Intelligent Design

[kbachler]

The reason is not valid.

Sorry, the reason is perfectly valid, and doesn’t seem to have been addressed at all by the expert you quoted. Note that several of her theories are not currently accepted. This means that quoting her doesn’t carry scientific weight. Certainly, her ideas can be considered, but they are concepts, not knowledge (facts) at this point, and there is a legitimate question as to whether they will ever be facts.

 

[kbachler]

buffalo

"Patterns by themselves do not indicate design, but designs always contain patterns."

Here is a painting of Jackson Pollock. You would have to say it was designed. But does it contain a pattern? Only if it is conceded that chaos is a kind of pattern?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lavender_Mist.jpg

This is the problem of Random Selection. If the whole world was created by Random Selection (throwing paints on a canvas and riding a tricycle around on them?) wouldn’t the whole world (and the whole universe) look something like Pollock’s painting?

But obviously the whole world does not look like this (except perhaps to a lunatic)!

Even the universe has a kind of symmetry of design. Is it mere random selection that all the galaxies are moving away from each other at accelerating velocities. Or does that particular symmetry suggest they were designed to move that way. In an case, they are certainly not all colliding with each other in a random search for pattern.

Who has argued for random selection?

 

[buffalo]

buffalo

"Patterns by themselves do not indicate design, but designs always contain patterns."

Here is a painting of Jackson Pollock. You would have to say it was designed. But does it contain a pattern? Only if it is conceded that chaos is a kind of pattern?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lavender_Mist.jpg

This is the problem of Random Selection. If the whole world was created by Random Selection (throwing paints on a canvas and riding a tricycle around on them?) wouldn’t the whole world (and the whole universe) look something like Pollock’s painting?

But obviously the whole world does not look like this (except perhaps to a lunatic)!

Even the universe has a kind of symmetry of design. Is it mere random selection that all the galaxies are moving away from each other at accelerating velocities. Or does that particular symmetry suggest they were designed to move that way. In an case, they are certainly not all colliding with each other in a random search for pattern.

One would have to believe that every single brushstroke on this painting is absolutely unique. I cannot see enough in this image to eliminate patterns.

 

[buffalo]

Sorry, the reason is perfectly valid, and doesn’t seem to have been addressed at all by the expert you quoted. Note that several of her theories are not currently accepted. This means that quoting her doesn’t carry scientific weight. Certainly, her ideas can be considered, but they are concepts, not knowledge (facts) at this point, and there is a legitimate question as to whether they will ever be facts.

I knew you would go here. - OK - how many evo experts have to believe it for you to believe it?

 

[rossum]

That is why I asked for the source. I thought you “lost it”.

Xue Y et al. Human Y chromosome base substitution mutation rate measured by direct sequencing in a deep-rooting pedigree. Current Biology 2009;doi:10.1016/j.cub.2009.07.032.

We are still designed purposeful life.

So you assert. Evidence is still lacking.

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_II]

kbachler

Certainly, her ideas can be considered, but they are concepts, not knowledge (facts) at this point, and there is a legitimate question as to whether they will ever be facts.

What facts can you adduce about abiogenesis other than the fact that it happened? Can you prove that life was randomly produced?

Prove it!

 

[kbachler]

I knew you would go here. - OK - how many evo experts have to believe it for you to believe it?

Certainly more than the 1 presented.

There is no set number in science. When peer review and commentary show that it has acceptance. A set number is a bad idea. It turns the search for truth into politics.

 

[kbachler]

kbachler

Certainly, her ideas can be considered, but they are concepts, not knowledge (facts) at this point, and there is a legitimate question as to whether they will ever be facts.

What facts can you adduce about abiogenesis other than the fact that it happened? Can you prove that life was randomly produced?

Prove it!

No one has argued that life was randomly produced, so far as I have been able to see. Why would you expect me to argue for a point that doesn’t seem to be correct, or that I’ve ever stated?

 

[tonyrey]

Basically anything in nature; a conch shell would be a particularly nice example.

Patterns can be purposeful without signifying intelligence.
I pointed out that patterns don’t always signify intelligence but there comes a point at which it is unreasonable to reject that explanation. Otherwise all purposeful activity is reduced to purposeless arrangements of matter!

A Conch shell belongs to a **purposeful **living organism and its pattern has a mathematical basis in the form of a Fibonacci structure. Mathematics itself is not a human invention but a set of abstract truths about physical reality which are not invented by man but discovered by the use of intelligence. These truths are further evidence that the universe has a rational basis rather being an inscrutable brute fact. There is no obvious reason why it need be orderly and intelligible rather than chaotic and incomprehensible.

