Intelligent Design - What is the strongest evidence for it?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Richard_Powers
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Richard_Powers

Guest
Looking around it seems that many people here support intelligent design. I have question for the supporters. Can you present the one strongest piece of scientific evidence that intelligent design is correct. Not evidence that mechanisms of common descent or particular abiogenesis hypotheses are wrong, but actual directly observable scientific evidence for intelligent design. What is the strongest evidence?
 
Richard_Powers said:
Looking around it seems that many people here support intelligent design. I have question for the supporters. Can you present the one strongest piece of scientific evidence that intelligent design is correct. Not evidence that mechanisms of common descent or particular abiogenesis hypotheses are wrong, but actual directly observable scientific evidence for intelligent design. What is the strongest evidence?
Click to expand...
You seem to be setting up the question as “show me a silver bullet”, and I suppose if there is no single silver bullet, then you will suppose that there are no bullets at all.

The best I can do is recommend some books and a short article:

These books are both “ground up” rather than just saying that non-design is wrong.

A Meaningful World

The Science before Science

And this article by Gerald Schroeder, who has written numerous books on the subject:

catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0099.htm
 
Thank you very much, especially for the link to Mr. Schroeder.

God bless,
Ed
 
ricmat said:
You seem to be setting up the question as “show me a silver bullet”, and I suppose if there is no single silver bullet, then you will suppose that there are no bullets at all.

The best I can do is recommend some books and a short article:

These books are both “ground up” rather than just saying that non-design is wrong.

A Meaningful World

The Science before Science

=
And this article by Gerald Schroeder, who has written numerous books on the subject:

catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0099.htm
Click to expand...
I am not asking for a “silver bullet”. I am asking for the strongest evidence of intelligent design. Since you seem to believe intelligent design is correct you must have knowledge of evidence for it. If you would rather provide more than a list of all the best evidence that is fine instead of strongest piece that is fine. But I am not going to read a link to another website. I have dealt with too many intelligent design promoters that just give links that in the end do not have any real evidence. Please just present the best evidence for intelligent design.

Edit - OK I took the time to read the one link you provided to actual text (something more than an Amazon listing) and it did not provide any evidence for intelligent design. All it did was provide arguments against “random mutations …] actually produc[ing] the ordered complexity of life, or even a viable protein” I specifically requested evidence for intelligent design not evidence against one the abiogenesis hypotheses.
 
Richard_Powers said:
Looking around it seems that many people here support intelligent design. I have question for the supporters. Can you present the one strongest piece of scientific evidence that intelligent design is correct. Not evidence that mechanisms of common descent or particular abiogenesis hypotheses are wrong, but actual directly observable scientific evidence for intelligent design. What is the strongest evidence?
Click to expand...
My existence!
 
Richard_Powers said:
Looking around it seems that many people here support intelligent design. I have question for the supporters. Can you present the one strongest piece of scientific evidence that intelligent design is correct. Not evidence that mechanisms of common descent or particular abiogenesis hypotheses are wrong, but actual directly observable scientific evidence for intelligent design. What is the strongest evidence?
Click to expand...
We’re all standing on it. A random event… I think not.
 
It depends on how you are defining the term. Today ID has come to be defined by most of us as the evil stepchild of creationism. We see it as nothing more than a codeword for YEC. So if you are asking for evidence in that respect there answer is simply there is NONE.

If you mean, did God create the laws of science and begin the process with the intent to create a universe, then again, I must say, there is NO proof…although the scientific evidence allows that there is no evidence to the contrary. It remains and is a matter of faith held by myself certainly.

So I would say there is no proof of ID either way you define it, but I agree with the latter as my choice in faith. The first is prohibited because the physical evidence is completely to the contrary.

Amazingly the NOVA show has spread through the blogosphere like crazy. Everyone is totally sickened by the ID folks and their blatant lying. I’ve not seen a single site that had a positive position on ID after seeing that show. It completely trashed the concept as both intellectually false and put forth with an intent to mislead. I’m afraid the religious right feels that the ends somehow justify the means.
 
The concept of Intelligent Design is credible and logical. Archaeologists regularly unearth artifiacts that need to be separated from those designed and those produced naturally. The methodology consists of characteristics that are recognized as evidence for design: stone arrowheads, for example, are identified by bilateral symmetry, consistent chip marks along both edges, and a particular size range.

The concept of Irreducible Complexity assigns to living organisms the fact that without certain parts, they would die. A cell is a dynamic, interconnected machine not unlike a car’s engine. One doesn’t remove a working part without causing the engine to stop. Also, one does not just add a part, especially while the engine is running, just anywhere. The new part would have to be the right size, the right shape and be in the right position to add function. There is no evidence that this can be done. Also, it would need to be able to reproduce along with the rest of the cell.

Self-directed assembly of living things is not possible without instructions.

Finally, if a designed artifact were found on Mars, the evidence of design would be a fact even though the designer remained unknown.

God bless,
Ed
 
My main problems with ID are:
I) While it has some merits as a theistic comment on evolution it is not valid science and should not be presented as science. Science should offer selfexplanatory answers without using supernatural explanations.
2) It has been coopted by YEC. Only as a way to disprove evolution and not to support the idea of a God directed cosmogenesis and evolution.
 
