Is intelligent design a plausible theory?

[liquidpele]

liquidpele

I disagree that art is based on mathematics… more like colour ratios…

What is a ratio? You mean like 2 to 1?

Did you know that most art is arranged in a triangle of focus?

Did you know that many artists long ago did not paint fingers on their subjects because they had not mastered the mathematics of proportion?

Hmmm, good points about proportion and angles. Any change between two things is a ratio, while you can describe it using math I wouldn’t say it was based off it.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

liquidpele

*Their personal beliefs don’t hold any weight beyond bandwagon effects. *

Why are you distinguishing their personal beliefs from their science. It’s clear from the quotes that their science gave rise not to a personal opinion, but to a *plausible opinion *based on their science.

Look at the topic of this thread.

 

[liquidpele]

liquidpele

*Their personal beliefs don’t hold any weight beyond bandwagon effects. *

Why are you distinguishing their personal beliefs from their science. It’s clear from the quotes that their science gave rise not to a personal opinion, but to a *plausible opinion *based on their science.

Look at the topic of this thread.

I just realized that arguing with you reminds me of arguing with an AIM bot… are you really a robot?

 

[tonyrey]

Similarly molecular systems are not purposeful but a living cell is a molecular system but it is purposeful.

What a terrible sentence! I should have written “Similarly molecular systems are not usually purposeful but a living cell is a purposeful, molecular system”.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

liquidpele

*I just realized that arguing with you reminds me of arguing with an AIM bot… are you really a robot? *

Ah, more ad hominem? You and greylorn need to be disciplined. :knight2: :knight1:

 

[tonyrey]

Intelligent design is more powerful than natural selection in many ways… but only because it is organized. We make dog breeds and crops this way, but because we have a goal. Intelligent design by humans means we can force changes more quickly, and in a direction, but that’s all.

That’s all! That’s quite enough to justify belief in Design. Evolution by natural selection is blind, slow, disorganized and without any direction or goal.

Given all the practically useless, competing, dangerous things in the world, it hardly is evident that there was a designer.
So you expect a physical world to be useful in every respect and without any competition or danger? It sounds like a description of hell on earth!

If you can’t see the imperfection, decay, disease, death, randomness, and conflict everywhere around you, I can’t help you.
If you can’t see the perfection, growth, health, life, design and harmony everywhere around you, I can’t help you.

Life being rich and tenacious requires explanation? Well… evolution
Evolution - the magic word that explains everything…

That is the theory that all current evidence supports.
All the evidence you select…

Since there is no evidence of a designer, it appears to be through natural selection and mutation (among other environmental factors).
There is plenty of evidence of design - which is evidence of a designer.

The achievements you mentioned are great indeed…
But according to you they don’t show we’re much different from animals…

Mozart doesn’t mean much to a squirrel.
Which means Mozart’s achievements are not great?

A bird building a nest doesn’t mean much to us…
Speak for yourself. It doesn’t mean much to you!

Yes, I think “right to live” is a human convention.
So murderers are just unconventional!

Killing doesn’t mean there is no “right to life” it just means that most things doesn’t pay attention to it, so it follows that it’s probably not an inherit thing within animals or people, but a social one.
Who said it’s inherited? The right to life stems from the immense value of life, regardless of whether it’s inherited, recognized or respected. But for a materialist it’s just an inconvenient convention…

Hitler is a great example of rejecting the right to life. so is every murder on the news. You just brought him up for shock value, which is why I asked you not to.
I don’t know why you’re shocked by unconventional behaviour!

*Having no viruses would be better and more efficient. How about no bad bacteria? How about animals that don’t kill their own species (including us). How about no genetic defects like mental retardation or Krohn’s disease, or IBS, or autism, or severe food allergies that can kill you, or sexual dysfunction requiring medical help to reproduce…
*
I’m not asking you for a list but a rather more difficult proposition: a detailed blueprint of a feasible world where there is life, development, richness, variety, sensitivity and enjoyment without conflict, disease, disabilities, deformities, destruction, disasters and death.