The more orderly a universe the greater the probability it is designed. There are immensely more ways of being chaotic than orderly - and immensely more ways of being orderly than being orderly to the extent of maintaining life. The universe in all its glory is the supreme example of specified complexity - with one possible exception: the human brain which serves as an instrument for the mind. Those two facts alone are sufficient evidence for Design.

To stake everything on mindless energy is unreasonable, if not irrational considering we use **reason **to reach conclusions about the nature of reality. It is like kicking away the ladder with which you have reached your view of the panorama! Come to think of it, pride does come before a fall…

 

[kbachler]

Patterns can be purposeful without signifying intelligence.

I pointed out that patterns don’t always signify intelligence but there comes a point at which it is unreasonable to reject that explanation. Otherwise all purposeful activity is reduced to purposeless arrangements of matter!

I don’t see where that follows.

A Conch shell belongs to a **purposeful **living organism and its pattern has a mathematical basis in the form of a Fibonacci structure. Mathematics itself is not a human invention but a set of abstract truths about physical reality which are not invented by man but discovered by the use of intelligence.

Not all would agree with this, but given that mathematics can (at the very least) be used to successfully model reality, it can’t be too far off the mark.

These truths are further evidence that the universe has a rational basis rather being an inscrutable brute fact.

This, however, is a bit of a leap. More exactly, “The truths show that the universe may be understood rationally.” is about the most you can definitely say.

There is no obvious reason why it need be orderly and intelligible rather than chaotic and incomprehensible.

But there is. A universe that is chaotic and incomprehensible is highly unlikely to have ever provided a fertile ground for the development of mind(s) that could attempt to understand it.

The more orderly a universe the greater the probability it is designed.

Not at all. The most you can say is that we can infer that the more orderly a universe is, the more likely it seems (since we don’t have more than one to look at) that the creation of at least one mind that could work to understand that universe would occur.

You’re inferring, for no reason, a designer, when in actuality all that may be inferred is that it seems more likely that a mind capable of understanding patterns would arise.

There are immensely more ways of being chaotic than orderly

That’s not at all clear.

• and immensely more ways of being orderly than being orderly to the extent of maintaining life.

Again, not at all clear. Moreover, it’s not clear that the latter two can be practically differentiated since, if life is not sustained, order will not be noticed.

The universe in all its glory is the supreme example of specified complexity - with one possible exception: the human brain which serves as an instrument for the mind. Those two facts alone are sufficient evidence for Design.

It’s unclear that the universe offers specified complexity in the way touted by ID. Neither fact argues for design. What they argue for is an intelligent observer.

To stake everything on mindless energy is unreasonable, if not irrational considering we use **reason **to reach conclusions about the nature of reality.

Don’t know that anyone stakes everything on mindless energy.

It is like kicking away the ladder with which you have reached your view of the panorama! Come to think of it, pride does come before a fall…

Doesn’t appear to be anything like that when properly understood.

 

[kbachler]

kbachler

Certainly, her ideas can be considered, but they are concepts, not knowledge (facts) at this point, and there is a legitimate question as to whether they will ever be facts.

What facts can you adduce about abiogenesis other than the fact that it happened? Can you prove that life was randomly produced?

Prove it!

BTW - when will you learn to use the quote function?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

No one has argued that life was randomly produced

If it was not randomly produced, nor produced by intelligent design as I assume you deny, how was it produced, and what** facts** do you have to show how it was produced?

**BTW - when will you learn to use the quote function? **

Why is that of such paramount importance to you? It certainly isn’t to me. Certainly by now you are used to it.

 

[kbachler]

No one has argued that life was randomly produced

If it was not randomly produced, nor produced by intelligent design as I assume you deny, how was it produced, and what** facts** do you have to show how it was produced?

There is significant information to show that life was produced through a physical/chemical process leading to an -->evolutionary process that is largely controlled by natural selection.

My personal belief is that God serves as the creator of that process. But there is no evidence (and likely cannot be any evidence) of that.

Again, how are you coming on the quote function? It’s not hard, it works a lot like the “bold” function you use.

It’s important because it makes it easier to maintain context, and to requote if necessary, and to understand the other poster and just who posted what. For example, someone coming upon your post cannot tell that you are quoting something, and it would only appear that you are highlighting it.

Its an agreed upon protocol. It’s polite. It’s the Christian thing to do for all those reasons.

Why do you so avoid using it?

 

[tonyrey]

Patterns can be purposeful without signifying intelligence.

