Intelligent Design

[grannymh]

Continued from post 657

For example, we have chemical experiments that show us how pyrimidines can originate in prebiotic conditions. That is not life, but it is one of the building blocks of life. Where are the ID side’s similar experiments showing their proposed design entity making pyrimidines?

I am trying to nail down a bunch of ideas rolling back and forth between my ears. You may have to help me sort them out.

First of all, pyrimdines consist of matter which becomes building blocks, also of matter, which eventually leads to a function which is called life. Scientific experiments deal with forms of matter, material and physical which can explain the activities of life.
Some conclusions of experiments can predict future activities of life.
But how did the diversity of life itself, plants, animals, insects, etc. come to be?

Regarding the question “Where are the ID side’s similar experiments showing their proposed design entity making pyrimidines?” The only thing these experiments would show is that pyrimidines, consisting of matter, can be made.

Second. The intelligibility of the universe gives evidence of a working design. Your comment “Given that our universe contains life, then the range of possible laws is constrained.” speaks to the universal design of the universe which includes the distinctive feature of life in a diversity of forms.

When it comes to such large questions, a holistic view is preferred. Thus, the question “Where are the ID side’s similar experiments showing their proposed design entity making pyrimidines?” is atomic. What is required by scientific standards is to view the whole universe being made. This becomes a logical problem.

Third. If we have to deal with a logical problem, what kind of rational activity should be involved? Provided that yes is the answer to my above question – When you refer to “rational activity” are you implying that the human person is capable of “rational activity”? This question may sound a tad odd. But I am finding out that some people downplay the full meaning of rational to the point that they refer to this skill as some kind of an epiphenomenon.

What I have encountered is that what appears as simple questions about a “designer” are not so simple when they are inserted back into the context of practical living. Personally, I avoid debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

My apology for cutting my reply short. If you wish, I can continue later in the week. Nonetheless, I believe I have uncovered some important things to think about.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth takes time and many posts.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

For example, we have chemical experiments that show us how pyrimidines can originate in prebiotic conditions. That is not life, but it is one of the building blocks of life. Where are the ID side’s similar experiments showing their proposed design entity making pyrimidines?

The phrase “chemical experiments,” your phrase, argues for conditions that were intelligently designed to produce pyrimidines. Yes?

 

[rossum]

The phrase “chemical experiments,” your phrase, argues for conditions that were intelligently designed to produce pyrimidines. Yes?

First, observe that the ID side has no positive evidence of its own and is reduced to its usual sniping from the sidelines at the scientists who are actually doing the real work. This has been the case throughout this thread, a distinct lack of positive evidence from the ID side.

The answer to your last question is no. The conditions were intelligently designed to emulate prebiotic conditions on Earth, they were not intelligently designed to produce pyrimidines. The conditions were set up and then the outcome was observed. If we are studying what happened on the early Earth then we need to emulate those conditions in our laboratories. ID scientists should be doing the same thing to show their designer(s) in action making pyrimidines.

Where are your ID pyrimidines?

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

There is no reason to suppose that the laws of physics or chemistry could not be different in such a way that would affect the possibility, let alone the probability, of life.

The question is whether it must be constrained and life must exist.

I capitalise simply to indicate that the design in question is not human design but one which is immensely more potent!

It is not the design which is more potent, but the designer(s). You have not stated whether your potent designer is alive or not.

The Being responsible for the Design which has produced this universe must be not only intellectually potent but physically potent to such an extent there is no reason to suppose the potency has disappeared given that the universe is an enduring process of development.

That the origin of life was not due to a fortuitous combination of molecules but to rational activity far superior to that of human beings.

That is not what I asked for. I asked for the design explanation for the origin of life. What you are giving me here is your opinion as to why non-design is not an adequate explanation. You have not answered my question: what is the design explanation for the origin of life?

Any design explanation invokes the intention, knowledge, foresight and rational decision-making of the being responsible for the design. The Design of the universe is no exception and it is confirmed by the adaptation of means to ends throughout the biosphere - a global ecological system in which all living beings have their part to play.

