Intelligent Design

[marica_mandic]

Hello, just seeing what everyone’s thoughts are on intelligent design. Intelligent design is the idea that life and the universe were created by a highly sophisticated entity known as the intelligent designer, or intelligent agent. This intelligent designer then created the universe to it’s own specifications and created life in it. It’s a non-religious view on creationism and the origins of man, as opposed to evolution and natural selection. What are your thoughts on intelligent design?

More Info: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

For me God is the only creator.
I have become from him.
He is the first.

 

[rossum]

Since we keep finding uses for ‘junk DNA’ you cannot assume any junk DNA at all.

But it is perfectly reasonable to assume a purpose behind all of it.

Why? What use is poly-A? “AAAAAAAA…” Evolution has even noted the mechanism which results in poly-A (reverse transcription of processed mRNA). Some non-coding DNA has a use, agreed. You cannot assume that all non-coding DNA has a use.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

Hello, just seeing what everyone’s thoughts are on intelligent design. Intelligent design is the idea that life and the universe were created by a highly sophisticated entity known as the intelligent designer, or intelligent agent. This intelligent designer then created the universe to it’s own specifications and created life in it. It’s a non-religious view on creationism and the origins of man, as opposed to evolution and natural selection. What are your thoughts on intelligent design?

More Info: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

I’m rereading this in the light of my post 812.

???

 

[vz71]

It doesn’t. The physical part of human existence is explained by evolution: there is no physical part of a human that is not also possessed by a chimpanzee for example.

The non-physical part is explained by Buddhism, not by evolution. I presume you will have a different explanation for the non-physical part.

rossum

Given how much pounding you are doing for physical evidence, hypothesis, proofs, etc.
The solid and steadfast defense for evolution as fact.
The admitted inadequecy of the theory (for it cannot explain what you know to be).

Don’t you think that to be a little disengenuous?

 

[vz71]

Why? What use is poly-A? “AAAAAAAA…” Evolution has even noted the mechanism which results in poly-A (reverse transcription of processed mRNA). Some non-coding DNA has a use, agreed. You cannot assume that all non-coding DNA has a use.

rossum

Your squirming.

If the default is “we do not know” as you keep claiming it to be, then we cannot for an instant presume there is no purpose.

We must by default accept that we do not know the purpose.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Al

**But evolution itself as a physical process, up to higher animals and the human body, is (made by God to be) self-sufficient and as such does not directly show intelligent design which would have to steer the process a bit here and a bit there – at least as far as we can tell by science. **

I don’t understand this. Why “steer” here and there? Why can’t intelligent design be a seamless cloth since it was in the mind of God even before the Creation? Only in time would you tinker. Tinkering suggests a person struggling to figure out what he wants to do with a particular task. Do you imagine God did not have a set design ready to implement from start to finish in the course of time?

How can you say that God planned the creation of the universe on the one hand, then turn around and say that the creation is “self-sufficient” and has no need of God.?

 

[rossum]

Given how much pounding you are doing for physical evidence, hypothesis, proofs, etc.
The solid and steadfast defense for evolution as fact.
The admitted inadequecy of the theory (for it cannot explain what you know to be).

The theory of gravity cannot explain the origins of the American Revolution. Does this admitted inadequacy of the theory lead you to reject the theory of gravity?

The theory of evolution is not a theory of everything. It explains things within its ambit; it does not explain things that are outside its ambit. In that it is like many other things. Catholic Theology does not explain either the origins of the American Revolution or the charge on the electron. Are you going to reject Catholic Theology on that basis?

If the default is “we do not know” as you keep claiming it to be, then we cannot for an instant presume there is no purpose.

Buffalo claimed that there was no junk DNA at all. I was asking him for evidence to support his claim.

You will also note that “we don’t know” invalidates Dr Dembski’s Explanatory Filter, since that allows design as a default if we cannot determine another explanation.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

And, besides, such dynamic processes are perfectly parallel with the view that creation is rolling out, i.e., still in process. Creation is not a singular event of the distant past. We are currently in it. What else better explains complexification, evolutionary progress and creatural advancement?

God bless,
jd

That is what the meaning of IDvolution is . Intelligently designed whorling.

 

[grannymh]

Al

But evolution itself as a physical process, up to higher animals and the human body, is (made by God to be) self-sufficient and as such does not directly show intelligent design which would have to steer the process a bit here and a bit there – at least as far as we can tell by science.

I don’t understand this. Why “steer” here and there? Why can’t intelligent design be a seamless cloth since it was in the mind of God even before the Creation? Only in time would you tinker. Tinkering suggests a person struggling to figure out what he wants to do with a particular task. Do you imagine God did not have a set design ready to implement from start to finish in the course of time?

