make a claim as to the source of intelligence in the first cell just as evolution makes no claims as to the source of life in the first living cell.

 

[rossum]

ID along with evolution theory begin with a living cell. ID claims the first cell possessed a complex specified system, i.e. intelligence. ID does not claim the intelligence in that first cell was supernatural, only that it existed.

You just refuted yourself. ID does not begin with a living cell. As you yourself say, it begins with an intelligently designed living cell. Hence some intelligent designer preceded that first cell. ID begins with that intelligent designer.

ID does not make a claim as to the source of intelligence in the first cell

It does. It claims that the first cell was intelligently designed because its DNA contained complex specified information. Because that first cell was intelligently designed, then ID is also claiming the existence of an intelligent designer. You cannot have intelligent design without an intelligent designer.

An intelligent designer is necessary for the ID hypothesis, so my argument examines the prerequisites for that intelligent designer to exist. That leads us into the chain of meta-designers I talked about in the OP.

 

[Bradskii]

Not so. ID along with evolution theory begin with a living cell. ID claims the first cell possessed a complex specified system, i.e. intelligence. ID does not claim the intelligence in that first cell was supernatural, only that it existed.

That always gets me slapping my thigh.

B: You’re an ID proponent. Who is the intelligent designer?
A: We make no claims about who or what that could be. You’re not catching me out!
B: But you’re a Christian. How did life start so that your intelligent design could proceed?
A: Ah, that was God.

And we are meant to take this seriously. It’s Pythonesque.

 

[buffalo]

The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds​

Douglas D. Axe

Abstract​

Four decades ago, several scientists suggested that the impossibility of any evolutionary process sampling anything but a miniscule fraction of the possible protein sequences posed a problem for the evolution of new proteins. This potential problem-the sampling problem -was largely ignored, in part because those who raised it had to rely on guesswork to fill some key gaps in their understanding of proteins. The huge advances since that time call for a careful reassessment of the issue they raised. Focusing specifically on the origin of new protein folds, I argue here that the sampling problem remains. The difficulty stems from the fact that new protein functions, when analyzed at the level of new beneficial phenotypes, typically require multiple new protein folds, which in turn require long stretches of new protein sequence. Two conceivable ways for this not to pose an insurmountable barrier to Darwinian searches exist. One is that protein function might generally be largely indifferent to protein sequence. The other is that relatively simple manipulations of existing genes, such as shuffling of genetic modules, might be able to produce the necessary new folds. I argue that these ideas now stand at odds both with known principles of protein structure and with direct experimental evidence. If this is correct, the sampling problem is here to stay, and we should be looking well outside the Darwinian framework for an adequate explanation of fold origins.

https://www.biologicinstitute.org/post/18022460402/when-theory-and-experiment-collide

[1] doi:10.5048/BIO-C.2010.1

[2] doi:10.5048/BIO-C.2011.1

[3] doi:10.5048/BIO-C.2010.4

 

[buffalo]

There is ID, the science and ID, the philosophy.

You keep trying to conflate the two.

 

[Bradskii]

There is ID, the science and ID, the philosophy.

You keep trying to conflate the two.

No. I asked two questions. One was answered by the person as a representative of ID. And the other by exactly the same person answering as a Christian.

One person (and we can use you as an example) pushes the ‘science’ of ID, which will not admit to a supernatural creator and then will immediately claim that God is the creator of life.

That you can hold both those ideas in your head at the same time doesn’t surprise me. That you seem not to realise that it says everything about your arguments that we need to know is a little unsettling.

 

[o_mlly]

You just refuted yourself. ID does not begin with a living cell. As you yourself say, it begins with an intelligently designed living cell. Hence some intelligent designer preceded that first cell. ID begins with that intelligent designer.

Straw man.

It does. It claims that the first cell was intelligently designed because its DNA contained complex specified information. Because that first cell was intelligently designed, then ID is also claiming the existence of an intelligent designer. You cannot have intelligent design without an intelligent designer.

An intelligent designer is necessary for the ID hypothesis, so my argument examines the prerequisites for that intelligent designer to exist. That leads us into the chain of meta-designers I talked about in the OP.

Does evolution theory deny that the first cell did not consist of DNA? If not then EV does not deny intelligence in the first cell. There you have your answer. As to beginnings, evolution and ID make the same assumption. If you task ID to justify its assumption of intelligence in the first living cell then task evolution to justify its claim of life in the first cell.

 

[o_mlly]

That always gets me slapping my thigh.

B: You’re an ID proponent. Who is the intelligent designer?
A: We make no claims about who or what that could be. You’re not catching me out!
B: But you’re a Christian. How did life start so that your intelligent design could proceed?
A: Ah, that was God.

And we are meant to take this seriously. It’s Pythonesque.

Well, at least you’ve evolved to making your strawmen explicit.

Save your thigh and buy a metronome.

