Intelligent Design

[kbachler]

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.

No one stated that patterns never signify intelligence.
Response to Tonyrey Part 1

Why should mathematics successfully model reality if it is totally unrelated to reality? By sheer chance?

Not my claim. I simply stated that not everyone would agree with your analysis; I know because I believe in a similar way. It is largely a belief. I am unaware of a proof that demonstrates that mathematics is in general isomorphic to reality. However, given the evolution of the mind, the evolution of mathematics, and the symbolic logic related thereto, your assertion makes sense to me. However, although reasonable, it would be wrong to consider it a proof.

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 a difference between rational and intelligent. Before you claimed “intelligent”. The design can be rational (and in fact is rational) to the extent that it can be understood by a reasoning being.

If your argument is that it is more likely to be of intelligent design, I have to disagree. There’s no logic to show that, no control group comparison, nor any reason to assume so. There is a reason to assume that a rational observer will be derived, but there isn’t a reason to assume an intelligent creator.

There is more likely to be affinity between intelligence and intelligibility than between intelligence and unintelligibility.

Please demonstrate this.

Otherwise you must regard both intelligence and intelligibility as accidents!

No, but depending upon how you mean the word accident. I can easily envision that an intelligent observer would only arise in a rational universe. Hence, there are no examples of irrational universes because no intelligent observers arise within them. Thus, the appearance of an understandable universe does not “show the hand of god” rather it shows the eyeballs of the observer
.

Yet the more convenient accidents you introduce into your scheme of things the weaker your argument becomes…

Not at all. You assumption basically assumes the creation of a universe within a set of rules that already exist in our universe (and even then isn’t a forcing argument.).

But we have no guarantee of such rules among all such created universes. It may be that there is a physical principle that all universes created appear rational, because those that aren’t immediately self-destruct. So we would only be left with rational ones.

This would then be following a rule of a “meta-universe”. There’s no implication of a designer.

It is not only highly unlikely but impossible!

So, you’ve surveyed all the possible universes and demonstrated this? I had no idea of your powers.

a) It’s not highly likely. Likelihood is determined by counting all “designated” outcomes, and dividing by all possible outcomes. Right now we have 1 designated outcome (unless you know of another universe) and one possible outcome. That’s 100%

Now, I understand the “distaste” at believing in this likelihood. I share to some extent that distaste. But that desire doesn’t make me deny the reality of 1/1 = 100%.

And given that it has happened, it’s certainly not 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.

You’ve asserted it, but you’ve made no argument to carry your assertion. For example, consider the assertion I made above. Universes that come into being that ARE chaotic COULD reasonably instantly self-destruct because the potential of contradictory rules within them would cause them to self-annihilate. If that were to happen (and its not an unreasonable thing to stay - we can argue that in our own universe contradictory aspects self annihilate) then the only remaining universes would be ones that aren’t all that chaotic. This would mean that the probability of universes being ordered would be HIGH, not low.

 

[kbachler]

Response to Tonyrey Part 2

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.

On what basis do you argue this? You’ve given no reason.

Additionally, don’t forget that in addition to providing an argument, you also have a set theory issue.

Namely, there are legitimate reasons to assume there are an infinite number of universes. (In fact, at least one interpretation of quantum mechanics wold have there be an infinite number of universes just like our own.) If that is true, for your above assertion to be true, you’d have to show that there is, in the realm of universes, a hierarchy of infinities, in the same way that Georg Cantor demonstrated a mathematical hierarchy to standard infinities within mathematics.

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

No, as noted, it doesn’t have to be that at all.

Do you agree that there are more ways of drawing lines which have no relation to one another than lines which form patterns?

No. In fact, in some circumstances there can be less.

Whether order is noticed or not is irrelevant. Facts exist even if we ignore or reject them.

But NONE of what you are saying is fact. It is assertion, and you need to at least establish reasonableness.

You may deny you exist but you exist nevertheless! Similarly with the order in the universe.

Did I ever deny either one of those?

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…

Not sure of the point here.

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

Sorry, its not just a belief. There’s no proof that it IS evidence for design, and there are certainly examples of specific complex information that does not imply design.

What you have is a belief. Not a proof or evidence.

If you reject Design you implicitly attribute everything to mindless energy. Unless you can offer another explanation…

Please explain why.

