Intelligent Design

[rossum]

The snowflake are the consequence of the ordered arrangement of the water molecule. It is an downhill energy process following the 2nd law.

Correct. My point was that complexity and ordered nature of a snowflake did not require a designer. It arose from purely natural processes without the need for any special intervention.

An observation of complexity and ordered pattern is not sufficient to definitively show the presence of design.

rossum

 

[Bahman]

Hi,
Can anyone who is knowledgeable in this subject please explain the difference between Theistic Evolution vs Intelligent Design? From what I have read they both seem to be the same but Im told they are different.

(Note: The topic of evolution is banned so I do not to seek to discuss this topic, only the fundamental difference between theistic evolution and intelligent design. Please do not post on why this view is correct or that view. I am looking differences only so that I can distinguish between the two, so that I may properly claim which one I believe in when asked by others.)

Thank You,
God Bless

There is never an absolute 0 or 1 hence neither of these theory are right.

TE suffer from the fact that everything was setup from beginning the fate of everything is absolutely defined hence there is no room for free will meaning that we are living in the state epiphenomena.

ID suffer from the fact it cannot grantee the existence in perfect balance.

Hence, you need a mix of both theories meaning that you need at least two agent who takes care of situation, the first one being Self, and the second God.

 

[buffalo]

So, you have a clear understanding of the nature of your proposed designer, and how that designer could have possibly been originated? No, I think not.

DNA can evolve. DNA has been observed to evolve in the lab and in nature. Despite the best efforts of ID, there has been no evidence shown that there is any unevolvable DNA present in living organisms, with the exception of some DNA placed by humans (GM organisms).

No, Behe’s IC systems don’t count. They cannot evolve by direct routes, but they can and do evolve by indirect routes.

How are you measuring “complexity”? All scientific measures of complexity/information can be increased by non-intelligent processes. Shannon information can increase. Kolmogorov information can increase. Complexity can increase over time. Remember that evolution builds on what went before. You personally did not have to evolve an entire eye. Your eye had already evolved when we shared an ancestor with the chimpanzees.

How it this relevant to either evolution or ID? ID is not a chance process, and evolution includes natural selection, which is also not a chance process. One of the (name removed by moderator)uts to evolution is chance – random mutations – but the output is not chance. The results that we observe around us are the outputs. The non-chance end of the process.

Random mutation followed by selection, with a helping of genetic drift, founder effect, sexual selection and other processes.

No it is not. It is a closed question. Evolution can account for all observed increases in the information content of DNA. Evolution fits organisms to the environment they live in. Hence, evolution can be seen as a mechanical copying process, copying information from the environment into the DNA of organisms living in that environment. Viewed as a simple copying process, then the transfer of information into DNA ceases to be an issue. On a rough calculation, it averages about 500 generation per single bit of information to make the human genome the size it is today.

That moves the question of origin of the information back to the origin of earth, and of the universe. Those questions are well outside the remit of biology, and render all of the effort put into biological ID moot. The question moves to cosmological ID.

rossum

ID the science cannot say who the designer is, but IDvolution the philosophy can.

 

[rossum]

Yes, Newton was a heretic. That doesn’t mean he was an idiot.

He was certainly not an idiot, but he could and did make errors. You cannot merely cite, “Newton said …” and expect everyone to accept without question. As I pointed out, you do not accept everything Newton said. I am the same, I do not accept everything that Newton said either.

You were trying to use an argument from authority, where neither of us completely accept the authority. You will need more to back up your position than this.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Correct. Random mutation is the creative process, creating new variants. Natural selection weeds through those variants, throwing out the bad ones, ignoring the neutral ones and increasing the beneficial ones. Between them the two processes create a lot of new variants, and preserve the better ones.

In a fixed environment, natural selection will be strictly conservative. In a changing environment, natural selection will not be conservative, but will shift the overall genome in a new direction to better survive in the changing environment.

rossum

DNA actively fights these mutations through several iterations. This makes it much tougher on evo.

No one argues adaptation. We see the finch beaks return to what they were before.

 

[tonyrey]

I did, win the lottery that is. Ten pounds made a real difference to my lifestyle, I can tell you.
rossum

That must have been quite a long time ago. The prize for three numbers is now £25!

 

[buffalo]

Correct. My point was that complexity and ordered nature of a snowflake did not require a designer. It arose from purely natural processes without the need for any special intervention.

An observation of complexity and ordered pattern is not sufficient to definitively show the presence of design.

rossum

We have been through this before. Nature can produce patterns. Design always includes patterns. Plans, music, language, codes etc. always come from a mind. In order of increasing complexity:

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/...bAAM5_dHk-qwEAAQzwn8xm9Z6mZCSpC1ZbsRWqHyTGmv_ natural pattern

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/...e_9yQDLe6y8zlpNxQT5JuTowwLwtKgDXsrjsUFW3_9Wv8 a few letters

http://www.healthcareglobal.com/public/uploads/large/large_article_im324_dna_code_picnik.jpg

3 Billion letters.

We are expected to believe this did not come from a mind and came about by chance?

