Is intelligent design a plausible theory?

[rossum]

I am asking how simple molecules became complex molecules in the first place.

Chemistry. Pick up a textbook and read it.

This is all speculation without a trace of evidence.

No, that is ID. We do not yet have as much evidence for abiogenesis as we would like, but we do have some. I have already mentioned the Miller-Urey experiment and the Powner et al paper from this year. That is two more pieces of evidence than you have referenced for ID. Can you produce two pieces of similar evidence for ID?

You have already conceded that abiogenesis is incredibly unlikely.

I have done no such thing. I have said that your strawman “random evolution” is unlikely. How unlikely is it that two hydrogens combine with exactly one oxygen to make water? Pure chance is an even worse model of chemistry than it is of evolution. Chemistry is not a random process.

Is there any evidence of “an imperfect self-replicator”?

Yes. Every living organism on earth is an imperfect self-replicator. We also have the Speigelman Monster as an example of a chemical replicator.

Please indicate how this occurs.

Evolution 101 - speciation. If you do not know what evolution is then I suggest that you might want to study a bit more about it. Start here.

Human beings are supposed to evolved from animals as the result of random mutations and natural selection.

Correct.

In other words moral responsibility is supposed to have evolved as the result of physical causes.

By some, yes.

At what stage of evolution do you believe this occurred?

Probably during the development of the primates.

How have moral awareness, free will and responsibility developed gradually?

Our ancestors lived in small family groups. Morality boils down to “be nice to the people you live with and they will be nice to you back”. That works well in small family groups where all the individuals are genetically related. Look at the Bible. In the earlier books the Israelites kill a lot of people who are not of their tribe. As time goes on the meanings of “tribe” or “Israel” are expanded to include everyone alive on earth. Morals evolved in much the same way, expanding from the smaller group to the larger.

Is there any indication of a conscience, free will and moral responsibility in chimpanzees?

Yes.

Are you saying you have never used your intelligence to design something? That our belief in design is an illusion?

No. I am saying that sometimes we see something that we think is designed, like a face in the clouds, yet that thing is not designed. Hence “it looks designed” is not a reliable indicator of design - we can make mistakes.

If evolution is based on survival value it does not make sense to assert that the human brain has evolved to see design in places where there is none. That would prejudice our survival. It is plainly absurd to attribute all our beliefs and values to their survival value.

I disgree. I see a movement in the long grass. There are two possibilities - design or chance. If chance then it is just the wind, if design then it is a lion trying to creep up on me. If I mistake chance for design then I waste a bit of energy climbing a tree to escape from some grass. If I mistake design for chance then I get eaten by a lion. Guess which genes will be favoured by natural selection?

I have answered a great many of your questions. Now answer mine please. Where is the scientific evidence for Intelligent Design? How does the designer act? When did the designer act? Is the designer acting now? What experiments can I do to show the designer acting?

Until there are answers to those questions then ID is not plausible as science.

rossum

 

[edwest2]

The conclusion that we are the result of a cold, uncaring universe that did not have us in mind is a great comfort to the atheist. It allows one to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist according to Richard Dawkins. And the New Atheism is being heavily promoted right now. Signs on buses: Man Created God. Isn’t it obvious? They are accountable to no one. They are ‘free’ to do their own will. They have been liberated by what others have told them - the scientists. The same scientists who went to the Pope and basically said, “Hey, this whole thing works without God.”

It’s fashionable now, just like taking a dangerous drug like cocaine was fashionable among the rich and beautiful people in the 1980s.

So yes, Intelligent Design is a plausible theory. The Church recognizes actual design in nature, but some post here using the insistence argument - I insist there is no design in nature. Never mind about SETI or archaeology. Just forget about that. Just listen to the 'I insist" part.

Peace,
Ed

 

[MindOverMatter]

The conclusion that we are the result of a cold, uncaring universe that did not have us in mind is a great comfort to the atheist.

Yes, but how is this proven by the process of Evolution?

It allows one to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist according to Richard Dawkins.

Well, i have great difficulty classing him among the great intellectuals of our time; considering that thinks a fundamentalist is just somebody that believes in a holy book. (He said this in an interview).

And the New Atheism is being heavily promoted right now.

Yep. But i can’t help thinking that the promotion of poor theories like ID, as representing the be all and end all of intellectual theism, has inadvertently help in their promotion. It seems evident to me that ID supporters have built a rift between science and religion that didn’t have to exist. Now we are paying the price.

Signs on buses: Man Created God. Isn’t it obvious?