What’s wrong with it being “mindless energy”? That doesn’t imply that its disordered.

The explanation is simple: its what we have to accept as real. There is no proof of a designer, and there exist counter examples to the assertion. So the assertion doesn’t sustain a reasonableness test.

In addition, there are good arguments that if there were a proof of “design”, that it would in fact undermine God’s very purpose in creating a universe, and in creating us.

In terms of my personal feelings, I find it distasteful that people think they can prove God as though He is some sort of theorem; It’s not up to us to prove God.

 

[kbachler]

On rereading I realise it would be a miracle!

Not at all. Your miracle is your wishful thinking.

 

[tonyrey]

No one stated that patterns never signify intelligence.

How do you determine when they do?

Why should mathematics successfully model reality if it is totally unrelated to reality? By sheer chance?

Not my claim. I simply stated that not everyone would agree with your analysis… However, although reasonable, it would be wrong to consider it a proof.

Can you offer a better explanation?

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 a difference between rational and intelligent. Before you claimed “intelligent”. The design can be rational (and in fact is rational) to the extent that it can be understood by a reasoning being.

Do you mean the universe does have a rational design?

If your argument is that it is more likely to be of intelligent design, I have to disagree. There’s no logic to show that, no control group comparison, nor any reason to assume so. There is a reason to assume that a rational observer will be derived, but there isn’t a reason to assume an intelligent creator.

In cosmology there no control group comparisons yet some explanations are superior to others. BTW I am discussing intelligent Design not Designer.

There is more likely to be affinity between intelligence and intelligibility than between intelligence and unintelligibility.

Please demonstrate this.

If intelligence is derived from unintelligible processes the cause is not proportionate to the effect.

Otherwise you must regard both intelligence and intelligibility as accidents!

No, but depending upon how you mean the word accident. I can easily envision that an intelligent observer would only arise in a rational universe…
Thus, the appearance of an understandable universe does not “show the hand of god” rather it shows the eyeballs of the observer

The appearance of an understandable universe shows that the observer who rejects the immense probability of Design does not grasp the immense improbability of an understandable universe.

Yet the more convenient accidents you introduce into your scheme of things the weaker your argument becomes…

Not at all. Your assumption basically assumes the creation of a universe within a set of rules that already exist in our universe (and even then isn’t a forcing argument.).

You assume the creation of a universe within the set of rules that already exist in our universe is inevitable.

But we have no guarantee of such rules among all such created universes. It may be that there is a physical principle that all universes created appear rational, because those that aren’t immediately self-destruct. So we would only be left with rational ones.

That is a desperate hypothesis for which there is not one iota of evidence. Why in all possible universes would only those which appear rational not immediately self-destruct?

This would then be following a rule of a “meta-universe”. There’s no implication of a designer.

In fact it implies Design because the rational ones are guaranteed to survive!

It is not only highly unlikely but impossible!

So, you’ve surveyed all the possible universes and demonstrated this? I had no idea of your powers.

Your sarcasm doesn’t alter the fact. It merely detracts from your objectivity.

a) It’s not highly likely. Likelihood is determined by counting all “designated” outcomes, and dividing by all possible outcomes. Right now we have 1 designated outcome (unless you know of another universe) and one possible outcome. That’s 100%

Now, I understand the “distaste” at believing in this likelihood. I share to some extent that distaste. But that desire doesn’t make me deny the reality of 1/1 = 100%.

To assume this is the only possible universe - which is what your argument implies - is the height of absurdity.

And given that it has happened, it’s certainly not impossible.

“Not impossible” does not exclude “immensely improbable”.

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.You’ve asserted it, but you’ve made no argument to carry your assertion. For example, consider the assertion I made above. Universes that come into being that ARE chaotic COULD reasonably instantly self-destruct because the potential of contradictory rules within them would cause them to self-annihilate…

Since there need be no rules whatsoever in a chaotic universe your hypothesis lacks cogency. It is a desperate hypothesis for which there is not one jot of evidence. Give one reason why in all possible universes would only those which appear rational not immediately self-destruct?