 

[tonyrey]

One has to ask why chance is even available?

Chance presupposes Design! No one can explain how insight is produced by processes which lack insight. Our starting point is not in matter but in mind…

 

[buffalo]

Chance presupposes Design! No one can explain how insight is produced by processes which lack insight. Our starting point is not in matter but in mind…

Indeed. The beta decay is influenced by the observer.

 

[tonyrey]

Correct. My point was that complexity and ordered nature of a snowflake did not require a designer. It arose from purely natural processes without the need for any special intervention.

An observation of complexity and ordered pattern is not sufficient to definitively show the presence of design.

rossum

It is certainly not sufficient to assume that disorder preceded order!

 

[tonyrey]

Correct. Random mutation is the creative process, creating new variants. Natural selection weeds through those variants, throwing out the bad ones, ignoring the neutral ones and increasing the beneficial ones. Between them the two processes create a lot of new variants, and preserve the better ones.

In a fixed environment, natural selection will be strictly conservative. In a changing environment, natural selection will not be conservative, but will shift the overall genome in a new direction to better survive in the changing environment.

rossum

Random mutation presupposes order! How could purposeless units produce a purpose**ful **system? And how did the increase in complexity originate?

 

[Peter_Plato]

So, you have a clear understanding of the nature of your proposed designer, and how that designer could have possibly been originated? No, I think not.

Well, I guess that puts us both in the same boat. Neither can you account for the apparent design or how it originated.

Certainly you can offload the question onto “random” generation, but you don’t, thereby, answer the question, you merely state it in obtuse terms.

Good for you.

 

[buffalo]

Random mutation presupposes order! How could purposeless units produce a purpose**ful **system? And how did the increase in complexity originate?

They believe natural systems have godlike power to overcome natural laws. Laws of nature prevent the formation of an ordered universe from disorder, chaos to complexity, disorder to order.

 

[tonyrey]

So, you have a clear understanding of the nature of your proposed designer, and how that designer could have possibly been originated? No, I think not.

DNA can evolve. DNA has been observed to evolve in the lab and in nature. Despite the best efforts of ID, there has been no evidence shown that there is any unevolvable DNA present in living organisms, with the exception of some DNA placed by humans (GM organisms).

No, Behe’s IC systems don’t count. They cannot evolve by direct routes, but they can and do evolve by indirect routes.

How are you measuring “complexity”? All scientific measures of complexity/information can be increased by non-intelligent processes. Shannon information can increase. Kolmogorov information can increase. Complexity can increase over time. Remember that evolution builds on what went before. You personally did not have to evolve an entire eye. Your eye had already evolved when we shared an ancestor with the chimpanzees.

How it this relevant to either evolution or ID? ID is not a chance process, and evolution includes natural selection, which is also not a chance process. One of the (name removed by moderator)uts to evolution is chance – random mutations – but the output is not chance. The results that we observe around us are the outputs. The non-chance end of the process.

Random mutation followed by selection, with a helping of genetic drift, founder effect, sexual selection and other processes.

No it is not. It is a closed question. Evolution can account for all observed increases in the information content of DNA. Evolution fits organisms to the environment they live in. Hence, evolution can be seen as a mechanical copying process, copying information from the environment into the DNA of organisms living in that environment. Viewed as a simple copying process, then the transfer of information into DNA ceases to be an issue. On a rough calculation, it averages about 500 generation per single bit of information to make the human genome the size it is today.

That moves the question of origin of the information back to the origin of earth, and of the universe. Those questions are well outside the remit of biology, and render all of the effort put into biological ID moot. The question moves to cosmological ID.

rossum

Even if that were true it would not dispose of ID. All our conclusions presuppose the power of intelligence.

 

[tonyrey]

They believe natural systems have godlike power to overcome natural laws. Laws of nature prevent the formation of an ordered universe from disorder, chaos to complexity, disorder to order.

Without having read your post I have just referred to the** power** of intelligence which underlies all our interpretations of reality. That is something taken for granted even though it is the most significant fact of all.

 

[tonyrey]

I’m afraid not. The mathematics of the probability calculations used by ID is faulty. Their calculations do not correctly model evolutionary processes. For example, they often omit natural selection. Any model which does not include natural selection is not a model of evolution, and hence not useful in a discussion of evolution.

Then I suggest that you experience more:

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/photos/x041219b055.jpg

A snowflake is both complex and ordered, yet it arises naturally from natural processes.

If science does not know, then it says, “We don’t know”. It does not assume the existence of a designer.