Its obvious that atheism takes on new disguises. But it lends atheism as a world view more credibility when Christians get needlessly defensive about scientific theories. Christians falling in to despair; that is what gives strength to atheism.

They are accountable to no one. They are ‘free’ to do their own will. They have been liberated by what others have told them - the scientists. The same scientists who went to the Pope and basically said, “Hey, this whole thing works without God.”

That doesn’t necessarily mean that God is shoved out of the picture. It just means that God isn’t needed in order to explain biological processes.

It’s fashionable now, just like taking a dangerous drug like cocaine was fashionable among the rich and beautiful people in the 1980s.

There has always been evil in the world since the time of Adam & Eve.

So yes, Intelligent Design is a plausible theory.

I agree. But it is not a plausible scientific theory.

The Church recognizes actual design in nature,

So do i. Evolution is sufficient only as an organizing principle. I don’t see how that defeats design. I guess it depends on what kind of design you are talking about.

but some post here using the insistence argument - I insist there is no design in nature. Never mind about SETI or archaeology. Just forget about that. Just listen to the 'I insist" part.

Well, evolution doesn’t necessarily present a problem for Christianity. Thats why the pope supported it and said that it is more then a hypothesis. Am i correct?

 

[tonyrey]

Physical laws are not explanations they are descriptions of regularities. What explains physical laws?

We do not yet have as much evidence for abiogenesis as we would like, but we do have some.

 

[rossum]

Physical laws are not explanations they are descriptions of regularities. What explains physical laws?

Ask a cosmologist. We are discussing evolution and ID here, not cosmology. Please limit your questions to the relevant subjects.

Speculation about abiogenesis is incomparably less significant than the evidence of our direct experience of intelligence in action.

Please indicate what is speculative about the Miller-Urey experiment. Please indicate an equivalent from the ID side to show any aspect of the formation of a living organism by the designer.

Why some?

Because some biologists are theists and some biologists are atheists. Biologists have different views, hence my use of “some”.

Where is the specific evidence?

Please read your question again. You asked what I believed. I stated my beliefs. I have answered your question.

Does that explain the principles of liberty, equality, fraternity?

History - The French Revolution. How is this relevant to ID’s failure as science?

Does it explain the right to life and happiness?

History - The American Revolution. How is this relevant to ID’s failure as science?

The primary scientific evidence for Intelligent Design is our own activity. We know from personal experience and observation that our intelligence creates and designs extremely complex machines. We also know these machines are not produced by random events.

We also know from experience that:

1. *]Complex machines can be produce by evolution.
   *]Complex machines are never produced by non-existent beings.
   
   What evidence can ID produce to show that their proposed designer even exists?
   
   To return to my questions:
   

   Where is the scientific evidence for Intelligent Design?

   Answer: none given. ID fails to provide any evidence where there is evidence for evolution.
   

   How does the designer act?

   Answer: none given. ID fails to provide any evidence where there is evidence for evolution.
   

   When did the designer act?

   Answer: none given. ID fails to provide any evidence where there is evidence for evolution.
   

   Is the designer acting now?

   Answer: none given. ID fails to provide any evidence where there is evidence for evolution.
   

   What experiments can I do to show the designer acting?

   Answer: none given. ID fails to provide any evidence where there is evidence for evolution.
   
   Conclusion: ID is not a plausible scientific theory.
   
   rossum

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Intelligent Design is plausible as a scientific explanation if it is the best explanation for abiogenesis.

Intelligent Design is not now nor will it ever be a plausible scientific theory. In fact, it’s not even a theory, it’s a hypothesis and a thinly veiled attempt to fuse religion with science. It cannot be science because it is irrational, forever untestable, unobservable, and lacks any semblance of empirical evidence. It also lacks any sort of scientific reasoning. The so-called “theory” amounts to little more than this assertion: Life is complex therefore God exists. Do you see the obvious fallacy?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Intelligent Design is not now nor will it ever be a plausible scientific theory. In fact, it’s not even a theory, it’s a hypothesis and a thinly veiled attempt to fuse religion with science.

That said, of course, only because you are an agnostic. Every agnostic I know, like every atheist I know, hates religion, so I don’t think that’s a valid basis for rejecting intelligent design.

Neither did Einstein, who could see at work in the laws of the universe a superior reasoning power vastly greater than yours, or mine … or even his.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum

Please indicate what is speculative about the Miller-Urey experiment.

Here it is, according to Wikipedia

The Miller–Urey experiment[1] (or Urey–Miller experiment)[2] was an experiment that simulated hypothetical conditions thought at the time to be present on the early Earth, and tested for the occurrence of chemical evolution.

Please note the bold words. Speculative!