*Going from molecule to cell took millions (if not billions) of years. I’m not sure people properly understand how big of a number that is.
*So given enough time anything is possible?

As for purpose, the purpose was survival.
Do molecules have an urge to survive?

Reproducing things nature is to reproduce… if they can change to keep allowing that, they are surviving.
That is not clear or scientific. Where is the evidence?

• I think any purpose for us here either we need to define for ourselves, or there is no evidence for it and thus we shouldn’t be guessing at it.*
  I’m glad you admit you’re just speculating.

*I think both intelligence and life are a function of reality… *
That is exactly what Design claims!!!

 

[rossum]

Would you agree that in nature there is far more evidence of success than failure? That most animals are not deformed, diseased, crippled or incapacitated?

I would argue that most organisms are failures, because they fail to reproduce. Consider how many acorns an oak tree will prodiuce in its lifetime, yet on average only one of those acorns will grow to replace the original tree - all of the other living acorns fail. A fish can lay hundreds or thousands of eggs at a time, yet on average only two eggs will grow to maturity. A bird may lay three or four eggs a year, and again only two eggs over her whole lifetime will succeed in becoming adult and reproducing. There are vastly more failures than successes.

Medical science distinguishes objectively and reliably between health and disease. Deformities, crippling defects, monstrosities and harmful mutations are clearly due to chance rather than Design.

Or they are evidence of a failed or incompetent design which allowed for such failures. Human designs can include features like fail-safe; is such a provision beyond your proposed designer? I still make the point that diseases such as malaria are designed according to the DI.

How would you prove Richard Dawkins’s version of NeoDarwinism is false?

By using non-scientific sources of knowledge.

You have explained neither intelligence nor purpose scientifically.

Nor have you explained either using design.

You have agreed there is evidence of design in the universe. You have agreed design presupposes a designer.

Correct.

You recognize that science cannot explain the whole of reality. Otherwise you would not be a Buddhist. Yet Buddhism does not explain purpose or Design whereas a Designer does.

Buddhism does not see the universe as designed - you are taking concepts from the Abrahamic religions and trying to apply them to Buddhism. That is a misapplication of those concepts. Buddhism accepts that the universe exists, it says nothing about the origin of the universe because that is not important. See the Cula-Malunkyovada sutta.

I have pointed out that Design cannot explain the Designer

So you are in the same position as science, you are unable to explain everything.

The mirror test does not show animals have the power of abstract reasoning,

No, but is does show that a) they have a sense of self and b) they have more of a sense of self than a 12 month old human baby. It shows that the difference between animals and humans is not as unbridgeable as some would have it. There is in fact an overlap; some animals are more self-aware than some humans.

There are many examples in a fascinating book well worth browsing

The Golden Ratio is not an absolute. You have no proof that an intelligent being from another planet would find that particular ratio pleasing. It is common among humans, but humans are not the only living beings and are not the only intellegent beings. Do angels have the same ratio or a different ratio? Unless you have evidence then you cannot claim that the Golden Ratio is absolute. The only evidence we have is for humans.

This is basic Buddhism; anything which changes cannot be eternal. Everything changes.
Does the fact that everything changes change?

Yes. There are times in the cycle of the universe when nothing exists. At that point there is nothing to change, so it cannot be said that everything changes because there is nothing to change.

Do you deny that Buddhism is a set of techniques to attain a goal is an eternal truth.

Yes. Buddhism will go extinct in time, so it will no longer exist. It will later be restored by a future Buddha, who will appear after the current iteration of Buddhism has disappeared. During the times Buddhism does not exist it is not describable as “a set of techniques …”. That statement is not absolute because it is dependent on time.

That Buddhists are allowed to try new techniques and to discard old ones as required is an eternal truth?

No, because there are times when there are no Buddhists. The statement is not absolute because it depends on time.

There is scientific evidence for intelligent selection by human beings who are **scientifically **explained as molecular systems.

Agreed.

Molecular systems are not capable of intelligent selection.

