Intelligent Design

[vz71]

Now you have to show the presence of design.
No, “it sure looks designed to me” is not sufficient.
rossum

The design is readily apparent.

Just as the SOS written in the sand on a beach shows us ID, so does the complexity of even the simplest of organisms that we have encountered show us.

When scientists research the sun, do they first demand proof the sun exists?

 

[vz71]

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.
rossum

You claimed it yourself.
Or should we start taking the your very words as though they may not be true?

 

[tonyrey]

This can be done without Catholic Theology.

Please explain how.

 

[tonyrey]

The design is readily apparent.

Just as the SOS written in the sand on a beach shows us ID, so does the complexity of even the simplest of organisms that we have encountered show us.

When scientists research the sun, do they first demand proof the sun exists?

They could argue that the sun is observable - but then we could ask whether their minds are observable!

 

[tonyrey]

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

rossum

A cynic could argue your choice of that image reveals your rejection of Design in favour of purposeless objects…

 

[rossum]

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

It doesn’t. Haldane’s dilemma is about fixed mutations, not the overall number of mutations.

rossum

 

[rossum]

The design is readily apparent.

Not to me it isn’t. Evolution and chemistry are all that is apparent to me.

rossum

 

[vz71]

Not to me it isn’t. Evolution and chemistry are all that is apparent to me.

rossum

Yes.
I recall earlier in the thread you denied the ID behind the letters SOS written in sand on the beach.

One has to wonder what exactly you believe intelligence is.
They also must wonder if your particular take on intelligence is really the norm.

But moire is the pity that all your mind comprehends is chemistry and faulty theorum.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum

Not to me it isn’t. Evolution and chemistry are all that is apparent to me.

Not even mathematics?

Throw out mathematics and you have neither chemistry nor biology.

But mathematical formulas are not in the world. They are in the head. That is why Pascal argued we could look at God as we look at mathematical theorems … not a posteriori but a priori. That is, we can see God by intuition … one intuition being the apparent way that God intelligently designed the universe and us in such a way as to make our perceptions of the world intelligible.

Why are natural laws intelligible? Because blind nature guided us to blindly stumble across them? Or because a designing intelligence not only designed the laws, but also designed us in such a way as to make the laws intelligible to us?

 

[kbachler]

The design is readily apparent.

Just as the SOS written in the sand on a beach shows us ID, so does the complexity of even the simplest of organisms that we have encountered show us.

When scientists research the sun, do they first demand proof the sun exists?

There was no design in the SOS. You were duped.

Yes, they do demand proof that the Sun exists. Just as they demand proof that anything exists. In some cases, existence is easy to establish. In other cases, it is not.

 

[kbachler]

Don’t they reinforce your belief in God? Beauty doesn’t exist accidentally!

Why not?

 

[kbachler]

How else would you explain the immense value, beauty and complexity of life?

Natural process.

We know God created a universe that includes chance. I don’t see the need to add back an unproven deterministic approach.

 

[kbachler]

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

The design itself is positive evidence.

All you’ve done is provided a circular argument. Circular arguments are rejected out of hand, because the form of the argument is fallacious. Since the validity of an argument is based on its form, we know, beyond doubt, that your argument is invalid.

Therefore, if you desire, you can continue to repeat it, and we will continue to reject it.

You are assuming design, something which you have not shown. Then, you use this to imply a designer (which of course is already assumed in the assumption of design.)

Consequently, the argument is invalid.

 

[kbachler]

Don’t they reinforce your belief in God? Beauty doesn’t exist accidentally!

Note - they DO reinforce my personal belief in God. They do not reinforce any scientific knowledge of God.

 

[kbachler]

All of my postings regarding reason are using the findings of modern science.

I’m sorry, this is quite untrue.

 

[buffalo]

It doesn’t. Haldane’s dilemma is about fixed mutations, not the overall number of mutations.

rossum

Haldane’s Dilemma puts the number of mutations at 1600 or so over the last 10 million years of human ancestry.

 

[kbachler]

When Darwin proposed his theory, he also gave a potential falsification:If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

– Origin, Chapter Six
Professor Behe proposed Irreducible Complexity as a way to meet Darwin’s falsification criterion. His original definition of Irreducible Complexity was:A single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function of the system, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. (Darwin’s Black Box, 39)
His original argument from Irreducible Complexity was:

1. *]Irreducibly Complex systems cannot evolve.
   *]Living organisms contain Irreducibly Complex systems.
   *]Therefore parts of living organisms cannot have evolved.
   
