Is intelligent design a plausible theory?

[reggieM]

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.

ID is merely an extension of natural theology of the kind proposed for the past 4,000 years at least. It uses reason and empirical evidence to prove some aspects of the divine intelligence as the organizing, desiging and creative force of the universe.

It offers evidence for a certain part of the problem. Like any other scientific effort, it has to rely on philosophy to provide the structure for the argument and to prove the starting points and interpret the end points.

 

[greylorn]

greylorn

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?

Indeed, I.D. as represented by proponents too weak to acknowledge that it needs an identifiable designer will forever wallow in its current obscure position, as a pseudo-scientific stand-in designed to give a semblance of intellectual credibility to beliefs which are totally religious, and which cannot be related to scientific principles on their own merits. Wishy-washy concepts cannot be verified. The Christian concept of a spirit entity cannot be verified, because it is designed to be unverifiable. No such ideas can be brought into the context of a scientific discussion because they ultimately offer nothing to discuss.

I’m not trying to put down your version of I.D, only to point out its limitations. Are you pretending that they don’t exist? I don;'t get that. I do get that you are trying to justify a weak conceptual position by pointing out another, equally weak,position in the form of Big Bang theory.

In that you are correct. And I declare a pox upon both houses. .

I.D. as incorporated into my theories goes a step beyond current scientific and religious notions, and actually has some predictive value. That is because my version of I.D. defines the potential Creator in terms of logical and physical properties. I.D. is perfectly sensible in that context, and can be defined in reasonably scientific terms. Therefore I decline to revert to the obsolete, “we can’t figure it out— it’s a mystery” program that you seem to have adopted. Beat that drum as long and as loudly as you want, but please do it in your own cell with the door closed, and not after 10 pm.

You are absolutely correct that Big Bang theory cannot be completely explained in scientific terms. That is because the theory is absurd. It is absurd for the exact same reason that your version of I.D. is— Big Bang theory cannot define what went “bang.”

This is so obvious that the clerk at my local convenience store pointed it out when I was in there buying cheap beer to celebrate Father’s Day.

The universe’s expansion-rate observations should have made the flaws in Big Bang belief obvious to cosmologists, but they are every bit as religious about their beliefs as was my dear Catholic mother about hers— rather than admit that the observations disproved Big Bang theory, they invented dark energy so that they could hang onto their cherished belief systems.

I would sure love to have a conversation with someone who knew a bit of physics, had some common sense, and was not devoted to the defense of obsolete beliefs. (Lest you get too ornery at this complaint because it does not include you, take it personally, but remember that I believe in creation, therefore a Creator. Ultimately we are on the same side.)

 

[greylorn]

Post #854 (Does this thread have a life, or what?)
greylorn

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. *

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.

Yeah, I have that “needing to repeat myself” problem too. But I know that it’s because I’m getting old and have a reduced attention span. You’ll need to find your own excuse.

I don’t know the quotes to which you refer, but then, I don’t follow your posts because they don’t have much meat. I only reply to this one because it is directed to me personally, and a non-reply would show disrespect for you. I have read Darwin’s books, and have solved relativistic physics problems. I’ve considered several of Einstein’s philosophical ideas, and noted that physics in general has attributed things to him which he did not do. I’ve also noted that lots of clowns seeking unwarranted credibility quote really bright guys like Einstein, and often twist a quote or invent one from scratch. So I don’t pay a whole lot of attention to quotes or the people who use them.

What I know of the ideas of either man comes not from popularized quotes or documentary channel tripe, but from reading, studying, and analyzing the works which made them famous.

Who I regard as my intellectual superior/inferior is really none of your business, is it? But for the record, there is no way that I could have reproduced Einstein’s ideas. He is one of several geniuses who I have learned to appreciate by studying their thoughts and solving problems those thoughts have opened for resolution. Awesome mind, divergent thinker.