How can you say that God planned the creation of the universe on the one hand, then turn around and say that the creation is “self-sufficient” and has no need of God.?

However, from a science point of few, a cell has the required matter in order to operate on its own within the limits of its purpose which could also be what it was specifically designed for. Just as we have legs which form in the womb, not wings or fins, so we can move from one place to another on our own.

Philosophically speaking the original idea of the universe being self-sufficient is that the universe had within itself the absolute power to create everything within itself. Whereas a cell only has the matter or material within itself to accomplish its individual purpose according to its individual design.

What you are saying is Catholic which would include Adam and Eve, Original Sin, and Salvation.

From what I am seeing on the UncommonDescent website, Intelligent Design is not being promoted as Catholic. All it is doing is opposing evolution in its entirety. It claims an outside influence which diminishes the power of evolution…

One needs to realize that in principle, these faith/science endeavors do not have to agree to a real Adam. Symbolic is fine with a lot of Christians, including some Catholics unfortunately.

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

 

[tonyrey]

The physical sciences can provide an adequate explanation of the physical part of human existence. The non-physical part is outside the range of the physical sciences. Do you have a problem with the human body evolving from an earlier ape body?

None whatsoever:

1. I don’t equate human existence with bodily existence.
2. The issue is not the fact of evolution but the nature of evolution.
3. Evolution by Design is a more adequate explanation than blind evolution.

 

[buffalo]

Thomistic philsophy:thumbsup:

I have just started to learn his thoughts on creation – Aquinas on Creation translated by Steven E. Baldner & William E. Carroll. I am still in the book’s introduction.
Would the universe and its inhabitants coming to be through evolution be an update on the 13th century idea that the universe is self-sufficient?

If life is front loaded by God, then it has purpose as well as the ability to proliferate.

Is front loaded evolution (macro) even possible?

 

[buffalo]

I am not struggling with “what I am told by evolutionists I must not believe in”. I am looking at the scientific data, and they indicate that evolution is a self-sufficient process.

Of course I know that all too well. I have not only read Dawkins’s books on evolution but also his ludicrous, terrible and infantile ‘The God Delusion’ where he proves that he is an amateurish philosophical nitwit. Hawking is also one, given that, while in ‘The Grand Design’ he declares that “philosophy is dead”, he does not even realize that the physical ‘nothing’ of the quantum vacuum, which is not nothing at all, is not the same as the true nothing of the philosophers.

How naive and uninformed do you think I am, Charlemagne II? Do you really think that I don’t know about the issues?

Have you even looked at my article on the origin of life (linked to on page 53 of this thread)? I have studied more than 100 articles of the primary scientific literature on the topic, most of them thoroughly (see list of references at the end of the article).

---

Ken Miller (book ‘Finding Darwin’s God’ *)) is one of those theists who use the word “tinkerer” when it comes to God as “Intelligent Designer” (in the sense of the ID movement a la Behe). He agrees with Dawkins on the scientific data of evolution as a self-sufficient process, but as a Catholic obviously he disagrees on the philosophical interpretation of the scientific data as indicating a soulless and meaningless universe. See also my comment above about “natural causes” not being the same as “godless causes”.

*) amazon.com/Finding-Darwins-God-Scientists-Evolution/dp/0061233501/

Opponents of design claim that God has to periodically intervene to correct His mistakes. That would disagree with St Thomas.

IDvolution is in agreement with modern science, continuous Church teaching and understanding, the ECF’s, St Thomas and St Augustine (prime matter).

 

[buffalo]

They may well be. I suggest that you go to those sources and find answers to my questions.

• How, in reasonable detail, are your predictions derived from ID theory?
• Why is it not possible for the ID designer to design a species with large quantities of useless DNA?
• Why is in not possible for the ID designer to place life on the majority of planets capable of supporting life?

You need to show us how your predictions are derived from ID theory and how the opposite of those predictions is not possible under ID theory.

This last is important. If a theory predicts that both there will be junk DNA and that there will not be junk DNA then that theory is unfalsifiable.

Biologists are finding new uses for part of non-coding DNA every day. The great bulk of non-coding DNA is still appears to be useless junk. Just have a look at the Puffer Fish genome for a small genome with a lot of what appears to be junk removed.

rossum

What you are calling junk DNA has function. In a computer not all memory is used until it is called upon.

Human genome at ten: Life is complicated

               The more biologists look, the more complexity there seems to be. Erika Check Hayden asks if there's a way to make life simpler.