You have ignored the fact that out of the immense number of possible orderly universes there remain an immense number which would not support life given its incredible complexity - which teams of scientists throughout the world have failed to unravel in spite of all their knowledge, skill and sophisticated equipment. If life emerged frequently and spontaneously you would have a far better foundation for your belief that it is ultimately the product of fortuitous combinations of molecules and that the laws of nature have no raison d’etre. Even if you reject Design at least you have faith in order rather than chaos!

 

[tonyrey]

Not at all. Your miracle is your wishful thinking.

I could with equal facility state that your contention that it is not a miracle is wishful thinking. It does nothing to support your argument…

 

[tonyrey]

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.

I have - that there are an immensely greater number of possible chaotic universes than orderly ones.

Additionally, don’t forget that in addition to providing an argument, you also have a set theory issue.
Namely, there are legitimate reasons to assume there are an infinite number of universes. (In fact, at least one interpretation of quantum mechanics wold have there be an infinite number of universes just like our own.) If that is true, for your above assertion to be true, you’d have to show that there is, in the realm of universes, a hierarchy of infinities, in the same way that Georg Cantor demonstrated a mathematical hierarchy to standard infinities within mathematics.

Whatever the number of possible universes the fact remains that the number of possible chaotic universes vastly exceeds the number of orderly ones which can sustain life.

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

No, as noted, it doesn’t have to be that at all.

As noted?

Do you agree that there are more ways of drawing lines which have no relation to one another than lines which form patterns?

No. In fact, in some circumstances there can be less.

Please explain how.

Whether order is noticed or not is irrelevant. Facts exist even if we ignore or reject them.

But NONE of what you are saying is fact. It is assertion, and you need to at least establish reasonableness.

I could with equal facility say the same about your unsupported statements.

You may deny you exist but you exist nevertheless! Similarly with the order in the universe.

Did I ever deny either one of those?

You stated:

If life is not sustained, order will not be noticed.

To which I replied:
“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.”

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…

Not sure of the point here.

The** incredibly minute dots** we call human beings, allegedly produced by mindless molecules, have accomplished the incredible achievement of understanding the laws of the entire universe!

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

Sorry, its not just a belief. There’s no proof that it IS evidence for design, and there are certainly examples of specific complex information that does (do?) not imply design.

Do you believe specified complexity can **ever **be evidence for design by a rational being on this or another planet?

If you reject Design you implicitly attribute everything to mindless energy. Unless you can offer another explanation…

Please explain why.What’s wrong with it being “mindless energy”? That doesn’t imply that it’s disordered.

It is necessarily purposeless.

The explanation is simple: its what we have to accept as real. There is no proof of a designer, and there exist counter examples to the assertion. So the assertion doesn’t sustain a reasonableness test.

There is no proof that there is not a Designer unless you can produce the “counter examples”. It is more reasonable than the hypothesis that human designers are produced by non-designers, i.e. mindless molecules.

In addition, there are good arguments that if there were a proof of “design”, that it would in fact undermine God’s very purpose in creating a universe, and in creating us.

How would it undermine God’s purpose?

I

n terms of my personal feelings, I find it distasteful that people think they can prove God as though He is some sort of theorem; It’s not up to us to prove God.

The topic is not a proof of God but evidence for Design…

 

[vz71]

Observe, ladies and gentlemen how the ID side works. Because they have no evidence for their position they assume that the evolution side has a similar lack of evidence. They, as so often, are wrong. Just because ID builds fantasies on no evidential basis does not mean that science does the same. Indeed science does not. Science builds on evidence. It is a gross mistake to assume that the lack of evidence found in ID is typical of science. See: Researchers make first direct measurement of human genetic mutation rate
They calculated that there are 100-200 new DNA mutations (single base changes in our DNA sequence that are different from the sequence inherited from our parents) from generation to generation
rossum

The problem with posting sources is that people will read them.
Also from your article:

Almost all were harmless, with no apparent effect on our health or appearance, and only four mutations accumulated over 13 generations.

Seems your numbers are not all they were cracked up to be.

 

[vz71]

I’m curious if VZ agrees?

VZ responded to this.
And I am wondering how much of this thread you are reading.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Pay for your science education you lack. Stop and think.
Your objection makes no sense.
Rossum does not owe you a science education.
You got robbed, face it.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

kbachler

**Namely, there are legitimate reasons to assume there are an infinite number of universes. **

What reasons would those be, since there is no proof whatever that they exist? Is that the kind of argument you would offer for the existence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster? Legitimate reasons but no proof? I believe there is a legitimate reason to assume that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is more likely than an infinite number of universes. I haven’t got once ounce of proof, but like yourself I’m a true believer in fiction.