Darwin is another guy entirely. He is what I’d call a classic, hack scientist. Extremely good at gathering data, lots of data, and deriving obvious conclusions from the data. He is a superb presenter of his ideas, and extremely politically sensitive. His book, “On the Origin of Species…” explained virtually all aspects of evolution except the origin of species. It was really about the development of critters within a defined species, and offered nothing but handwaving arguments to explain how one species might morph into another.

The famous “survival of the fittest” condensation of Darwin’s explanation for the driving force behind evolution was a borrowed idea, and a mere tautology at that. Darwin provided no credible explanation for his theories. They were accepted only because, bad as they were and are, they are better than anything that any religious system had or has to offer.

Therefore I do not particularly appreciate Darwin’s alleged genius as others seem to. Could I have done the same thing if born in his day? Probably. I’m not a data-gatherer, but the vast amount of data Darwin used in support of his theory was not necessary. Giordano Bruno was burnt at the stake two and a half centuries earlier for devising evolution theory and other ideas.

Moreover, Darwin’s concept of evolution is wrong. Mine is better— and more in line with classic Catholic beliefs as well. So I do not happen to regard Darwin as a particularly towering genius.

Nor am I. No genius here. The only useful property I can bring to an intellectual table is the ability to note that 2+2 never equals five. I have also learned to recognize when very bright people are making meaningless, nonsensical statements, and which is the “out of the way” direction when felling a tree.

What I find curious is that lots of other people know the same basic stuff that I do, but that they think it no longer applies when discussing arcane metaphysical concepts.

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey;5352354:

So essentially, your argument is that some things are by design and some are not…

False. The vast majority of events are the result of Design and only a **minority **are due to Chance because the latter occur within the framework of Design. Most animals and human beings are normal and healthy whereas only a minority are abnormal and unhealthy. As Leibnitz pointed out there are far more houses than hospitals!
The laws of the universe, the origin of life, the evolution of living organisms, the fundamental harmony and beauty of nature and the existence of rational persons are due to Design not Chance.

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…

The distinction between that which is purposeful, useful, valuable and successful and that which is purposeless, useless, valueless and unsuccessful has nothing to do with religion. Your reference to religion is a red herring to cover your inability to refute my argument.

Not to answer my questions also reveals your inability to refute my argument.

 

[liquidpele]

liquidpele;5352736:

False. The vast majority of events

are the result of Design and only a **minority **are due to Chance because the latter occur within the framework of Design. Most animals and human beings are normal and healthy whereas only a minority are abnormal and unhealthy. As Leibnitz pointed out there are far more houses than hospitals!

The laws of the universe, the origin of life, the evolution of living organisms, the fundamental harmony and beauty of nature and the existence of rational persons are due to Design not Chance.
The distinction between that which is purposeful, useful, valuable and successful and that which is purposeless, useless, valueless and unsuccessful has nothing to do with religion. Your reference to religion is a red herring to cover your inability to refute my argument.

Not to answer my questions also reveals your inability to refute my argument.

Only a small fraction of animals and humans are not healthy???

80000 Americans have sickle cell
23.6 million Americans have diabetes
1 in 5 have IBS
About 50 million have allergies
People receive new whole organs as fast as they can be provided
About 12.5% of babies are born premature

I can go on and on… we are a sickly lot indeed. Just because people aren’t hospitalized doesn’t mean they don’t have problems. If you want to see really bad numbers, look at the cancer rates compared to other things:

cancer.org/docroot/PRO/content/PRO_1_1_Cancer_Statistics_2009_Presentation.asp

My reference to religion is because your argument is based on your religion. It’s glaringly obvious. Be honest with yourself. You actually claimed that there aren’t that many problems with health in the world… how absurd! You claim purpose without defining it because the purpose for you is religious. You also mention “chance” again as if evolution wasn’t directional and was like winning the lottery.

Again, why would a designer create us or these diseases that are so bad? How does it account for that? How does it account for the fact that everything looks like random mutations that propels a species in a direction given it’s environment? Where is the evidence that does not consist of arguing other theories are too improbable?