Was this “rational activity” by a living entity or a non-living entity?

There is no evidence that rational activity has ever been attributed to a non-living entity.

Where is there any independent evidence for this entity?

Design presupposes the activity of a rational being. The onus is on you to prove that
non-rational activity is a superior explanation of the order and purpose in the universe.

Where is your evidence that chemistry is insufficient to explain the origin of life?

The fact that inorganic compounds have** never **manifested purposeful activity or an urge to survive.

For example, we have chemical experiments that show us how pyrimidines can originate in prebiotic conditions. That is not life, but it is one of the building blocks of life. Where are the ID side’s similar experiments showing their proposed design entity making pyrimidines?

It is obvious that life originated in prebiotic conditions. The issue is not whether it did so but whether it was a purposeless process. Building blocks presuppose a builder if the building serves at least one purpose. Even the process of design by a human being is intangible and unobservable by the senses. So it is unreasonable to ask for a replication of Design on a vastly superhuman scale.

I mean intellectual rather than emotional satisfaction! Design satisfies the criteria of adequacy, coherence and fertility.

But the question is whether is satisfies the criterion of correctness. If it isn’t correct then all its other wonderful properties are useless.

Correctness is assessed by the criteria of adequacy, coherence and fertility in addition to correspondence to reality - in this case purposeful existence. Reasonable persons don’t live as if life is purposeless and valueless.

You are assuming that human beings are no more than biological machines and that biological machines are no more than complex molecular structures.

I am doing no such thing. I was pointing out the philosophical incoherence of your statement which implied that nothing new could ever emerge in the universe because everything has to pre-exist in its cause. In our universe new things do appear, so your statement does not apply to the real universe. New things do emerge from causes that do not contain them.

There is certainly novelty but there are limits to what can emerge from (a) lifeless objects and (b) unreasoning organisms. If you deny this you are equating human beings with advanced biological machines and biological machines with advanced complex molecular structures. Your view presupposes that **everything **is a product of material causes.

I am not the same as either of my parents yet they caused me.

You are a person like your parents not an anomaly!

The issue is not their emergence but the cause of, and reason for, their emergence.

You asserted that effects were present in their causes. I dispute that. Your parents existed one day before you were conceived. You did not then exist.

They were the cause of my physical existence. If they intended me to be born the effect was present in their minds!

Do you believe truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love are myths?

No, but I do not believe they have an independent existence. “Truth” is a description of certain statements; it has no independent existence apart from those statements.

Truth is the correspondence of statements to reality. We do not create correspondence. It exists if our statements are true. In other words they refer to facts or they don’t. We don’t create or invent facts. Like physical constants, numbers, scientific laws, mathematical principles and spiritual truths we discover them. Obviously they don’t exist in the same way as material objects but they are undoubtedly real. Otherwise all beliefs - including Buddhism - are mere verbal formulae…

 

[rossum]

Is it that the design explanation for the origin of life is really a description of a method being used? Looking for methods would be both philosophically and scientifically acceptable. However, you are asking for origin.

My point is that Intelligent Design does not tell us the origin of life.Q: How did life originate?

A: Aliens from planet Dhipetan originated life.

Q: Were those aliens alive?

A: Erm…
A living designer does not tell us how life originated, any more than living aliens from planet Dhipetan do.

The source for the origin of life is a Being Who by His nature is life itself. Since this Being is not restricted, He created a universe which contains both material and non-material features.

I’m afraid I read this as the equivalent of, “I don’t have a good answer to that question.” Neither Intelligent Design nor Creationism can explain the origin of life. At most they can explain the origin of the second living thing at the hands of the first living thing, as you have done above.

First of all, pyrimdines consist of matter which becomes building blocks, also of matter, which eventually leads to a function which is called life. Scientific experiments deal with forms of matter, material and physical which can explain the activities of life. Some conclusions of experiments can predict future activities of life. But how did the diversity of life itself, plants, animals, insects, etc. come to be?

