Intelligent Design

[rossum]

It predicts the infinite improbability that all that we see occurred out of chaos by chance.

Chemistry is not chance. You are attacking a strawman here.

rossum

 

[rossum]

The socratic questioning for Rossum is simple.
Is all codification created by a mind? Yes or no?

Since we have not yet examined all codification the correct scientific answer is, “we don’t know”. We can legitimately say that some codification is created by a mind.

Languages, math, informational instructions, etc. are codes to tell something what to do or how something is done.

They may be, but are not always. Poetry is language, but it is not always a set of instructions.

Is DNA a code?

No. DNA is a chemical. Humans sometimes use “code” as a metaphor to describe DNA. It is a category error to mistake the metaphor for the real thing. A mirage looks like water. It is a mistake to think that a mirage actually is water.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Here are some predictions:

1. High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.
2. Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors.
3. Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.
4. The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless “junk DNA”.
5. Goals
6. Fine tuning
7. Life is rare - earth is special
8. Life needs initial information
9. New designs
10. Recovery after stress (extinctions)
11. Designs are tested before implementation

Please indicate for each case why the opposite of the prediction is not also possible for the designer. For example, #4, why is in not possible for the ID designer to design an organism with large stretches of useless DNA? Or #7, what constrains the ID designer from putting life on 25% of the planets in the liquid water zone and 75% of the planets suitable for silicon based life?

You need to derive your predictions from your theory and show your working.

Many have already been found to be true.

1. ATP synthase motor found in all living cells
2. Yup
3. Yup - convergent evolution as they call it
4. Junk DNA - debunked
5. Life has purpose - to propagate

None of these are a problem for evolution either. I will also warn you that your creationist sources are lying to you about #4. Currently about 5% of our DNA codes for proteins, about 5% is not transcribed but has a known function, a further 5% is conserved but has no known function. That last 5% probably has a function because it is conserved, it is just that we don’t yet know the function. The other 85% is not conserved and has no known function. Some of it has been identified as broken genes and the wreckage of earlier retroviral infections. Some of it is obviously useless, poly-A for example: “AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA…”. Evolution can explain in detail the origin of poly-A, how does ID explain it.

1. Fine tuning - more parameters will be found

This is a prediction, not a result.

1. Life is found to be rare

And you have explored the entire universe? This is going to make ID a scientific laughing stock if you insist on using this as a result.

1. Earliest cells were complex and loaded with the DNA language

How many early cells have ID scientists examined? How can they show that those cells used DNA rather than RNA or some other chemical? This is wishful thinking and not a scientific finding.

1. Rapid Adaptation and new manifestations of design
2. Rapid recovery and adaptation after events
3. Plants test designs before full implementation.

How does this differ from the adaptation found in evolutionary theory?

rossum

 

[vz71]

Chemistry is not chance. You are attacking a strawman here.

rossum

All of the necessary chemicals in the right place at the right time with the right conditions is chance.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum

Simple probability calculations that mindlessly use a flat random probability distribution are more often than not incorrect.

But you leave some wiggle room that they may be correct.

Are you also a mathematician?

 

[vz71]

Evolution can explain in detail the origin of poly-A, how does ID explain it.

That apparently there is more to be learned.

And you have explored the entire universe? This is going to make ID a scientific laughing stock if you insist on using this as a result.

It is a prediction.
And thus far has proven out.
Are you now going to argue that life is abundant in the universe?

How does this differ from the adaptation found in evolutionary theory?
rossum

For one, time between one species and the next.

 

[grannymh]

.

No. DNA is a chemical. Humans sometimes use “code” as a metaphor to describe DNA. It is a category error to mistake the metaphor for the real thing. A mirage looks like water. It is a mistake to think that a mirage actually is water.

rossum

DNA is short for a long chemical name. One can look at a strand of ATCG and consider that it is specialized information leading to a specific result. However, I agree that “code” can be misleading as a metaphor.

I am not sure if a type of “information” theory would apply to DNA. What about the phrase referring to a specific gene number such and such in position such and such which codes for a specific protein? It sounds to me as if “codes” signifies a specific action?

It is not the design of the anatomy (animal, insect, etc.) which signifies a rational (intelligent) being. It is because of the spiritual soul (created by God) that the anatomy made of matter becomes a living person.

Blessings,
granny

Then the angel said to the women in reply, "Do not be afraid! I know that you are seeking Jesus the crucified. He is not here, for He has been raised just as He said.
Matthew, Chapter 28

 

[grannymh]

Evolution can explain in detail the origin of poly-A, how does ID explain it.

That may be an unfair question.

As a personal observation, I do not find ID in the business of explaining these types of details. Furthermore, evolution is more a general theory covering change. Poly-A would be examined in a lab setting using technology and human rational powers. Scientists take credit for what they do. I doubt that in the competitive market, a scientist would credit general evolution for his discovery. Also, from my reading, it appeares that it is the applied principles of evolution which aid in research. Crediting Darwin does not bring in the grants.

Blessings,
granny

Then the angel said to the women in reply, "Do not be afraid! I know that you are seeking Jesus the crucified. He is not here, for He has been raised just as He said.
Matthew, Chapter 28

 

[JDaniel]

Chemistry is not chance. You are attacking a strawman here.

Rossum:

Not in a laboratory, to some extent at least. You’re oversimplifying the necessary parameters of the events, presupposing the primordial relationships and, what is more, order and the necessary conditions, and presupposing the laws of physics and chemistry all within a few Planck lengths after the first Planck length. In fact, your presuppositions you no doubt attribute to within the first Planck length. Perhaps even before the first Planck length.

