Intelligent Design

[rossum]

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

Wrong. Every one of those experiments would have been intelligently designed to reproduce conditions on an early Earth. That is all that was intelligently designed. The purpose of the experiments was to determine what chemicals could, and could not, have been produced in such conditions.

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum

**Every one of those experiments would have been intelligently designed to reproduce conditions on an early Earth. **

Given that assumption, how would you know for a certainty that you could reproduce the exact conditions that led to abiogenesis, never mind amino acids?

It’s interesting, isn’t it, that with all the developments in technology, the best you can do is refer to a sixty year old experiment that produced amino acids and nothing more?

 

[vz71]

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?
rossum

Quite correct, It would not be mere chance for all of these chemicals to appear in a lab under the watchful eye of the scientist performing the experiment.

But you have just eliminated any claim you have of how life appeared in the first place.

You are stuck. It is random chance that these chemicals were present at the right time in the right place and under the right conditions…or it is not chance, and we must accept an intelligence behind it.
Your lab simply shows the ridiculous odds against this happening all by itself in a natural environment uncontrolled by our lab tachnician.

 

[vz71]

Wrong. Every one of those experiments would have been intelligently designed to reproduce conditions on an early Earth. That is all that was intelligently designed. The purpose of the experiments was to determine what chemicals could, and could not, have been produced in such conditions.

rossum

Just an aside…what do you suppose the error rate is of their prediction of what the early earth was like?
And how would that error rate compare to the experiment itself?

Would a 1% error in their calculations for the early earth model fail the experiment?
How about a 3%?
Perhaps .1%?

 

[Al_Moritz]

rossum

**Every one of those experiments would have been intelligently designed to reproduce conditions on an early Earth. **

Given that assumption, how would you know for a certainty that you could reproduce the exact conditions that led to abiogenesis, never mind amino acids?

It’s interesting, isn’t it, that with all the developments in technology, the best you can do is refer to a sixty year old experiment that produced amino acids and nothing more?

No need to refer to such an old experiment. Origin-of-life research has made spectacular progress particularly in the last decade, and in my view an origin of life by natural causes is now highly likely. See my article for the evolution website Talkorigins.org:

talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

By the way, I am a Catholic, and “natural causes” is not the same as “godless causes” as some atheists would like us to believe.

Intelligent design is a non-argument when it comes to evolution and the origin of life. An entirely different matter are the laws of nature that make physical, chemical and and biological evolution possible in the first place.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Wrong. Every one of those experiments would have been intelligently designed to reproduce conditions on an early Earth. That is all that was intelligently designed. The purpose of the experiments was to determine what chemicals could, and could not, have been produced in such conditions.

rossum

I agree. Well said.

 

[tonyrey]

This needs addressing from the viewpoint of Catholic apologetics apart from Intelligent Design being used as Catholic apologetics.

Going back into history, it is correct that Catholicism rejected random mutations as the sole reason for the diversity of the species because that theory challenged the core belief of God as the existing Creator. Catholic apologetics needs to keep that challenge as a priority even though human nature is now stage front.

Also going back into history, when it came to the human species, which is not in the same category of general evolution, Catholic apologetics allowed the possibility of some kind of changes within the human anatomy over the course of time. However, Catholic apologetics did not back down from the fact that the human species included a spiritual soul directly created by God. Somewhere along the line, theistic evolution was considered a possibility.

Please do not consider me as discarding history.

What I am saying is that 21st century Catholic apologetics is at a watershed from what I am reading on CAF. (Maybe I need to find another Catholic Apologetics source?)

Catholic apologetics can stick with the current goal of Intelligent Design if it so wishes.

However, from what I am reading on CAF posts, Catholic Apologetics needs to get a grasp of what is happening in the current scientific realm because many Catholics are not sufficiently knowledgeable about the origin of human nature. It is now very easy for Catholics to accept the symbolism of Adam instead of the reality of original sin. Followers of Matthew Fox, whose early teachings denied original sin, now have the support of science.