I guess you are aware that the infinite universe assumption is a typical atheist dodge from God as creator of the universe. Of course that doesn’t stop you from siding with the atheists.

And since you have ignored post number 476, I assume you have no legitimate or infinite number of arguments to rebut it?

Deo gratias!

 

[kbachler]

I have - that there are an immensely greater number of possible chaotic universes than orderly ones.
Whatever the number of possible universes the fact remains that the number of possible chaotic universes vastly exceeds the number of orderly ones which can sustain life.

I’m sorry. You’ve made an assertion without giving any reasonable argument for it. It is not self-evident that the number of chaotic universes vastly exceeds the number of orderly onces which can sustain life. I know that for some unstated reason, you think that. But there seem to be a number of issues with that thought process.

1. Without knowing anything about the nature of universes generally, there is no reason to assume that chaotic universes occur more frequently or outnumber orderly ones.
2. If is reasonable to assume, based on our knowledge of how out own universe works, that if the universe were more chaotic, it would be likely to self-annihilate.
3. If there are an infinite number of universes (and there are some good arguments for this) then unless you show that the number of chaotic universes is of a higher order of infinity than the number of ordered universes, one can at best conclude that the number is the same.

So I don’t know why you believe the above assertion you make is true - but there are a number of reasons to believe it is not true.

As noted?

Please explain how.

Yes as noted. I’ve already explained how there may be more ordered universes than chaotic ones, the first two reasons above.

I could with equal facility say the same about your unsupported statements.
You stated:
To which I replied:
“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.”

Unfortunately, you didn’t seem to understand my statement, which in fact, is a supported statement.

The argument isn’t about “ignoring facts” or “rejecting” them. The argument is that so far as we know life only occurs in ordered universes. This is based on our experience (i.e. SUPPORT) and on our reason (in a chaotic universe it is more difficult to assume that life arises and survives since life as we know it needs SOME certainty to thrive or survive.)

If there is no life to observe a universe, then facts do not exist - as there is no observer. Hence, we are only likely to know about ordered universes, EVEN IF chaotic ones exist.

That’s not unsupported - and was always supported.

The** incredibly minute dots** we call human beings, allegedly produced by mindless molecules, have accomplished the incredible achievement of understanding the laws of the entire universe!

Again, I don’t get the point you are attempting to make. You’re being poetic, but I don’t see to what point.

Do you believe specified complexity can **ever **be evidence for design by a rational being on this or another planet?

some odd editing occured here, but no, specified complexity is never evidence for design.

It is necessarily purposeless.

There is no proof that there is not a Designer unless you can produce the “counter examples”. It is more reasonable than the hypothesis that human designers are produced by non-designers, i.e. mindless molecules.

Sorry, it isn’t more reasonable, as it violates Occam’s Razor. Further, there are counterexamples - situations where what appeared to be ordered information was taken to imply a being behind the order, only to find it was natural phenomena.

How would it undermine God’s purpose?

I actually did a thesis on this topic years ago.

The Christian God we believe in clearly believes in free will among men. (If man was not making a choice, then man does not love Him. God wants us to love Him, therefore there must be choice.)

Furthermore, even our imperfect knowledge of the universe shows that it is constructed in such a way that not all events are predetermined. Since not everything is pre-destined, there is “room” for our free will.

Perfect information about God’s existence would effectively remove those choices. We must have doubt, otherwise we cannot make a choice.

Hence, if there were proof of His existence, say through ID, we would lose our freedom to choose Him. This would be counter to God’s stated purpose.

IThe topic is not a proof of God but evidence for Design…

Which in turn is a proof of God.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

kbachler

Hence, if there were proof of His existence, say through ID, we would lose our freedom to choose Him. This would be counter to God’s stated purpose.

I see you may have been reading Pascal. In any event, there is no obligation for an atheist to believe ID, and he will go out of his way to find evidence, all the way to his dying breath, that there are infinite universes and therefore no need for God.

You have proved this in a previous post by alleging that such speculations are “legitimate” even if without proof. That is the way an atheist will always reject God … by making his logic run as far away from God as it can.

