Is intelligent design a plausible theory?

[Michaelo]

The example of SETI researchers might be a better analogy. Some standards for identifying intelligent communication have been established and they measure what they find in nature against that standard.

And does this standard comply with that ID proponents have established by only considering complexity?

 

[Michaelo]

reggieM, specified complexity is another questionable concept.

Wesley Elsberry from Texas A&M University and Jeffrey Shallit from the University of Waterloo found that “Dembski’s work is riddled with inconsistencies, equivocation, flawed use of mathematics, poor scholarship, and misrepresentation of others’ results.”

Here’s their detailed analysis of Dembski’s specified complexity.

 

[greylorn]

greylorn,

Why would you want to start a thread over discussion of something that no one can possibly know?

There are some very intelligent and imaginative people who appear on CAF occasionally. My new thread might engage them, and I might learn new ideas in the process.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Michaelo

So your example of archaeology actually reinforces my point that complexity cannot be used as a reliable indicator of intelligent design.

What other explanation for Stonehenge could be given other than complex human intelligence at work even though the work was not observed or observable? And remember, the other explanation has to have a high degree of believability. The archeologists are waiting for your explanation as they seem to have no other.

I hope you’re not going to say the stones just randomly popped up out of the ground. If that’s going to be your explanation, you need to take another look at Stonehenge.

Likewise with the world’s first specified complex organism.

 

[Michaelo]

Likewise with the world’s first specified complex organism.

Again, specified complexity is a flawed concept.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Michaelo

As a self-professed Catholic, do you believe that God intelligently designed the creation of the universe and everything in it?

 

[Michaelo]

Michaelo

As a self-professed Catholic, do you believe that God intelligently designed the creation of the universe and everything in it?

I believe that God is responsible for the natural laws that govern evolution, which is then responsible for the diversity of life that we observe.

 

[reggieM]

I believe that God is responsible for the natural laws that govern evolution, which is then responsible for the diversity of life that we observe.

To you accept the infallible teaching of Vatican Council I that God can be known through the things He has made?

Do you think that the human soul is the product of natural laws?

 

[JDaniel]

Very mature of you to suggest that. omg lol wtf my bff jill. :tsktsk:

I hit it on the nose, didn’t I? You’re doing pretty good for teenager!

jd

 

[JDaniel]

JDaniel;5247986:

Don’t lie; are you Catholic?

I am Catholic, and how can you accuse me of lying?

Write for me the precise words that accused you of lying. Please.

(Where did all of these kid philosophers come from?)

jd

 

[rossum]

If the non-material components of a person are not explained by (chance) evolution what are they explained by?

They are explained by the Buddha in the Tripitaka.

There is ample evidence for the evolution of humans but there is no evidence that natural selection and random mutations are sufficient to explain human beings.

I am glad that we can agree on there being ample evidence for the evolution of humans. I agree that random mutations and natural selection on their own are insufficient, we also need to consider neutral drift, sexual selection, founder effect and other evolutionary mechanisms.

Human beings are rational and purposeful so how did rational and purposeful activity originate?

Are you saying that other animals cannot show purpose? Hate you ever watched a cat hunting or a dog chasing a rabbit? A great many animals exhibit purposeful activity.

We do not have evidence that fortuitous events produce complex organization

Complete rubbish. A pile of sand is extremely complex: millions of grains of sand, each with its own particular shape and each with its own particular position in the the pile. Complex objects are produced by fortuitous events all the time. Have a look at a single snowflake, and they are produced in huge numbers by fortuitous processes.

You are imposing an absolute condition of impossibility that is never required in science

No, I am merely requiring that ID abides by the rules of science. Darwin was aware of the rules and gave us two distinct ways to falsify his theory: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.

If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.
In both cases Darwin is describing things that cannot have evolved. All I am asking is that ID does the same and describes something that cannot have been designed by the designer. All scientific theories have to risk being disproved by experiment; if ID cannot describe such an experiment then it is not a scientific theory but merely a philosophical curiosity along the lines of Last Thursdayism, which also cannot be disproved.

Mutations of bacteria hardly constitute evidence for the evolution of rational beings!

You asked for evidence of evolution and I provided it. I have asked you for equivalent experimental evidence for ID and you have continually failed to provide it. Why should I go on providing evidence to you when you are not prepared to provide me with any evidence at all. If you want ID to be considered as science, rather than as philosophy or theology, then you have to provide the scientific data to back it up. If you do not have the data then ID is not science and does not deserve a place in the science classroom. Where is your scientific data? Where are the ID experiments? Show us please.

And how do your non-material components fit into your picture if they are not the product of evolution? Is there scientific data, or experimental results, to back it up?

I look to the Tripitaka for the explanation of the non-material components:Here, O Sariputra, form is emptiness and the very emptiness is form; emptiness does not differ from form, form does not differ from emptiness; whatever is form, that is emptiness, whatever is emptiness, that is form, the same is true of feelings, perceptions, impulses and consciousness.

Hrdyaprajnaparamita sutra
To explain some of the terminology, “form” is our physical component. “Feelings”, “perceptions”, “(name removed by moderator)ulses” and “consciousness” are our non-physical components.

If not, you are guilty of selective thinking. You take what suits your case and ignore everything else.

For material things I use science because science is extremely good at explaining material things. Our body is just one such material thing that is explained by the science of evolution. For immaterial things I use other sources. For the immaterial components of living organisms I use Buddhism.

rossum

 

[yppop]

Hello one and all,

I should know better than to become involved in this discussion, but I couldn’t resist proposing a compromise:

I believe in God and cannot understand how anyone that professes such a belief could deny that God was in some way involved in creation, specifically the creation of man. Since I believe in God, then I also believe that He was the Designer and also designed intelligently.