So far nothing that has been discovered is outside the realm of chemistry, for abiogenesis, or of evolution, for the development of species and higher clades. There are some places where science says, “we don’t know yet”, mostly in abiogenesis, but each year science discovers a bit more. Trying to fit a designer into a gap in science is a recipe for a shrinking designer.

It used to be thought that thunder was designed, by Thor, Zeus or one of the other thunder gods. Science closed that gap, and you can see what has happened to Thor, Zeus and the others. The ID designer is trying to fit into a gap. The gap is getting smaller, which does not bode well for the long term future of the ID designer.

rossum

What is the basis of your assumption that science will fully explain the origin of the universe and all its inhabitants? If you exclude persons there is little point in claiming it will ultimately provide a complete explanation of physical reality…

 

[Charlemagne_III]

He was certainly not an idiot, but he could and did make errors. You cannot merely cite, “Newton said …” and expect everyone to accept without question. As I pointed out, you do not accept everything Newton said. I am the same, I do not accept everything that Newton said either.

You were trying to use an argument from authority, where neither of us completely accept the authority. You will need more to back up your position than this.

rossum

Not sure what your point was in dissing Newton on order in the universe.

Surely, if anyone was entitled to give an opinion, it was Newton.

The solar system does not contain random planets rotating randomly around their sun.

The order and relationship of the planets to their sun is so perfectly designed that one is justified in assuming a designer. Newton does so. But you don’t. So what makes your opinion more valid than Newton’s?

 

[edwest2]

Yes, and it is clearly understood that the ordered “complexity” of a snowflake comes from the inherent nature of water molecules.

What we don’t have is a clear understanding of the inherent nature of genetic code and how that nature could have possibly been originated.

First off, the complexity of genetic code is of an entirely different magnitude, one which chemical bonding cannot explain.

Punting to “chance” is precisely the same quality of argument as “God of the gaps” and gets us nowhere. The question isn’t answered by appeal to “random acts” in the same way as it isn’t answered by appeals to “God did it.”

The question remains: What has the potential to create the sublime complexity of the genetic code found in DNA and RNA? References to snowflakes are unhelpful as is blind faith in the inherent capacity of science to arrive at the solution.

Until science actually gets us there, the question is an open one. What could sufficiently account for the information found in the genetic code of living things? Until that question has a complete answer, one that meets the sufficiency requirements of the PSR, your claims are no less filled with hot air and bluster than the claims of the ID proponents you presume you have successfully countered.

Well said. Simply stating a snowflake is ordered simply due to its chemical properties, along with temperature, is a faith statement. The non-theist claim that God/gods/supernatural forces did nothing means that threads like this will appear endlessly. But, as we have seen:

1. Secularism demands one explanation is carved is stone today, and we - meaning those outside their worldview - must accept it now. Chemicals and chance and here we are.
2. The ID side is simply pointing out the Richard Dawkins’ statement that things look designed because, well, they are designed. When one studies all the attributes required for a ground-dwelling insect to suddenly, regardless of the time period claimed, grow functional wings and fly. There’s a lot there. It already knew how to walk but to successfully navigate through the air and deal with wind currents? How do bees know what a flower is? Or how to design the cells of a honeycomb?

These are obviously open questions, but the evidence is obvious: Complete compliance with 1) must be achieved.

Best,
Ed

 

[rossum]

We have been through this before.

Indeed.

Nature can produce patterns.

Agreed.

Design always includes patterns.

I disagree with your “always”. Design can produce patterns, as can nature. Design can produce patternless objects as well. A Jackson Pollock painting is designed, yet it does not include any pattern. A piece of encrypted data is deliberately designed not to contain any patterns, since any pattern may allow an attacker to decrypt the secret message. A good example is the Venona break, where a repeated pattern allowed encrypted messages to be broken. Cryptographers go to great lengths to avoid their designs producing any patterns in the output.

We are expected to believe this did not come from a mind and came about by chance?

No, you are not expected to believe a non-scientific fantasy. We know that it came about by a combination of chance and natural selection. By omitting the effect of natural selection you are tilting at a windmill. That is why many creationist sites omit natural selection from their “probability” calculations; calculations which do not reflect the reality of evolution. Your 3 billion letters took about 2.7e12 generations. That is just under 1,000 generations per single letter. Is that an excessive rate?

rossum

 

[rossum]

They believe natural systems have godlike power to overcome natural laws. Laws of nature prevent the formation of an ordered universe from disorder, chaos to complexity, disorder to order.

Your sources’ understanding of the Second Law is faulty. Here is a classic quote from another creationist, who has a better understanding of the Second Law than your sources:

“One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn’t possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it.”

Source: smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=1073734&postcount=232

Yes there is such a source and yes scientists are well aware of it.

Obviously your sources are not.

rossum