Then note that the experimental conditions leading to the formation of amino acids were intelligently designed.

Why do you have to go back 56 years to find an experiment?

Case closed!

 

[VanDoodah]

It’s not a theory.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

It’s not a theory.

So what’s an alternative explanation for abiogenesis that is a theory and is testable?

 

[tonyrey]

We are discussing evolution and ID here, not cosmology. Please limit your questions to the relevant subjects

We are discussing abiogenesis which you suppose to be produced solely by physical laws - the existence of which you have not explained…

Please indicate what is speculative about the Miller-Urey experiment.

It has not demonstrated the fortuitous origin of life.

Please indicate an equivalent from the ID side to show any aspect of the formation of a living organism by the designer.

Rationality.

*Is there any indication of a conscience, free will and moral responsibility in chimpanzees?*Yes.

1.Then why are they not regarded as morally responsible?
2. Why don’t they have the same rights as human beings?
3. How can free will exist in a physical system which functions according to the laws of science?
4. How are personality, consciousness and karma produced by random combinations of molecules, random mutations of genes and natural selection?

Morality boils down to “be nice to the people you live with and they will be nice to you back”.
Does that explain the principles of liberty, equality, fraternity? Does it explain the right to life and happiness?
History - The French Revolution.

You keep evading the question. Let me simplify it for you. Do you accept the principles of liberty, equality, fraternity? If so how do you explain them?

Complex machines can be produced by evolution.

Which complex machines?

What evidence can ID produce to show that their proposed designer even exists?

The existence of rational persons.

Where is the scientific evidence for Intelligent Design?

The primary scientific evidence for Intelligent Design is our own activity. We know from personal experience and observation that our intelligence creates and designs extremely complex machines. We also know these machines are not produced by random events.

How does the designer act?

etc…
In all of your questions you are begging the question. You are presupposing “evolution” is “evolution by Chance” in spite of the inability of science to explain or produce rational, purposeful, autonomous, moral beings.

Conclusion: ID is not a plausible scientific theory.

Conclusion: Evolution by Chance is not a scientific theory at all. It is an inadequate metaphysical theory based on materialistic assumptions. (Your immaterial elements seem to play no part whatsoever in human activity…)

 

[rossum]

rossum

Please indicate what is speculative about the Miller-Urey experiment.

Here it is, according to Wikipedia

The Miller–Urey experiment[1] (or Urey–Miller experiment)[2] was an experiment that simulated hypothetical conditions thought at the time to be present on the early Earth, and tested for the occurrence of chemical evolution.

Please note the bold words. Speculative!

The best available scientific information at the time. As we have gained more information about likely conditions on the early earth the Miller-Urey experiment has been repeated by other scientists with different conditions and similar results; read the “Other Experiments” and “Recent related studies” of the Wikipedia article.

Then note that the experimental conditions leading to the formation of amino acids were intelligently designed.

Irrelevant. The experiment models the conditions on the early earth. The model is intelligently designed, the original has not yet been shown to be so. A meteorologist can build a model of a hurricane, does that mean that all hurricanes are intelligently designed? I can build a model of God, does that make God intelligently designed?

Why do you have to go back 56 years to find an experiment?

Please read my post #557 more carefully. I also referred to Powner et al experiment from this year, 2009. I used Miller-Urey as an example because it is a famous early experiment in this area. It shows that scientists have been working on abiogenesis for a long time.

I note your failure to reference any experiments from the ID side to provide supporting evidence for the ID hypothesis.

Case closed!

Indeed. ID is not a plausible scienctific theory.

rossum

 

[rossum]

We are discussing abiogenesis which you suppose to be produced solely by physical laws - the existence of which you have not explained.

We are discussing Intelligent Design, which you propose to have been performed by a designer - the existence of which you have not explained. For cosmology see any good cosmology textbook.

It has not demonstrated the fortuitous origin of life.

I did not claim it had. It demonstrated the origin of some of the chemicals involved in life from non-living sources. It is far from being the full answer, but it is part of the answer. What experiment can you show that shows the designer making even one chemical? ID has nothing while abiogenesis has something.

You keep evading the question.

Bwahahaha! You owe me for one irony meter. I have repeatedly asked you for evidence and experiments from the ID side and you have not provided anything at all. It is not me who avoids answering questions. You have no answers to my questions because ID has no evidence at all. ID is not a plausible scientific theory because it lacks evidence.

Do you accept the principles of liberty, equality, fraternity?

Yes.

If so how do you explain them?

Not through evolution. Evolution explains the origin of species, nothing more.

Which complex machines?