   Unfortunately for Professor Behe this argument fails at step one, IC systems can and do evolve. It is no criticism of Behe that he put forward a failed hypothesis; most scientific hypotheses fail. Indeed in this case it was a useful failure that lead to a lot of good work on exactly how complex systems, such as the blood clotting cascade and bacterial flagella, evolve. IC was a failure, but an interesting and useful failure.
   
   Professor Behe reacted correctly to his failure – he amended his hypothesis to account for the new facts:
   1. *]Irreducibly Complex systems are unlikely to evolve.
      *]Living organisms contain Irreducibly Complex systems.
      *]Therefore parts of living organisms are unlikely to have evolved.
      
      Since then Behe has been working on examining just how unlikely it is that IC systems can evolve. In 2004 he produced a paper on just this subject: Behe and Snoke, (2004) “Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues”. Behe’s own figures from that paper showed that a small population of bacteria could evolve a simple IC system in about 20,000 years:We conclude that, in general, to be fixed in 10^8 generations, the production of novel protein features that require the participation of two or more amino acid residues simply by multiple point mutations in duplicated genes would entail population sizes of no less than 10^9.
      Since 20,000 years is not a long time and the population size Behe used (one billion) is small for bacteria – you have trillions of bacteria in your gut – it is evidence that it is really not very difficult for IC systems to evolve.
      
      Behe’s IC argument was an interesting failure that lead to much good work in this area. However in the end it is not a valid argument against evolution.
      
      Behe is incorrect, but that is not enough to make him a quack. He proposed a hypothesis which led to some interesting work, but ultimately failed. He was doing science.
      
      rossum

1. 1. 
      One thing that bothers me Rossum, is that a similar argument can be made about ID. Of course, it doesn’t destroy the concept, but it does seem to weaken ID, it’s certainly a strong objection.
      
      That is, if their is an Intelligent Design (which, the way used, should really be “Intelligent Deterministic Design”) then why are there massive interim processes? In general, when using strategy to design anything - be it a machine, a building, or a plan of attack, one aims at the goal and targets that. So, why have creatures that evolve at all? Why not just have Intelligent Design where all creatures are only at their end points? That is, instead of looking for ONE THING out of millions of “evolutionary structures” to show that maybe 1 or 2 things are irreducibly complex - if ID were true, why wouldn’t we expect all structures to be irreducibly complex?

 

[kbachler]

Can you please submit some reference to evolution being replicated in a lab?
Keep in mind the difficulties other posters have had doing so.

Specifically, the only example thus far provided of species to species transformation later turned out to be lab borne pathogen.
But also, lab conditions make it very difficult to demonstrate ‘natural selection’ as the selector in the lab is a technician.

Nevertheless, I am sure you can reference these instances. Right?

I haven’t seen any difficulties in posting this. Even wikipedia shows references to speciation.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**That is, instead of looking for ONE THING out of millions of “evolutionary structures” to show that maybe 1 or 2 things are irreducibly complex - if ID were true, why wouldn’t we expect all structures to be irreducibly complex? **

Intelligent Design and Evolution are not mutually exclusive concepts. You can have both existing simultaneously, and with abiogenesis apparently both did exist simultaneously. Not only was the original life form programmed (intelligently designed) to gestate, respire, and reproduce, but it was also programmed (designed) to evolve … which apparently it did.

Why are all structures not irreducibly complex, you ask? They would be if the principle of evolution had not been planted in them.

That is, if their is an Intelligent Design (which, the way used, should really be “Intelligent Deterministic Design”) then why are there massive interim processes? In general, when using strategy to design anything - be it a machine, a building, or a plan of attack, one aims at the goal and targets that. So, why have creatures that evolve at all? Why not just have Intelligent Design where all creatures are only at their end points?

Since you plan to meet God, you can always ask Him.

Seriously, what you see as a difficulty is not at all difficult for God in His infinite wisdom. You want to hurry Him along? But you can’t. What seems eons to you is a blink of His almighty and everlasting eye.

If everything had been created only at their end points instead of by evolution, you and I would have to die before we could be created.

 

[kbachler]

This has degenerated into a discussion of semantics. Do you have a point to make, other than splitting hairs over the meaning of the word “proven”?

Actually, it isn’t just semantics. Its a fundamental understanding of what it means to “know”. People generally misuse terms like “theory of evolution” and then they wonder what we mean when we say “Yes, it is proven.”

This is why the metaphysical discussions of knowing and experience are actually important.

I strongly suggest the book “Personal Knowledge” to most folks posting here, because they don’t have a good concept of the ideas of knowing and proof. All knowledge is tacit. There is essentially a fiduciary responsibility to scientific knowledge.