Why not? A computer AI or genetic algorithm is a molecular system and is capable of making intelligent selections. There is evidence to refute your proposal here. In scientific terms your proposal also fails because as you point out, humans can design and in scientific terms humans are a molecular system. Again you are outside the domain of science. Again ID fails as science.

Therefore it is necessary to explain how human beings have acquired the power of intelligent selection.

Not inside science it is not. Science accepts that molecular systems can exhibit intelligence and design, with humans as an obvious example.

Similarly molecular systems are not purposeful but a living cell is a molecular system but it is purposeful. Therefore it is necessary to explain why it is purposeful.

Again your argument fails within science. Scientifically, living cells are molecular systems and exhibit purpose.

rossum

 

[liquidpele]

That’s all! That’s quite enough to justify belief in Design. Evolution by natural selection is blind, slow, disorganized and without any direction or goal.

Given all the practically useless, competing, dangerous things in the world, it hardly is evident that there was a designer.
So you expect a physical world to be useful in every respect and without any competition or danger? It sounds like a description of hell on earth!

If you can’t see the imperfection, decay, disease, death, randomness, and conflict everywhere around you, I can’t help you.
If you can’t see the perfection, growth, health, life, design and harmony everywhere around you, I can’t help you.

Life being rich and tenacious requires explanation? Well… evolution
Evolution - the magic word that explains everything…

That is the theory that all current evidence supports.
All the evidence you select…

Since there is no evidence of a designer, it appears to be through natural selection and mutation (among other environmental factors).
There is plenty of evidence of design - which is evidence of a designer.

The achievements you mentioned are great indeed…
But according to you they don’t show we’re much different from animals…

Mozart doesn’t mean much to a squirrel.
Which means Mozart’s achievements are not great?

A bird building a nest doesn’t mean much to us…
Speak for yourself. It doesn’t mean much to you!

Yes, I think “right to live” is a human convention.
So murderers are just unconventional!

Killing doesn’t mean there is no “right to life” it just means that most things doesn’t pay attention to it, so it follows that it’s probably not an inherit thing within animals or people, but a social one.
Who said it’s inherited? The right to life stems from the immense value of life, regardless of whether it’s inherited, recognized or respected. But for a materialist it’s just an inconvenient convention…

Hitler is a great example of rejecting the right to life. so is every murder on the news. You just brought him up for shock value, which is why I asked you not to.
I don’t know why you’re shocked by unconventional behaviour!

*Having no viruses would be better and more efficient. How about no bad bacteria? How about animals that don’t kill their own species (including us). How about no genetic defects like mental retardation or Krohn’s disease, or IBS, or autism, or severe food allergies that can kill you, or sexual dysfunction requiring medical help to reproduce…
*
I’m not asking you for a list but a rather more difficult proposition: a detailed blueprint of a feasible world where there is life, development, richness, variety, sensitivity and enjoyment without conflict, disease, disabilities, deformities, destruction, disasters and death.

*Going from molecule to cell took millions (if not billions) of years. I’m not sure people properly understand how big of a number that is.
*So given enough time anything is possible?

As for purpose, the purpose was survival.
Do molecules have an urge to survive?

Reproducing things nature is to reproduce… if they can change to keep allowing that, they are surviving.
That is not clear or scientific. Where is the evidence?

• I think any purpose for us here either we need to define for ourselves, or there is no evidence for it and thus we shouldn’t be guessing at it.*
  I’m glad you admit you’re just speculating.

*I think both intelligence and life are a function of reality… *
That is exactly what Design claims!!!

Oh this is just getting ridiculous… half your answers are strawmen, and the other half are sarcastic jabs at evolution without anything to back them up or requests for ridiculous proofs when the burden is on ID to prove itself, not for others to disprove it. Do you actually support ID, or do you just like to argue devils advocate?

 

[tonyrey]

Oh this is just getting ridiculous… half your answers are strawmen, and the other half are sarcastic jabs at evolution without anything to back them up or requests for ridiculous proofs when the burden is on ID to prove itself, not for others to disprove it. Do you actually support ID, or do you just like to argue devils advocate?