That said, let us concede that the theory of evolution as described by the steps below explains creation.

1. Mutation in the genes that changes some characteristic of the organism
2. Change in the living conditions to which the population is exposed either by isolation, migration, and or environmental change
3. Increase in the chance of survival for the organism possessing the mutant characteristic.
4. An increase in the mutant organism’s opportunity or chance to propagate.
5. Transfer of the mutant gene to the progeny.
6. A repetition of the first five steps over a long period of time.

Then here is the compromise: Let us concede steps 2 to 6 to Darwin and step 1 to God. It seems fair enough that we (I. D.ers’) concede 5 parts to the Darwinians and keep only one for God’s side. After all, there is no good explanation for the cause of the mutations. And furthermore it generally takes more than one gene to impact a characteristic, which really plays hell with the probability of random mutation. So the Darwinians, being gracious and generous people, should have no trouble giving up step 1 to God’s people.

Am I in for a lot of flack?

Yppop

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Michaelo

*I believe that God is responsible for the natural laws that govern evolution, which is then responsible for the diversity of life that we observe. *

As a self professed Catholic, do you believe in the saying of Isaiah at the bottom of this post, and especially do you agree that God “designed” the universe and everything in it?

And please don’t dodge the question again.

 

[liquidpele]

Michaelo

*I believe that God is responsible for the natural laws that govern evolution, which is then responsible for the diversity of life that we observe. *

As a self professed Catholic, do you believe in the saying of Isaiah at the bottom of this post, and especially do you agree that God “designed” the universe and everything in it?

And please don’t dodge the question again.

“In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points…Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies – which was neither planned nor sought – constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.”[16]

– Pope John Paul II

I find it extremely ironic that you are attacking his claim of being Catholic because he supports what your own church supports. In fact, the only major conflict is the emergence of the soul, which evolution doesn’t really bother itself with anyway… quoting him again…

“Theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man.”

– Pope John Paul II

I will say that Benedict is not as supportive of the theory though, but honestly I can’t say I respect him nearly as much as John Paul II.

 

[Michaelo]

Write for me the precise words that accused you of lying. Please.

Your words:

Don’t lie; are you Catholic?

(Where did all of these kid philosophers come from?)

Does it matter? Pele and I have held our own in this discussion regardless of our age.

 

[Michaelo]

To you accept the infallible teaching of Vatican Council I that God can be known through the things He has made?

Yes, as I’ve said before, God is responsible for evolution so life is ultimately a reflection of Him.

Do you think that the human soul is the product of natural laws?

To my knowledge, science cannot explain the human soul. This does not mean that it doesn’t exist, just that you can’t look to science for answers.

 

[Michaelo]

Michaelo

As a self professed Catholic, do you believe in the saying of Isaiah at the bottom of this post, and especially do you agree that God “designed” the universe and everything in it?

If by “design” you mean created the natural laws to govern processes like evolution, then yes.

And please don’t dodge the question again.

I didn’t dodge your question, I just didn’t answer it the way you wanted.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Michaelo

If by “design” you mean created the natural laws to govern processes like evolution, then yes.

Then we are in agreement because I have never opposed the theory of evolution anywhere in this thread. What I have opposed is the “soft underbelly” of that theory, which is that evolution must also explain abiogenesis. There is nothing in the theory of evolution that supports abiogenesis, since abiogenesis deals with atoms and molecules joining together to create life.

I take it that since you believe God intelligently designed the law of evolution, you also believe that God intelligently designed the moment and circumstances by which abiogenesis occurred.

Do you agree? A simple yes or no would suffice.

 

[Michaelo]

Michaelo

Then we are in agreement because I have never opposed the theory of evolution anywhere in this thread. What I have opposed is the “soft underbelly” of that theory, which is that evolution must also explain abiogenesis. There is nothing in the theory of evolution that supports abiogenesis, since abiogenesis deals with atoms and molecules joining together to create life.

So you don’t oppose biological evolution (which doesn’t deal with the origin of life), but you do appear to oppose chemical evolution.

I take it that since you believe God intelligently designed the law of evolution, you also believe that God intelligently designed the moment and circumstances by which abiogenesis occurred.

Again, if by “intelligently designed the moment and circumstances” you mean created the natural laws that governed the origin of life, then yes.

 

[reggieM]

Yes, as I’ve said before, God is responsible for evolution so life is ultimately a reflection of Him.

Ok, thanks for these answers. The idea that “God is responsible for evolution” is one that was rejected by Darwin since it would render natural selection “superfluous”. Beyond that, I noticed that you posted from Talk Origins previously, but do you have any sources to support your belief that God is responsible for evolution? What, precisely, did God do with evolution? What does he “not do” with evolution? I think, in any case, you cannot show any scientific sources to support your views here.

To my knowledge, science cannot explain the human soul. This does not mean that it doesn’t exist, just that you can’t look to science for answers.

I think this is a major problem for evolutionary theory. The human soul is the spiritual, non-material nature of man. It represents the “ontological leap” that Pope John Paul II mentioned (as incompatible with materialistic evolution).

What effect does the human soul have on evolution? If science cannot speak about this, then it’s an obvious flaw with evolutionary theory itself.

The only source for intelligence, consciousness and spirituality (memory, will, imagination) comprising the soul is a non-material, intelligent agent.

Are you saying that you see no evidence of the power of God’s intelligent design in nature? I’m not sure here - and I don’t mean to mischaracterize your views.