…ust one decade of post-genome biology has exploded that view. Biology’s new glimpse at a universe of non-coding DNA — what used to be called ‘junk’ DNA — has been fascinating and befuddling. Researchers from an international collaborative project called the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) showed that in a selected portion of the genome containing just a few per cent of protein-coding sequence, between 74% and 93% of DNA was transcribed into RNA2. Much non-coding DNA has a regulatory role; small RNAs of different varieties seem to control gene expression at the level of both DNA and RNA transcripts in ways that are still only beginning to become clear. “Just the sheer existence of these exotic regulators suggests that our understanding about the most basic things — such as how a cell turns on and off — is incredibly naive,” says Joshua Plotkin, a mathematical biologist at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.
Even for a single molecule, vast swathes of messy complexity arise. The protein p53, for example, was first discovered in 1979, and despite initially being misjudged as a cancer promoter, it soon gained notoriety as a tumour suppressor — a ‘guardian of the genome’ that stifles cancer growth by condemning genetically damaged cells to death. Few proteins have been studied more than p53, and it even commands its own meetings. Yet the p53 story has turned out to be immensely more complex than it seemed at first.
In 1990, several labs found that p53 binds directly to DNA to control transcription, supporting the traditional Jacob–Monod model of gene regulation. But as researchers broadened their understanding of gene regulation, they found more facets to p53. Just last year, Japanese researchers reported3 that p53 helps to process several varieties of small RNA that keep cell growth in check, revealing a mechanism by which the protein exerts its tumour-suppressing power.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

granny

All it is doing is opposing evolution in its entirety. It claims an outside influence which diminishes the power of evolution…

Diminishes it but does not necessarily negate it. Why can’t evolution be intelligently designed? Even Darwin said you can be a theist and think evolution.

“It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent theist and an evolutionist.” Charles Darwin

 

[vz71]

The theory of gravity cannot explain the origins of the American Revolution. Does this admitted inadequacy of the theory lead you to reject the theory of gravity?
rossum

The American Revolution is not a product of gravity.
Nor is it a property of gravity, or in any way related to how gravity works.

The spirit however IS a property of the physical human.
Evolution purports to tell us why organisms have the properties that they do.
It explains why giraffes have long necks, why birds have feathers, etc.
So how exactly would evolution explain this property of living things?

This is a definite failing of the theory.
At least it should be to anyone that acknowledges the spirit.

 

[grannymh]

granny

All it is doing is opposing evolution in its entirety. It claims an outside influence which diminishes the power of evolution…

Diminishes it but does not necessarily negate it. Why can’t evolution be intelligently designed? Even Darwin said you can be a theist and think evolution.

“It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent theist and an evolutionist.” Charles Darwin

I just had one of those “duh” moments. It has to sit in my brain for a bit. (…not where my brain sits)

To bypass the connotations of ID – maybe what we are looking at when we open our window should be called Designed Creation. Actually we are looking at God’s Designed Creation as an explanation for the diversity of species including lines of descent and the special creation of human persons.

Blessings,
granny

Genesis 1: 24-15 & Genesis 1: 28-30 – all kinds of non-human living organisms, including plants

Genesis 1: 26-28 – men and women

Genesis 1: 31 – God’s Creation in total

 

[buffalo]

I just had one of those “duh” moments. It has to sit in my brain for a bit. (not where my brain sits)

To bypass the connotations of ID – maybe what we are looking at when we open our window is designed creation.

aka - IDvolution.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

granny

**Genesis 1: 31 – God’s Creation in total **

All of a piece. No tinkering needed.

 

[balt_orioles54]

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

You’re joking, right? DNA, no matter how you want to define it to get away from it being designed is a set of instructions telling something what to do. Information theory applies here, sorry Grannymh, the writing is on the wall on this one. Even early founders like Watson, et al., call DNA a code. Face it Rossum, science is starting to shake hands with God. When cracks break open and the light starts shining in all hell breaks loose for some. May I send you some RCIA materials, you would make a fine mind for the church. Stranger things have happened in your life, no? :hey_bud::ballspin:

 

[grannymh]

You’re joking, right? DNA, no matter how you want to define it to get away from it being designed is a set of instructions telling something what to do. Information theory applies here, sorry Grannymh, the writing is on the wall on this one. Even early founders like Watson, et al., call DNA a code. Face it Rossum, science is starting to shake hands with God. When cracks break open and the light starts shining in all hell breaks loose for some. May I send you some RCIA materials, you would make a fine mind for the church. Stranger things have happened in your life, no? :hey_bud::ballspin:

Back in post 762, I commented: (bold has been added). 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."

There have been a variety of posts on a variety of information theories – so involved I don’t keep track. Or are all of the information theories the same kind of thing? Thank you.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.