I leave others to decide whether your response is adequate…

 

[liquidpele]

I leave others to decide whether your response is adequate…

How about this. Instead of me answering all your questions, you can answer some of mine.

1. How does ID account for all the horrid genetic diseases out there, or with genetic physical defects?
2. How does ID account for all the animal extinctions over the years (99.9% of all species).
3. How does ID account for animals that serve no purpose but for their own survival? Why design them at all? For instance, parasitic wasps?
4. How does ID account for viruses, and other diseases?
5. How does ID show that changes are from design and not a natural change as thought by evolution?
6. Does ID follow the “tree of life” or some form of it, or was everything designed as is? If the later, how does it account for fossil records?
7. You mentioned purpose a lot, how do you think that is scientific at all? Can you test for this designer’s purpose? If so, what is the purpose of parkinson’s disease exactly?
8. If evolution is designed, then is it designed within our genes, or is there an invisible hand making the gene transitions happen as it goes? If the former, why don’t we see that in the DNA, if the later, how in the world could you possibly test for that?
9. How does ID account for the gene duplication and mutations seen in the lab, that appear to be random, and all other evidence for regular evolution? A new theory must include all current evidence, it can’t ignore it in favour of other evidence.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

liquidpele

*Oh this is just getting ridiculous… half your answers are strawmen, and the other half are sarcastic jabs at evolution without anything to back them up or requests for ridiculous proofs when the burden is on ID to prove itself, not for others to disprove it. Do you actually support ID, or do you just like to argue devils advocate? *

This is not an adequate reply. Nor is your next post, a diatribe of questions!

When you say Intelligent Design has to prove itself, what on earth are you talking about? Don’t you intelligently design your sentences to convey certain meanings? We know intelligent design exists among ourselves. It’s existence among ourselves does not have to be proven. The only question that remains is why anyone would think the entire course of evolution was not intelligently designed to produce a creature capable of intelligent design.

And we know the answer to that, don’t we?

Atheism deliberately blinds its eyes to any clue that there is an intelligence superior to the atheist’s.

Moreover, when you demand proof, you have to be willing to offer it as well. How did abiogensis occur? By evolution? Obviously not. Then how? By chance? Prove it. It has never been proven, nor are scientists even approaching anything called proof. You have to supply some proof too, or the more plausible explanation musty be adopted, as Einstein and Darwin adopted it, but as no atheist can possibly bring himself to adopt it.

 

[liquidpele]

liquidpele

*Oh this is just getting ridiculous… half your answers are strawmen, and the other half are sarcastic jabs at evolution without anything to back them up or requests for ridiculous proofs when the burden is on ID to prove itself, not for others to disprove it. Do you actually support ID, or do you just like to argue devils advocate? *

This is not an adequate reply. Nor is your next post, a diatribe of questions!

When you say Intelligent Design has to prove itself, what on earth are you talking about? Don’t you intelligently design your sentences to convey certain meanings? We know intelligent design exists among ourselves. It’s existence among ourselves does not have to be proven. The only question that remains is why anyone would think the entire course of evolution was not intelligently designed to produce a creature capable of intelligent design.

And we know the answer to that, don’t we?

Atheism deliberately blinds its eyes to any clue that there is an intelligence superior to the atheist’s.

Moreover, when you demand proof, you have to be willing to offer it as well. How did abiogensis occur? By evolution? Obviously not. Then how? By chance? Prove it. It has never been proven, nor are scientists even approaching anything called proof. You have to supply some proof too, or the more plausible explanation musty be adopted, as Einstein and Darwin adopted it, but as no atheist can possibly bring himself to adopt it.

So… is that a concession that you’re unwilling to answer those questions or that you don’t have any proof for ID?