The first life was simple and not very diverse. Evolution explains how that first simple life gave rise to the multifarious species we see today. Darwin called his book “On the Origin of Species”. He didn’t call it “On the Origin of Life”. Even today we are not yet in a position for anyone to write “On the Origin of Life”. We have some clues and some ideas, but we know so little that it is a racing certainty that some of those ideas are going to be wrong. We are learning more year by year, but we still have a long way to go.

Regarding the question “Where are the ID side’s similar experiments showing their proposed design entity making pyrimidines?” The only thing these experiments would show is that pyrimidines, consisting of matter, can be made.

Even that would be an advance for ID. If, as they claim, the designer can originate life then the designer is going to have to get pyrimidines from somewhere. No pyrimidines, no life. You know the four bases in DNA: ACGT? Two of them, cytosine (C) and thymine (T) are pyrimidines. Any designer of life that uses DNA needs 50% pyrimidines to go into the mix. The ID side criticises abiogenesis for being incomplete, when we are well ahead of the ID side’s studies. And yes, we are ahead in making adenine (A) and guanine (G) as well.

Second. The intelligibility of the universe gives evidence of a working design.

This is not correct. Design can equally well be indicated by unintelligibility. Cyphers are explicitly designed to be unintelligible to anyone who does not have the key.

Your comment “Given that our universe contains life, then the range of possible laws is constrained.” speaks to the universal design of the universe which includes the distinctive feature of life in a diversity of forms.

You are assuming that life is designed, and using your assumption to show that the universe is designed for life.

When it comes to such large questions, a holistic view is preferred. Thus, the question “Where are the ID side’s similar experiments showing their proposed design entity making pyrimidines?” is atomic. What is required by scientific standards is to view the whole universe being made. This becomes a logical problem.

When faced with a large problem, science usually breaks it down into many smaller problems and works upwards. This method is very effective in many cases, and is currently being used to look at abiogenesis. If ID wants to emulate science then it would be well advised to follow a similar strategy.

Third. If we have to deal with a logical problem, what kind of rational activity should be involved? Provided that yes is the answer to my above question – When you refer to “rational activity” are you implying that the human person is capable of “rational activity”? This question may sound a tad odd. But I am finding out that some people downplay the full meaning of rational to the point that they refer to this skill as some kind of an epiphenomenon.

I am pretty much one of those people. “Rational” does not exist on its own, it can only exist when attached to something or someone. I can say ‘X is rational’; I cannot say ‘Here is 45 grams of rational’.

What I have encountered is that what appears as simple questions about a “designer” are not so simple when they are inserted back into the context of practical living. Personally, I avoid debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

1. 

rossum

 

[vz71]

First, observe that the ID side has no positive evidence of its own and is reduced to its usual sniping from the sidelines at the scientists who are actually doing the real work. This has been the case throughout this thread, a distinct lack of positive evidence from the ID side.
rossum

I grow very tired of repeating this.
The fact of the design proves the designer.

The design itself is positive evidence.

 

[vz71]

My point is that Intelligent Design does not tell us the origin of life.Neither Intelligent Design nor Creationism can explain the origin of life. At most they can explain the origin of the second living thing at the hands of the first living thing, as you have done above.
rossum

Then we are left with something of a mystery here.
We have a design, therefore a designer.
And we know there cannot be an endless recursion.

It would seem that the science that supports the ID leads us to God.

Would we expect anything less from an honest study of God’s creation then to be brought closer to God?

 

[buffalo]

I’m afraid I read this as the equivalent of, “I don’t have a good answer to that question.” Neither Intelligent Design nor Creationism can explain the origin of life. At most they can explain the origin of the second living thing at the hands of the first living thing, as you have done above.

That is why IDvolution is the solution.

 

[buffalo]

First, observe that the ID side has no positive evidence of its own and is reduced to its usual sniping from the sidelines at the scientists who are actually doing the real work. This has been the case throughout this thread, a distinct lack of positive evidence from the ID side.

The answer to your last question is no. The conditions were intelligently designed to emulate prebiotic conditions on Earth, they were not intelligently designed to produce pyrimidines. The conditions were set up and then the outcome was observed. If we are studying what happened on the early Earth then we need to emulate those conditions in our laboratories. ID scientists should be doing the same thing to show their designer(s) in action making pyrimidines.