My long range goal is to demonstrate how Catholics can deal with current scientific attacks against the monogenism of Adam and Eve. Unfortunately, it is slow going in finding professional support.

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

I regard scientific attacks against monogenism as harmless because the scientific view of human nature is defective anyway! What reasonable, civilised person believes we are merely naked apes lacking a conscience and self-control?

Free will and conscience do not develop gradually. We either have some self-control or we don’t. We either recognise the difference between good and evil or we don’t. These are not biological functions but supernatural powers bestowed by God as a direct gift. At this point science and philosophy have to be supplemented by revelation and theology…

 

[tonyrey]

Intelligent design is a non-argument when it comes to evolution and the origin of life. An entirely different matter are the laws of nature that make physical, chemical and and biological evolution possible in the first place.

Welcome to the forum!

The flaw in your argument is that the development of rational, moral beings with the power of self-control and the capacity for unselfish love is not adequately explained by natural causes. Design is not a static plan but a dynamic process of control and guidance to ensure survival and progress with direct intervention at critical junctures. Otherwise you are committed to deism rather than theism…

 

[tonyrey]

As long as ID does not provide the detail it will have an uphill struggle against existing science.

Do you genuinely believe the physical sciences can in principle provide an adequate explanation of human existence?

 

[tonyrey]

Science requires detail. As long as ID does not provide the detail it will have an uphill struggle against existing science.

Scientific explanation is widely assumed to be physical explanation, i.e. in terms of that which is in principle observable by the senses. Yet the truth of scientific laws and mathematical equations cannot be perceived by the senses. For this and other reasons most scientists are not physicalists although they tend to restrict science to physical reality.The problem is that physical and non-physical reality have never been clearly demarcated. As a result scientists have often had to shift the boundaries of science to accommodate new discoveries.

Psychology is the clearest example of the confusion caused by the unsolved demarcation problem. Jung’s collective unconscious is at one extreme and Skinner’s behaviourism is at the other. One thing is certain. It is unscientific to label any explanation as unscientific simply because it fails to satisfy the dogmas of empiricism. Both science and mathematics presuppose rationality and the value of rationality. Any explanation that clarifies the nature and origin of rationality is valuable and significant. It may be regarded as metascientific but does such terminology make it less informative and than other aspects of science?

Far from having an uphill struggle against existing “science” Design literally has the upper hand because it is not arbitrarily restricted to the physical sciences…

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Al

**Intelligent design is a non-argument when it comes to evolution and the origin of life. An entirely different matter are the laws of nature that make physical, chemical and and biological evolution possible in the first place. **

And why were those laws formulated in the first place … by chance? Or by Intelligent Design?

As a Catholic, do you believe that God designed and created the universe to produce life somewhere down the line? Do you believe that God did that by producing laws conducive to abiogenesis and later evolution?

If you believe that, and you have to believe it as a Catholic (you have no choice in the matter), why is it so unbelievable to you that intelligent design is not at work throughout the universe and through all time from the start of the universe to the present?

“This most beautiful system [the universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Isaac Newton

 

[tonyrey]

Al

Intelligent design is a non-argument when it comes to evolution and the origin of life. An entirely different matter are the laws of nature that make physical, chemical and and biological evolution possible in the first place.

And why were those laws formulated in the first place … by chance? Or by Intelligent Design?

As a Catholic, do you believe that God designed and Created the universe to produce life somewhere down the line? Do you believe that God did that by producing laws conducive to abiogenesis and later evolution?

If you believe that, and you have to believe it as a Catholic (you have no choice in the matter), why is it so unbelievable to you that intelligent design is not at work throughout the universe and through all time from the start of the universe to the present?

Now those are formidable questions to which I cannot imagine any satisfactory reply… uch:

 

[buffalo]

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.

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.

This is a prediction, not a result.

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.

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.