In your Buddhism, do you acknowledge the spiritual?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Since we have not yet examined all codification the correct scientific answer is, “we don’t know”.

Rossum:

Sorry for interrupting, but: what codifications have we not examined?

We can legitimately say that some codification is created by a mind.

Really. Up to this point in history, that’s all we can say?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

No. DNA is a chemical. Humans sometimes use “code” as a metaphor to describe DNA. It is a category error to mistake the metaphor for the real thing.

Rossum:

Deoxyribonucleic acid or DNA, is a nucleic acid that contains the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms …
Wikipedia

Bolding is mine.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

They may be, but are not always. Poetry is language, but it is not always a set of instructions.

Rossum:

Of course. Poetry is the effect of juxtaposing language according to instructions. Gobbledygook is not poetry.

 

[rossum]

All of the necessary chemicals in the right place at the right time with the right conditions is chance.

Given the conditions modelled in the Miller-Urey experiment the presence of those chemicals is not chance. The experiment has been repeated many times and every time amino acids appear. You cannot fit your appeal to chance in there.

If you think there is an element of chance then repeat the experiment 100 times and see if you get a 100% chance of amino acids appearing.

What is the chance of your proposed designer existing?

It is a prediction.

Look back at buffalo’s post. It was under his “Many have already been found to be true.” heading.

rossum

 

[rossum]

But you leave some wiggle room that they may be correct.

In cases where a flat probability distribution model is correct then the calculations will give useful results. Where the flat probability distribution model is incorrect then the results of the calculation will be useless.

Are you also a mathematician?

My degree was in Mathematical Physics, so I have a fair amount of applied maths. I also taught Maths to 11 - 18 year olds for five years.

rossum

 

[rossum]

That may be an unfair question.

I would not expect the people who post here to be able to answer it directly. However, I would expect the ID community in general to be able to answer it by referring to the body of ID research. The fact that there is no such body of research is one of the points I have been emphasising here. ( Did you notice? Was I being too subtle? )

As a personal observation, I do not find ID in the business of explaining these types of details.

I agree, and Dr Dembski agrees:As for your example, I’m not going to take the bait. You’re asking me to play a game: “Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position.” ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories.
Unfortunately, that “pathetic level of detail” is what makes science science, and why ID works as theology or philosophy but not as science.

The differences between Newton’s gravitation and Einstein’s gravitation may only appear in the fifth decimal place. Unless we have things predicted to five decimal places we will not be able to tell the difference between the two. Science requires detail. As long as ID does not provide the detail it will have an uphill struggle against existing science.

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum

Given the conditions modelled in the Miller-Urey experiment the presence of those chemicals is not chance. The experiment has been repeated many times and every time amino acids appear. You cannot fit your appeal to chance in there.

Right, because every one of those hundred experiments would have been intelligently designed to produce amino acids.

 

[grannymh]

What is the chance of your proposed designer existing?
rossum

I know about design because design is obvious. I am not sure about the nature of the “proposed” designer.
Now, if you asked what is the chance of God existing, the answer would be 100%

(note: I will ignore requests to prove the existence of God.)

 

[rossum]

Not in a laboratory, to some extent at least. You’re oversimplifying the necessary parameters of the events, presupposing the primordial relationships and, what is more, order and the necessary conditions, and presupposing the laws of physics and chemistry all within a few Planck lengths after the first Planck length. In fact, your presuppositions you no doubt attribute to within the first Planck length. Perhaps even before the first Planck length.

Do you mean ‘Planck time’ here, rather than ‘Planck length’?

If you are going back to the Big Bang then we are into cosmology, not abiogenesis or evolution. Do you then agree that there is no direct evidence of intelligent design in either abiogenesis of evolution, and that such evidence must instead be sought in cosmology? This position is I believe called “Front Loading”

In your Buddhism, do you acknowledge the spiritual?

Yes. However, Buddhism treats it very differently to the Abrahamic religions; my approach to the spiritual is likely to be very different to yours.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

I would not expect the people who post here to be able to answer it directly. However, I would expect the ID community in general to be able to answer it by referring to the body of ID research. The fact that there is no such body of research is one of the points I have been emphasising here. ( Did you notice? Was I being too subtle? )

 

[rossum]

Sorry for interrupting, but: what codifications have we not examined?

I don’t know, we haven’t examined them yet.

Really. Up to this point in history, that’s all we can say?

We can say that all codifications that were designed by humans have been intelligently designed. I am not aware of any evidence that the codifications used in the Bees dance have been intelligently designed.

Deoxyribonucleic acid or DNA, is a nucleic acid that contains the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms …
Wikipedia

It would be just as correct to say "chemical instructions. How much do you know of the trident structure of Transfer RNA (tRNA)? It has a handle and three prongs. The handle chemically bonds to a specific amino acid. The three prongs chemically bond to a particular triple of RNA bases. Chemical bonding drives the whole thing.

Of course. Poetry is the effect of juxtaposing language according to instructions. Gobbledygook is not poetry.

However, one man’s gobbledygook is another man’s poetry. Here is some poetryivi va bhuvi va mamastu vaso
Narake va narakantaka prakamam
Avadhirita-sarada aravindau
Charanau the marane api chintayami
Determining gobbledygook from something sensible depends on the knowledge of the person reading the text. That makes the determination subjective, rather than objective.

rossum