 

[kbachler]

kbachler

**Namely, there are legitimate reasons to assume there are an infinite number of universes. **

What reasons would those be, since there is no proof whatever that they exist? Is that the kind of argument you would offer for the existence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Legitimate reasons but no proof? I believe there is a legitimate reason to assume that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is more likely than an infinite number of universes. I haven’t got once ounce of proof, but like yourself I’m a true believer in fiction.

I’m sorry - there are both mathematical models that show that the interpretation is possible and legitimate, as well as subatomic tests which show the same.

I guess you are aware that the infinite universe assumption is a typical atheist dodge from God as creator of the universe. Of course that doesn’t stop you from siding with the atheists.

Actually, it sounds to me like you’ve confused two entirely different concepts. I’m not arguing that the universe is infinite, which is the “atheists dodge” to which you refer. I am referring to the argument from quantum mechanics that there are an infinite number of universes.

There is nothing in that assumption which eliminates God as creator.

And since you have ignored post number 476, I assume you have no legitimate or infinite number of arguments to rebut it?

Deo gratias!

A better assumption is that I hadn’t seen post 476. Believe it or not, I don’t spend all my time reading these forums.

I’ll respond to that post separately.

 

[kbachler]

kbachler

Hence, if there were proof of His existence, say through ID, we would lose our freedom to choose Him. This would be counter to God’s stated purpose.

I see you may have been reading Pascal. In any event, there is no obligation for an atheist to believe ID, and he will go out of his way to find evidence, all the way to his dying breath, that there are infinite universes and therefore no need for God.

You have proved this in a previous post by alleging that such speculations are “legitimate” even if without proof. That is the way an atheist will always reject God … by making his logic run as far away from God as it can.

While I have read Pascale, the argument has nothing to do with Pascal (or the wager.) It is actually a separately derived argument that I did about a 150 page thesis paper on about 24 years ago.

And please, quit tossing around the atheist comments. Its insulting.

And learn how to quote.

 

[kbachler]

I could with equal facility state that your contention that it is not a miracle is wishful thinking. It does nothing to support your argument…

No, you can’t because I gave reasons supporting the statement in another post.

If the norm among universes with life are orderly universes (as shown, a reasonable assumption) then its no miracle that life would arise to understand the universe.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

I’m sorry - there are both mathematical models that show that the interpretation is possible and legitimate, as well as subatomic tests which show the same.

I’m sorry too. There is no warrant for believing that what is possible is true. It must be confirmed by a reasonable amount of evidence. Subatomic test cannot possibly prove the existence of an infinite number of universes. Please get real. Thanks.

There is nothing in that assumption which eliminates God as creator.

Well, I don’t agree. For the atheist there is everything in that assumption that eliminates God as Creator, just as the atheist Dawkins said that the theory of evolution went a long way toward making atheism respectable.

I am done for tonight.

 

[kbachler]

How do you determine when they do?

By testing for intelligence.

Can you offer a better explanation?

Again, not my claim. I just note that some people disagree, and there isn’t a specific proof

Do you mean the universe does have a rational design?

I mean that if follows rules. It is not chaotic.

In cosmology there no control group comparisons yet some explanations are superior to others. BTW I am discussing intelligent Design not Designer.

Intelligent Design implies a designer.

Some explanations are superior because they are based on reasonable reason and logic. If not, then we may as well just guess at anything.

We KNOW observers exist, since we have observed them. We don’t know if a designer exists.

If intelligence is derived from unintelligible processes the cause is not proportionate to the effect.

There is no reason to assume that the relationship is proportional. I’ve already made that point in making the argiments I’ve already made.

The appearance of an understandable universe shows that the observer who rejects the immense probability of Design does not grasp the immense improbability of an understandable universe.

There is no immense probability of design.

You assume the creation of a universe within the set of rules that already exist in our universe is inevitable.

since it happened, it was ineveitable.

That is a desperate hypothesis for which there is not one iota of evidence. Why in all possible universes would only those which appear rational not immediately self-destruct?

Because they wouldn’t be internally inconsistent

In fact it implies Design because the rational ones are guaranteed to survive!

That doesn’t apply to design, only applies to the observer.

Your sarcasm doesn’t alter the fact. It merely detracts from your objectivity.