I pointed out that patterns don’t always signify intelligence but there comes a point at which it is unreasonable to reject that explanation. Otherwise all purposeful activity is reduced to purposeless arrangements of matter! don’t see where that follows.If you deny that a pattern ever signifies intelligence you reject the possibility of any evidence for purposeful activity - and by implication the existence of purposeful activity.

A Conch shell belongs to a purposeful living organism and its pattern has a mathematical basis in the form of a Fibonacci structure. Mathematics itself is not a human invention but a set of abstract truths about physical reality which are not invented by man but discovered by the use of intelligence.

Not all would agree with this, but given that mathematics can (at the very least) be used to successfully model reality, it can’t be too far off the mark.
Why should mathematics successfully model reality if it is totally unrelated to reality? By sheer chance?

These truths are further evidence that the universe has a rational basis rather being an inscrutable brute fact.

This, however, is a bit of a leap. More exactly, “The truths show that the universe may be understood rationally.” is about the most you can definitely say.If the universe can be (and is) understood rationally it is obviously more probable that it has a rational than an irrational origin. There is more likely to be affinity between intelligence and intelligibility than between intelligence and unintelligibility. Otherwise you must regard both intelligence and intelligibility as accidents! Yet the more convenient accidents you introduce into your scheme of things the weaker your argument becomes…

There is no obvious reason why it need be orderly and intelligible rather than chaotic and incomprehensible.

But there is. A universe that is chaotic and incomprehensible is highly unlikely to have ever provided a fertile ground for the development of mind(s) that could attempt to understand it.
It is not only highly unlikely but impossible! It would not sustain life at all! The fact that something has happened does not imply that it had to happen. I have pointed out that the probability of a chaotic, incomprehensible and mindless universe is immensely greater than an orderly, comprehensible universe with minds.

The more orderly a universe the greater the probability it is designed.

Not at all. The most you can say is that we can infer that the more orderly a universe is, the more likely it seems (since we don’t have more than one to look at) that the creation of at least one mind that could work to understand that universe would occur.
We don’t have more than one universe but there is no evidence that this is the only possible universe. So the probability of a chaotic, incomprehensible and mindless universe is immensely greater than an orderly, comprehensible universe with minds.

You’re inferring, for no reason, a designer, when in actuality all that may be inferred is that it seems more likely that a mind capable of understanding patterns would arise.

It would have to be a mind capable of understanding all the patterns of the universe - which is virtually equivalent to a Designer!

There are immensely more ways of being chaotic than orderly

That’s not at all clear.
Do you agree that there are more ways of drawing lines which have no relation to one another than lines which form patterns?

- and immensely more ways of being orderly than being orderly to the extent of maintaining life.

Again, not at all clear. Moreover, it’s not clear that the latter two can be practically differentiated since, if life is not sustained, order will not be noticed.
Whether order is noticed or not is irrelevant. Facts exist even if we ignore or reject them. You may deny you exist but you exist nevertheless! Similarly with the order in the universe.

The universe in all its glory is the supreme example of specified complexity - with one possible exception: the human brain which serves as an instrument for the mind. Those two facts alone are sufficient evidence for Design.

It’s unclear that the universe offers specified complexity in the way touted by ID. Neither fact argues for design. What they argue for is an intelligent observer.An intelligent observer capable of understanding the laws of the entire universe! Hardly an achievement likely to be accomplished by a incredibly minute dot produced by mindless molecules…

Do you believe specified complexity can never be evidence for design, no matter how great it is?

To stake everything on mindless energy is unreasonable, if not irrational considering we use reason to reach conclusions about the nature of reality.

Don’t know that anyone stakes everything on mindless energy.
If you reject Design you implicitly attribute everything to mindless energy. Unless you can offer another explanation…

It is like kicking away the ladder with which you have reached your view of the panorama! Come to think of it, pride does come before a fall…

Doesn’t appear to be anything like that when properly understood.
Please explain why.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

kbachler

I asked earlier:
**
If it was not randomly produced, nor produced by intelligent design as I assume you deny, how was it produced, and what facts do you have to show how it was produced?**

You answered:
**
There is significant information to show that life was produced through a physical/chemical process leading to an -->evolutionary process that is largely controlled by natural selection.**

How is this an answer? Obviously a physical process happened. You don’t even have to know any physics or chemistry or biology to know that. But what facts do you have to adduce that the first life form was intelligently designed, random, or something else?