I’ve given lots of evidence already, I don’t feel like reposting it for the 4th time in this thread. Go back and look if you like. Waiting until we’re pages past and then claiming I haven’t given any is childish. Not to mention, that for about the 10th time, I will tell you that attacking abiogenesis does not enhance ID, so I’m not sure why you’re wanting me to back up my theory as if it being wrong means ID is right. Back you YOUR theory if you want to support it.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

*I’ve given lots of evidence already, I don’t feel like reposting it for the 4th time in this thread. Go back and look if you like. Waiting until we’re pages past and then claiming I haven’t given any is childish. Not to mention, that for about the 10th time, I will tell you that attacking abiogenesis does not enhance ID, so I’m not sure why you’re wanting me to back up my theory as if it being wrong means ID is right. Back you YOUR theory if you want to support it. *

I did, umpteen pages ago, early in the trhead. I too am tireds of repeating the same evidence. Go back and look it up for yourself. I’m too tired to look up yours, and I expect you feel the same. But I really don’t remeber you offering any proof of abiogenesis by chance. How could you? There is no such proof. And that’s not irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[tonyrey]

1. How does ID account for all the horrid genetic diseases out there, or with genetic physical defects?
2. How does ID account for all the animal extinctions over the years (99.9% of all species).
3. How does ID account for animals that serve no purpose but for their own survival? Why design them at all? For instance, parasitic wasps?
4. How does ID account for viruses, and other diseases?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum

You claim to have refuted the argument of Dembski and Behe that abiogenesis by chance is highly unlikely. Would you please supply the odds you would agree to that abiogenesis by chance* could have *occured? I mean, you don’t think it just happened without any odds against it, do you? So what are the odds that you would consider acceptable? Have you calculated them? Please state the odds others have calculated if you haven’t calculated them yourself. How different are those odds from the odds calculated by Dembski? Do those odds now argue probability or do they still present improbability on a very large scale?

The atheist physicist and Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg has calculated that if the energy of the Big Bang were different by 10 to the 120th power, one part out of 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000, there would be no life anywhere in the universe. So that fine tuning of the Big Bang’s energy was the first hurdle life had to overcome. Now we have another hurdle to overcome with the chances of abiogenesis on planet Earth. If that event is also highly improbable, it begins to look like we have to find a more reasonable explanation … namely that some superior reasoning power, the power acknowledge by Darwin and Einstein, is plotting the evolution of the universe in favor of life.

Unless you are an atheist and must shriek at the very thought. :bigyikes:

P.S. From Scientific American, 1979.

*Harold Morowicz, in his book *Energy Flow and Biology computed that merely to create a bacterium would require more time than the universe might ever see if chance combinations of its molecules were the only driving force.

 

[liquidpele]

liquidpele;5351550:

Design does not imply that every event is planned. I have pointed out at least once that Design does not exclude an element of chance

. **Random **mutations and coincidences occur within an immensely complex system and inevitably produce harmful results. No one has ever presented a blueprint of a universe without physical evil.
I have pointed out the **directiveness **of living organisms, the progressive nature of evolution and the superior power of intelligent selection.
The universe was designed as an environment for life and evolution before the universe existed. It is not an ad hoc process.
Intelligent design by human beings occurs constantly and is a scientific fact.
As in medicine Design is tested by investigating whether there is health or disease, sanity or insanity, development or stagnation, co-ordination or lack of co-ordination, fulfilment or frustration, success or failure…
Parkinson’s disease is not designed and it is purposeless.
The genetic code was designed before the universe existed.
Events that appear random are random if there is sufficient evidence that they are random.

Please answer my questions because they deal with the crux of the matter.

So essentially, your argument is that some things are by design and some are not… and things that are bad and don’t have purpose are from random mutation, but the good things are from design, and we can tell this because it is assumed a designer would only make good things or something to that effect. … and people have the audacity to say that ID is not based on religion…

 

[greylorn]

rossum

You claim to have refuted the argument of Dembski and Behe that abiogenesis by chance is highly unlikely. Would you please supply the odds you would agree to that abiogenesis by chance* could have *occured? I mean, you don’t think it just happened without any odds against it, do you? So what are the odds that you would consider acceptable? Have you calculated them? Please state the odds others have calculated if you haven’t calculated them yourself. How different are those odds from the odds calculated by Dembski? Do those odds now argue probability or do they still present improbability on a very large scale?