Where are your ID pyrimidines?

rossum

No positive evidence? - Humans are intelligent designers. No one can dispute this. So intelligent design is a fact.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum

Where are your ID pyrimidines?

Exactly where you pointed them out. You showed that by intelligently designing an experiment, pyrimidines could be produced. But you could only do that by intelligently designing the experiment. So why doesn’t that suggest the first pyrimidines were produced by exactly the same process … intelligent design?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

This is an aside, but I just came across two interesting quotes from David Hume, whom many atheists put in their camp.

“The order of the universe proves an omnipotent mind.”

(Treatise, 633n)

“Wherever I see order, I infer from experience that there, there hath been Design and Contrivance . . . the same principle obliges me to infer an infinitely perfect Architect from the Infinite Art and Contrivance which is displayed in the whole fabric of the universe.”

(Letters, 25-26)

Would you say Hume was being illogical?

 

[grannymh]

My point is that Intelligent Design does not tell us the origin of life.

Ooops! I didn’t intend to get into a major discussion over Intelligent Design.
You are right-- I don’t have good answers from an ID position. Actually, I thought I was providing comments from a source outside the Intelligent Design domain.
This tells me I need to take a break and organize my brain cells. My apology. I have to let this discussion alone.

1. 
   rossum

If those are skinny angels, you better add a dozen more.

Blessings,
granny

Spring is a time of joy.

 

[rossum]

The design itself is positive evidence.

Now you have to show the presence of design.

No, “it sure looks designed to me” is not sufficient.

Where is your evidence for design? Again it comes down to the request for evidence.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Then we are left with something of a mystery here.

We are indeed. Who has stolen all the evidence for ID?

We have a design, therefore a designer.

The existence of design is not established. We have the appearance of design.

And we know there cannot be an endless recursion.

How do you know? Were you there? If we have endless recursion then we have a multiverse; see I have just proved the existence of the multiverse.

It would seem that the science that supports the ID leads us to God.

Which is precisely why ID has the political clout it does in the USA. It is also why ID has so little scientific clout. It leaps over the huge gaping hole in supporting evidence to arrive at its pre-ordained conclusion.

rossum

 

[rossum]

No positive evidence? - Humans are intelligent designers. No one can dispute this. So intelligent design is a fact.

Humans do not explain the origin of life. Anyway, human design is already taught in schools with no problems: art classes, design classes etc.

rossum

 

[rossum]

rossum

Where are your ID pyrimidines?

Exactly where you pointed them out. You showed that by intelligently designing an experiment, pyrimidines could be produced. But you could only do that by intelligently designing the experiment. So why doesn’t that suggest the first pyrimidines were produced by exactly the same process … intelligent design?

So, tell me which laboratory this original experiment took place in? Who were the scientists who performed the experiment? What journal did they publish their results in? I don’t think any human journals go back 4 billion years.

Where is your evidence?

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum

**So, tell me which laboratory this original experiment took place in? Who were the scientists who performed the experiment? What journal did they publish their results in? I don’t think any human journals go back 4 billion years.

Where is your evidence?**

Unless you have some 4 billion year old scientist you are hiding up your sleeve, your evidence also does not go back that far!

 

[rossum]

Spring is a time of joy.

http://www.spoox.co.uk/catalog/images/Coilover Springs.jpg

rossum

 

[buffalo]

While you base your belief on no studies of zero humans.

Do you wonder why I am unconvinced? You produce nothing in your support and dismiss the evidence I produce.

60 million base pairs from three genomes is 180 million base pairs. Evolution has 180 million data points and more. ID has no data points. Guess which one I am going to go with.

Where is you data to show that 100 - 200 mutations per genome is incorrect?

rossum

Haldane’s Dilemma - how does this affect the number of mutations?

 

[StrawberryJam]

I would explain the immense value, beauty, and complexity of life in terms of Catholic theology.

This can be done without Catholic Theology.