 

[kbachler]

kbachler

I asked earlier:
**
If it was not randomly produced, nor produced by intelligent design as I assume you deny, how was it produced, and what facts do you have to show how it was produced?**

You answered:
**
There is significant information to show that life was produced through a physical/chemical process leading to an -->evolutionary process that is largely controlled by natural selection.**

How is this an answer? Obviously a physical process happened. You don’t even have to know any physics or chemistry or biology to know that. But what facts do you have to adduce that the first life form was intelligently designed, random, or something else?

There are not facts to show that it was intelligently designed. Processes are not random. The fact that a physical process happened shows that the situation was not entirely random.

The facts that exist, assuming that the question you are posing is the origin of life on Earth, include (but are not limited to) the frequency with which complex carbon molecules arise in the universe, the ways in which those molecules could arise on Earth, the demonstrations that they do in fact arise quite easily in conditions similar to Earth’s conditions at that time, the frequency with with life likely arose under those conditions (more than once), the tests that show that basic complex organic molecules can form in clay and be protected by the oils in clay, the ability to construct other self-replicating molecules and to show that the original molecule may have been a precursor to DNA or RNA, the fact that solar energy alone can be a sufficient energy source to drive the initial conditions and that there is evidence of similar occurrences on other solar bodies.

Keep working on that quote function. I’m sure you’ll get it soon.

 

[rossum]

How is this an answer? Obviously a physical process happened. You don’t even have to know any physics or chemistry or biology to know that. But what facts do you have to adduce that the first life form was intelligently designed, random, or something else?

The answer is “something else”. Life is a complex chemical reaction: RNA is a chemical for example. Chemistry is not random so we can eliminate the ‘random’ option. There is no scientific evidence for Intelligent Design of chemistry so we can eliminate ‘intelligent design’ from the available scientific options. It may remain as a theological option.

The current best scientific answer for abiogenesis is chemistry. For example, have a look at Yarus, Michael, Jeremy Joseph Widmann, and Rob Knight. 2009. RNA–Amino Acid Binding: A Stereochemical Era for the Genetic Code. J Mol Evol (2009) 69:406–429 DOI 10.1007/s00239-009-9270-1 for the kind of detailed scientific work that is being done on the chemistry of life.By combining crystallographic and NMR structural data for RNA-bound amino acids within riboswitches, aptamers, and RNPs, chemical principles governing specific RNA interaction with amino acids can be deduced. Such principles, which we summarize in a “polar profile”, are useful in explaining newly selected specific RNA binding sites for free amino acids bearing varied side chains charged, neutral polar, aliphatic, and aromatic. Such amino acid sites can be queried for parallels to the genetic code. Using recent sequences for 337 independent binding sites directed to 8 amino acids and containing 18,551 nucleotides in all, we show a highly robust connection between amino acids and cognate coding triplets within their RNA binding sites.

You may want to search for a similarly detailed piece of work from the ID side. I wish you luck trying to find it.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

Life is a complex chemical reaction…

If life is merely a complex chemical reaction all your conclusions are fully determined by physical causes and there is no guarantee they are ever correct. It is immensely more probable they will be incorrect because there are countless incorrect but only** one** correct conclusion. The truth will make you free but you have to be free to arrive at the truth!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

kbachler

The facts that exist, assuming that the question you are posing is the origin of life on Earth, include (but are not limited to) the frequency with which complex carbon molecules arise in the universe, the ways in which those molecules could arise on Earth, the demonstrations that they do in fact arise quite easily in conditions similar to Earth’s conditions at that time, the frequency with with life likely arose under those conditions (more than once), the tests that show that basic complex organic molecules can form in clay and be protected by the oils in clay, the ability to construct other self-replicating molecules and to show that the original molecule may have been a precursor to DNA or RNA, the fact that solar energy alone can be a sufficient energy source to drive the initial conditions and that there is evidence of similar occurrences on other solar bodies.

All of this happening in the absence of intelligent design, even though you believe it was all designed by God.

Is there something schizoid in all of this? Aquinas argued against the false notion of opposing truths. A thing cannot be true in religion and false in science. When the Church teaches that the universe was created, it cannot be taught with certainty by science (as Einstein thought) that the universe is eternal. The Big Bang uncovered Einstein’s error.

When the Church teaches that God designed the universe, it cannot be taught by science that the universe was not intelligently designed just becasue most scientists are atheists.

Why do you agree with the atheists that the universe shows no evidence of intelligent design when you have already said that you believe that God designed it?

 

[tonyrey]

An intelligent observer capable of understanding the laws of the entire universe! Hardly an achievement likely to be accomplished by a incredibly minute dot produced by mindless molecules…

On rereading I realise it would be a miracle!