The atheist physicist and Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg has calculated that if the energy of the Big Bang were different by 10 to the 120th power, one part out of 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000, there would be no life anywhere in the universe. So that fine tuning of the Big Bang’s energy was the first hurdle life had to overcome. Now we have another hurdle to overcome with the chances of abiogenesis on planet Earth. If that event is also highly improbable, it begins to look like we have to find a more reasonable explanation … namely that some superior reasoning power, the power acknowledge by Darwin and Einstein, is plotting the evolution of the universe in favor of life.

Unless you are an atheist and must shriek at the very thought. :bigyikes:

P.S. From Scientific American, 1979.

*Harold Morowicz, in his book *Energy Flow and Biology **computed that merely to create a bacterium would require more time than the universe might ever see if chance combinations of its molecules were the only driving force.

Since we have no idea how much energy is contained in the universe (and had less of a clue about that back in 1979) we have no idea how much energy might have been contained in a big bang, if there actually was such an event.

To propose by mathematical argument or mere handwaving that we know enough about the workings of the universe to support a declaration such as Weinberg’s is absurd. I’m glad he won a Nobel prize. So did Jimmy Carter. Big deal.

You do the I.D. movement no good by quoting specious arguments in its favor. You need to get that the entire I.D. movement is meaningless and irrelevant until it defines exactly what or who it imagines is the “intelligent designer,” and proposes a suitable set of motivations for the process.

Until you do that, your arguments are to no point. You might as well be passing gas in a hurricane and expecting to shift the wind.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

greylorn and rossum

*Since we have no idea how much energy is contained in the universe (and had less of a clue about that back in 1979) we have no idea how much energy might have been contained in a big bang, if there actually was such an event. *

I see your credentials in science are impressive, even better than a Nobel prize winning physicist (atheist to boot) to raise a doubt about whether there was a Big Bang. So now you can explain away what the entire scientific world acknowledges? You begin to sound like an evangelical creationist … tossing aside any scientific knowledge you don’t like if it doesn’t conform to your prejudice … in this case atheism.

By the way, are you going to answer the question I raised below in my last post?

You claim to have refuted the argument of Dembski and Behe that abiogenesis by chance is highly unlikely. Would you please supply the odds you would agree to that abiogenesis by chance could have occured? I mean, you don’t think it just happened without any odds against it, do you? So what are the odds that you would consider acceptable? Have you calculated them? Please state the odds others have calculated if you haven’t calculated them yourself. How different are those odds from the odds calculated by Dembski? Do those odds now argue probability or do they still present improbability on a very large scale?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

greylorn

*You need to get that the entire I.D. movement is meaningless and irrelevant until it defines exactly what or who it imagines is the “intelligent designer,” and proposes a suitable set of motivations for the process. *

You also need to get that ID is not, and cannot ever be, a completely rationally explained concept in scientific terms. The Big Bang also cannot ever be completely and rationally explained in scientific terms, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. We reason backward from the Big Bang’s effects to the realization that it happened. We do the same with ID. Why is that such a conundrum for you?

This is a point I have made about a dozen times in this thread, but it never seems to cease needing repetition, along with those wonderful quotes from Darwin and Einstein, whom you also seem to regard as your intellectual inferior.

 

[Michaelo]

You claim to have refuted the argument of Dembski and Behe that abiogenesis by chance is highly unlikely. Would you please supply the odds you would agree to that abiogenesis by chance could have occured? I mean, you don’t think it just happened without any odds against it, do you? So what are the odds that you would consider acceptable? Have you calculated them? Please state the odds others have calculated if you haven’t calculated them yourself. How different are those odds from the odds calculated by Dembski? Do those odds now argue probability or do they still present improbability on a very large scale?

In a thread on ID’s merits, why aren’t you the one answering similar probability questions about ID?