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

rossum

Uh - my sources are scientific sources. We are finding uses for the ex-junk DNA everyday. Junk DNA is gone.

 

[buffalo]

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

DNA Language

Nucleotide Character
Codon Letter
Gene Word
Operon Sentence
Regulon Paragraph

 

[Charlemagne_II]

tonyrey

**Now those are formidable questions to which I cannot imagine any satisfactory reply… **

Not from a Catholic anyway.

 

[grannymh]

Al

Intelligent design is a non-argument when it comes to evolution and the origin of life. An entirely different matter are the laws of nature that make physical, chemical and and biological evolution possible in the first place.

And why were those laws formulated in the first place … by chance? Or by Intelligent Design?

As a Catholic, do you believe that God designed and created the universe to produce life somewhere down the line? Do you believe that God did that by producing laws conducive to abiogenesis and later evolution?

If you believe that, and you have to believe it as a Catholic (you have no choice in the matter), why is it so unbelievable to you that intelligent design is not at work throughout the universe and through all time from the start of the universe to the present?

“This most beautiful system [the universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Isaac Newton

As I Catholic, I believe in Catholic theology regarding the nature of God. I disagree with ID W. Dembski in his explanation of the Intelligent Designer. See last paragraph, the P.S. in this article on the UncommonDescent website. "The openness about the nature of the designer. Is the designer an intelligent alien and so on?

I know who God is and I don’t have to ask silly questions.

From the article: “But even to identify the designer with the Christian God is not to say that any particular instance of design in nature is directly the work of his hands.”
Catholic teaching is that God creates the spiritual soul.

uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/does-id-presuppose-a-mechanistic-view-of-nature/

 

[Charlemagne_II]

granny

I know who God is and I don’t have to ask silly questions.

What about giving silly answers?

"The openness about the nature of the designer. Is the designer an intelligent alien and so on?

"But even to identify the designer with the Christian God is not to say that any particular instance of design in nature is directly the work of his hands."

Exactly what is this supposed to mean?

 

[JDaniel]

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,

Rossum:

There is no proof of abiogenesis. Just numerous theories. And now, the most recent thinking is that life may have started 4 billion years ago - that’s a mere half billion years after the beginning of the earth. But, in any event, you said that chemistry is not chance. You are incorrect, in my opinion. Any amalgamation of just the right chemicals, under just the right conditions, at just the right time, and at just the same time, to produce life, is either design or chance. Chance is the exigency here that has the least weight. Chance is “not” randomness. There are too many simultaneous occurrences for chance to be efficacious. I can’t believe you’re arguing against that point.

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

So what is spirit to you?

God bless,
jd

 

[grannymh]

granny

I know who God is and I don’t have to ask silly questions.

What about giving silly answers?

"The openness about the nature of the designer. Is the designer an intelligent alien and so on?

"But even to identify the designer with the Christian God is not to say that any particular instance of design in nature is directly the work of his hands."

Exactly what is this supposed to mean?

I have no clue. That is why I posted a link to the entire article.

uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/does-id-presuppose-a-mechanistic-view-of-nature/

 

[grannymh]

P.S. to previous post 791.

There is the concept of the intelligibility of the universe. We can know, understand, and comprehend certain things about the universe. Our knowledge is growing because there is an inherent design. There is an inherent design to bumblebees and humans. Is the design of bumblebees due to pure chance? Of course not. Matter may have evolved so that bumblebees could fly instead of swim but that is due to development of the final design. At least at this point, it looks like the final design.

Actually, it is harder to demonstrate that a flying bumblebee came about only by chance which developed genes for wings instead of fins. It is easier to say that H20 is the design of water. The is why the term random chance is slowing leaving the evolutionary vocabulary and why the vocabulary for gene mutations has increased.

Explaining either design or random chance in the case of humans becomes extremely difficult. The is because human nature per se is an unique unification of the spiritual and material in one being. Personally, I believe that it is perfectly proper to flat out say God did it.

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