Its not sarcasm It is a statement of fact.

To assume this is the only possible universe - which is what your argument implies - is the height of absurdity.

That isn’t implied.

“Not impossible” does not exclude “immensely improbable”.

But the other arguments do exclude it

Since there need be no rules whatsoever in a chaotic universe your hypothesis lacks cogency. It is a desperate hypothesis for which there is not one jot of evidence. Give one reason why in all possible universes would only those which appear rational not immediately self-destruct?

You have ignored the fact that out of the immense number of possible orderly universes there remain an immense number which would not support life given its incredible complexity - which teams of scientists throughout the world have failed to unravel in spite of all their knowledge, skill and sophisticated equipment. If life emerged frequently and spontaneously you would have a far better foundation for your belief that it is ultimately the product of fortuitous combinations of molecules and that the laws of nature have no raison d’etre. Even if you reject Design at least you have faith in order rather than chaos!

I have not ignored it. I’ve argued your hypothesis was wrong/unsupported.

 

[tonyrey]

1. Without knowing anything about the nature of universes generally, there is no reason to assume that chaotic universes occur more frequently or outnumber orderly ones.

According to that argument the science of cosmology is bunk! And I have given you a reason you have ignored: lines. (lines)

I also refer you to an article about Chaos theory:

http://www.nasca.org.uk/chaos/chaos.html

1. If is reasonable to assume, based on our knowledge of how our own universe works, that if the universe were more chaotic, it would be likely to self-annihilate.

Not necessarily. It depends on the degree of chaos.

1. If there are an infinite number of universes (and there are some good arguments for this) then unless you show that the number of chaotic universes is of a higher order of infinity than the number of ordered universes, one can at best conclude that the number is the same.

What precisely is a “a higher order of infinity”?

So I don’t know why you believe the above assertion you make is true - but there are a number of reasons to believe it is not true.

What are the other reasons - (assuming you have produced valid ones)?

If there is no life to observe a universe, then facts do not exist - as there is no observer. Hence, we are only likely to know about ordered universes, EVEN IF chaotic ones exist.

It is absurd to believe facts don’t exist without an observer (unless you mean God!) Even when no one observed the universe it existed nevertheless.

What is the truth composed of if there are no facts?

Again, I don’t get the point you are attempting to make.

Please explain how minute mindless molecules have become capable of understanding the laws of the entire universe.

Specified complexity is never evidence for design.

Then how can we recognise design by human beings?

It is necessarily purposeless.

No reply!

It is more reasonable than the hypothesis that human designers are produced by non-designers, i.e. mindless molecules.

Sorry, it isn’t more reasonable, as it violates Occam’s Razor. Further, there are counterexamples - situations where what appeared to be ordered information was taken to imply a being behind the order, only to find it was natural phenomena.

“some” does not imply “all”.

The principle of adequate explanation is more important than the principle of economy. Otherwise the best explanation is that everything has come from nothing!

Perfect information about God’s existence would effectively remove those choices. We must have doubt, otherwise we cannot make a choice.

No one claims to have perfect or indubitable information! There is still plenty of room for choice. You are rejecting the teaching of the Church that God’s existence can be known by the natural light of reason.

Hence, if there were proof of His existence, say through ID, we would lose our freedom to choose Him. This would be counter to God’s stated purpose.

You are dead right but evidence is not coercive; it is not proof.

The topic is not a proof of God but evidence for Design…

Which in turn is a proof of God.

Not at all. God is far more than a Designer.

 

[rossum]

Seems your numbers are not all they were cracked up to be.

My numbers are what I said they were. I am perfectly well aware that the great majority of mutations are neutral, “harmless” in the quote you gave.

I merely counted mutations. I did not state relative numbers of neutral, deleterious or beneficial mutations. By all means criticise what I said if I was in error. Please do not criticise me for something I did not say. The figure of 900 billion mutations is correct.

rossum

 

[vz71]

My numbers are what I said they were. I am perfectly well aware that the great majority of mutations are neutral, “harmless” in the quote you gave.

I merely counted mutations. I did not state relative numbers of neutral, deleterious or beneficial mutations.
rossum

Check again.
The article does not specify any further then mutations.

…only four mutations accumulated over 13 generations.

You were failed by your source.