 

[Bradskii]

The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds​

Douglas D. Axe

Ah, the Axeman cometh yet again. Director of the Biologic Institute which is funded by our good friends - The Discovery Institute. Charlatans to a man. One of who stated in October 2006 that intelligent design research is being conducted by the institute in secret to avoid “the scrutiny of the scientific community” or what is usually referred to as peer review

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

That always gets me slapping my thigh.

B: You’re an ID proponent. Who is the intelligent designer?
A: We make no claims about who or what that could be. You’re not catching me out!
B: But you’re a Christian. How did life start so that your intelligent design could proceed?
A: Ah, that was God.

And we are meant to take this seriously. It’s Pythonesque.

Well, at least you’ve evolved to making your strawmen explicit.

Save your thigh and buy a metronome.

Where’s the strawman? Buff even admits to the facts of what I posted. If you support ID then you will not admit who the designer is yet you will state unequivocably that God created life.

It’s like telling us who the chef is but refusing to tell us who cooked the meal. Bizarre is a word that doesn’t come close to describing that position.

 

[rossum]

Straw man.

What! Intelligent design can work without an intelligent designer? Do you really think that I am that stupid? You cannot have intelligent design unless there is an intelligent designer, obviously.

Does evolution theory deny that the first cell did not consist of DNA?

The first cell may have contained DNA, it may have contained RNA or there are a few less likely possibilities. Abiogenesis is still a work in progress.

What ID has to show is evidence that the DNA/RNA was designed rather than arose through natural non-intelligent chemical processes. Do not forget that the very first life was a lot simpler than even the simplest organisms we see today. Anything alive today has billions of years f development behind it.

If you task ID to justify its assumption of intelligence in the first living cell then task evolution to justify its claim of life in the first cell.

So, ID’s designer might not be alive? It might be a dead designer. You are telling us that only evolution has to show life while ID does not. Were we designed by some non-living alien supercomputer?

 

[edwest211]

Thank you Buffalo.

 

[o_mlly]

Where’s the strawman? Buff even admits to the facts of what I posted. If you support ID then you will not admit who the designer is yet you will state unequivocably that God created life.

It’s like telling us who the chef is but refusing to tell us who cooked the meal. Bizarre is a word that doesn’t come close to describing that position.

Please read the post. ID claims no supernatural cause for the intelligence in the first living cell.

Here’s your straw man in reverse:

A: You’re an ID evolution proponent. Who is the intelligent designer evolver?
B: We make no claims about who or what that could be. You’re not catching me out!
A: But you’re an Christian atheist. How did life start so that your intelligent design evolution could proceed?
B: Ah, that was God.
A. Blessed are you, B, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by the Father in heaven.

 

[o_mlly]

What! Intelligent design can work without an intelligent designer? Do you really think that I am that stupid? You cannot have intelligent design unless there is an intelligent designer, obviously.

Can you have evolution w/o an evolver, a cause for cell replication? Why do evolutionists get emotional about ID. Does it threaten your worldview? Please remain logical.

The first cell may have contained DNA, it may have contained RNA or there are a few less likely possibilities. Abiogenesis is still a work in progress.

Did the first cell replicate w/o DNA or RNA? If so then you have an infinite regress in reverse. I’ll pick up the conversation at the point evolution agrees the infamous Tree has a replicating cell in its trunk.

So, ID’s designer might not be alive? It might be a dead designer.

The claim is that the living cell has the property of intelligence. Many of the so-called other claims of ID are bogus and come from nervous evolutionists.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Where’s the strawman? Buff even admits to the facts of what I posted. If you support ID then you will not admit who the designer is yet you will state unequivocably that God created life.

It’s like telling us who the chef is but refusing to tell us who cooked the meal. Bizarre is a word that doesn’t come close to describing that position.

Please read the post. ID claims no supernatural cause for the intelligence in the first living cell.

Again, you are not reading what I am writing. I didn’t say that ID claimed it. I said that people who promote ID cannot do anything but claim it. They are Christians. Who on earth do the think created life?

You all believe it was God. And then we have this subset of Christians who want to try to convince all of us that some unknown, yet intelligent designer has continued the process.

It’s so absurd that I don’t find it unreasonable that you can’t grasp this nonsensical state of affairs.

 

[o_mlly]

Again, you are not reading what I am writing. I didn’t say that ID claimed it. I said that people who promote ID cannot do anything but claim it. They are Christians. Who on earth do the think created life?

You all believe it was God. And then we have this subset of Christians who want to try to convince all of us that some unknown, yet intelligent designer has continued the process.

It’s so absurd that I don’t find it unreasonable that you can’t grasp this nonsensical state of affairs.

Your post was a response to mine arguing against claims I never made. That’s why I called “strawman”. I think reading my posts before responding to them will help with the confusion. This is the philosophy forum, not theology. Do me the courtesy of criticizing what I claim using logic and evidence.