OK, some comments on several of the above posts.

ID is NOT creationism in disguise. The only thing it has in common with (young earth) creationism, is the fact that God was responsible for it in both cases.

When the only available theory of how we came to be is “it happened by random natural events”, and the math just doesn’t support that, then some sort of guided design MUST be correct.

ID looks at the SAME evidence, i.e. the age of the earth/universe as found in various dating methods, and the development of complex life based on less complex life - and DOES NOT have any problems with that.

It has been proven that “random events” is wrong. It just can’t happen that way. There is no way to prove that any particular designer made the universe the way it is, but designed it was.

ID does not offer supernatural explanations for anything. It simply says that there is evidence of design at all levels of creation. Gee whiz…if you agree that your car shows evidence of design, how can you simply dismiss something immensely more complex as having come about by random events?

For the OP - You don’t have time to read the books I recommended. Too bad. If everything could be summed up in a paragraph or two, then there’d be no need for books at all. It seems that you want us to put forth a sentence or two, which of course by definition can’t have much supporting evidence embedded in it, and for which reason it can be attacked successfully.

I think your problem is that you think that any road that might possibly perhaps lead someone to belief in God cannot be tolerated, even when the evidence shows it.

Read the books and then let’s talk.
 
ricmat said:
For the OP - You don’t have time to read the books I recommended. Too bad. If everything could be summed up in a paragraph or two, then there’d be no need for books at all. It seems that you want us to put forth a sentence or two, which of course by definition can’t have much supporting evidence embedded in it, and for which reason it can be attacked successfully.

I think your problem is that you think that any road that might possibly perhaps lead someone to belief in God cannot be tolerated, even when the evidence shows it.

Read the books and then let’s talk.
Click to expand...
Why should I read the books when you already misrepresented what was in the link I did read?

I have not asked for one piece of evidence that will be enough to establish ID as correct. I have just asked for the strongest piece* of evidence. I did this so we would not have to deal with the whole “you are asking for too much of a post in internet thread.” Again, all I asking for is the single strongest scientific evidence for ID. Surely there is at least one really strongest piece of evidence can be put forth in this thread and not just a cliché like me or the whole universe.

*piece probably isn’t the best word. It could be a whole area of evidence.
 
Richard_Powers said:
Why should I read the books when you already misrepresented what was in the link I did read?
Click to expand...
Excuse me? I said that the books were “ground up” representations. I made no such claim for the short article.

You should read. It’s good for you. You should actually know what it is that you’re criticizing.
 
Richard_Powers said:
Why should I read the books when you already misrepresented what was in the link I did read?

I have not asked for one piece of evidence that will be enough to establish ID as correct. I have just asked for the strongest piece* of evidence. I did this so we would not have to deal with the whole “you are asking for too much of a post in internet thread.” Again, all I asking for is the single strongest scientific evidence for ID. Surely there is at least one really strongest piece of evidence can be put forth in this thread and not just a cliché like me or the whole universe.

*piece probably isn’t the best word. It could be a whole area of evidence.
Click to expand...
The problem is is that you are asking for scientific evidence for God. There is none.

Peace

Tim
 
Orogeny said:
The problem is is that you are asking for scientific evidence for God. There is none.

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
The proponents of intelligent design claim that it is science. They should be able to provide scientific evidence or admit that intelligent design is not science.
 
ricmat said:
Excuse me? I said that the books were “ground up” representations. I made no such claim for the short article.

You should read. It’s good for you. You should actually know what it is that you’re criticizing.
Click to expand...
I do read. And I would be happy to read a post by you gives the best (or some of the best) evidence for ID. Since these books are “ground up” up they should be full of such evidence. How hard is it to type out a few examples?
 
Seems to me that we taking part in a discussion such as this is rather convincing evidence. Keep in mind that evidence and proof are two different things - as somebody has mentioned about scientific proof not be available.

One book I found rather helpful:
Darwin’s Black Box by Michael Behe
 
Richard_Powers said:
The proponents of intelligent design claim that it is science. They should be able to provide scientific evidence or admit that intelligent design is not science.
Click to expand...
ID is not attempting to replace science. As I said, ID accepts the same evidence as you do, but it is interpreted differently. ID would say that the car has an internal combustion engine, rubber tires, was manufactured in 2003, and can go 100 MPH. And that it had a designer.

So…the same evidence you accept for (example) evolution, is the same evidence ID accepts. You make the claim that things happened randomly and with no purpose (which cannot be proven). ID claims that these same things happened with a design in mind.
 
Stratiotes said:
One book I found rather helpful:
Darwin’s Black Box by Michael Behe
Click to expand...
Did you that Behe has stated that astrology (not astronomy) is science under the definition of science he uses to define intelligent design as science?
Seems to me that we taking part in a discussion such as this is rather convincing evidence.
Click to expand...
I am tried of these old clichés. Human existence and human conversion is not evidence for intelligent design since we already have a scientifically supported theory that explains the existence of these things.
Keep in mind that evidence and proof are two different things
Click to expand...
And all have asked for is evidence, but all get is clichés and links to books.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top