I have already referred you to Lenski’s and Behe’s papers, both of which showed irreducibly complex systems arising through evolution. Why do you bother to ask questions if you do not read the answers I provide?

We also know these machines are not produced by random events.

False. See Lenski and Behe previously in this thread.

You have ignored my questions. At the risk of being boring, here they are again:

Where is the scientific evidence for Intelligent Design?

Answer: none given. ID fails to provide any evidence where there is evidence for evolution.

How does the designer act?

Answer: none given. ID fails to provide any evidence where there is evidence for evolution.

When did the designer act?

Answer: none given. ID fails to provide any evidence where there is evidence for evolution.

Is the designer acting now?

Answer: none given. ID fails to provide any evidence where there is evidence for evolution.

What experiments can I do to show the designer acting?

Answer: none given. ID fails to provide any evidence where there is evidence for evolution.

Conclusion: ID is not a plausible scientific theory.

rossum

 

[MindOverMatter]

Conclusion: ID is not a plausible scientific theory.

rossum

Its plausibility is irrelevant. The fact is, its not a scientific theory by nature of its arguement. Its not even a scientific hypothesis. Even if evolution was proven wrong, and intelligent design was the only logical possibility, intelligent design still wouldn’t be a legitimate scientific theory. If science is to stay a legitimate methodology in respect of studying natural processes, then, when presented with a problem, it must either admit that science is not equipped in respect of answering the question, or they must try and look for a new hypothesis that can legitimately describe the natural processes in question. Science has nothing to say about a “purpose” behind nature or the supernatural, even if its a logical conclusion. Can we please keep it that way?

 

[Michaelo]

The primary scientific evidence for Intelligent Design is our own activity. We know from personal experience and observation that our intelligence creates and designs extremely complex machines. We also know these machines are not produced by random events.

Anthropomorphizing God is an even more speculative method of explaining natural phenomena. What scientifically positive evidence allows you to assume that God employs an equivalent mechanism for generating complexity?

 

[MindOverMatter]

rossum
Then note that the experimental conditions leading to the formation of amino acids were intelligently designed.

You are assuming that those same events could not of ocurred naturally. What arguements do you have to suggest that they couldn’t?

Case closed!

Do you think that if evolution is true that it disproves God as the creator and sustainer of creation?

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

That said, of course, only because you are an agnostic. Every agnostic I know, like every atheist I know, hates religion, so I don’t think that’s a valid basis for rejecting intelligent design.

Thats your rebuttal? Accusing me of hating religion?

Neither did Einstein, who could see at work in the laws of the universe a superior reasoning power vastly greater than yours, or mine … or even his.

He was also a very vocal opponent of organized religion.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Rossum

The Miller-Urey experiment of 56 years ago proved nothing regarding abiogenesis. All it proved was that amino acids could be formed. Amino acids are hugless less complex than a one-celled creature capable of reproduction coming into existence by accident. Also, it was a speculative experiment, based on what were thought to be the conditions prevalent at the dawn of life.

What has the Powner paper proven?

You are still reaching for the stars and coming up with a handful of cloud dust.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

EmperorNapoleon

Thats your rebuttal? Accusing me of hating religion?

It’s obviously the motive of Richard Dawkins, Bertrand Russell and an army of atheists from time immemorial.

*He [Einstein] was also a very vocal opponent of organized religion. *

Yes, but he was a vocal proponent of the thing you seem to despise … intelligent design. So have other scientists like Newton and Darwin.

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

“I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.” from The Autobiography of Charles Darwin.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

MindOverMatter

You are assuming that those same events could not of ocurred naturally. What arguements do you have to suggest that they couldn’t?

What do you mean by naturally? Do you mean by accident and without the intent of some guiding intelligence?

*Do you think that if evolution is true that it disproves God as the creator and sustainer of creation? *

No, but if Dawkins and other shallow thinkers think so, that is a serious problem because these shallow people are struggling for all they are worth to establish atheism as a position confirmed by evolution.

Even if evolution was proven wrong, and intelligent design was the only logical possibility, intelligent design still wouldn’t be a legitimate scientific theory.

That’s what Einstein thought about the Big Bang, even though his own mathematics suggested a Big Bang. He fudged the Math to eliminate creation (just as atheistic biologists are fudging the math to eliminate intelligent design), then called it the biggest blunder of his career. Of course he never knew it was a blunder until his error was confirmed by Hubble’s telescope. When he got to see for himself that the universe was expanding, he had to take a big gulp.

Biologists today have to take a big gulp to when they see the mathematical evidence for the huge unlikelihood of abiogenesis by accident.

See William Dembski’s book, The Design of Life, 2007.