Lastly, I’d like you quote Carl Sagen, because this story reminds me of your “designer”.

users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm

What questions exactly? The ones that I said were ridiculous? Sorry, I’m tired of answering loaded questions, it’s your turn now.

You claim that there aren’t ills in our society, talking about houses vs hospitals… there are nearly a million staffed beds in 5,7000 hospitals in America (source) and you think we don’t have medical issues? How does a designer account for our ridiculously poor health? Why do six percent of babies have genetic disorders? Is the designer trying to hurt babies? How in the world are you even making the separation between what is “designed” and what is “not” in a scientific manor? Would you like to reference something besides your opinion?

 

[rossum]

rossum

You claim to have refuted the argument of Dembski and Behe that abiogenesis by chance is highly unlikely.

I am not aware that Professor Behe has argued on the probability of abiogenesis, his IC argument was intended to show that certain structures in living organisms were unlikely to have evolved - it was not an argument about abiogenesis.

Dr. Dembski’s CSI can be seen as an attempt to show that abiogenesis is not possible, however that concept has many problems, not least the subjective nature of the ancillary information that Dembski refers to in the definition of CSI and the difficulties, admitted by Dembski, of what he calls “apparent information”. Since he has not yet solved either of these difficulties, arguments from CSI are currently not convincing.

My points were not made against either Behe or Dembski, they were more against those creationists who pull out very large numbers without showing how those numbers were derived - much like you do in your post. Without looking at the derivation of the numbers I cannot tell how worthwhile those numbers are. Are they based on modern science or are they 20 years old, and so based on possibly obsolete science? Do they take chemistry into account? Do they take into account the fact that liposomes can form spontaneously giving abiogenesis a cell membrane for free?

Would you please supply the odds you would agree to that abiogenesis by chance* could have *occured?

I do not yet have enough information to give you an accurate answer. The odds are greater than zero.

How different are those odds from the odds calculated by Dembski?

I have never seen an actual set of odds by Dr Dembski. If you have a reference then I would be interested to see his working.

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.

Since the error on the measured energy of the big bang is much greater that that, I very much doubt that Dr Weinberg said what your creationist quotemine attributed to him. If your reference to Scientific American was for this quote then the number is doubly useless. Cosmology has made a lot of progress since 1979; any calculation made in 1979 will have used obsolete measurements and will not longer be scientifically current.

So that fine tuning of the Big Bang’s energy was the first hurdle life had to overcome.

No hurdle at all. Please read about the anthropic principle. If the universe were not suitable for life, then we would not be here to observe it. We can only be present observing in a universe that can support life.

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.

How is the introduction of yet another life form a rational explanation for the origin of life?
Q: How did the first living thing originate?
A: The living designer made the first living thing.
If the designer is alive, then the explanation for the origin of life must include an explanation for the origin of the designer.

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

You are closer to being an atheist than I am. If you lose one God then you are an atheist. If I lose one god than I still have 99,999 gods left.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey;5353845:

Only a small fraction of animals and humans are not healthy???

Has it occurred to you that our pollution of the planet is related to all these diseases?

What questions exactly? The ones that I said were ridiculous? Sorry, I’m tired of answering loaded questions, it’s your turn now.

An easy way out!

The distinction between that which is purposeful, useful, valuable and successful and that which is purposeless, useless, valueless and unsuccessful has nothing to do with religion. Your reference to religion is a red herring to cover your inability to refute my argument.

And on that note we can terminate.

 

[liquidpele]

liquidpele;5354319:

tonyrey;5353845:

Has it occurred to you that our pollution of the planet is related to all these diseases?
An easy way out!

The distinction between that which is purposeful, useful, valuable and successful and that which is purposeless, useless, valueless and unsuccessful has nothing to do with religion. Your reference to religion is a red herring to cover your inability to refute my argument.

And on that note we can terminate.

Has it occurred to you that most of those disease are not fatal, just really bad to live with? You keep making this distinction between random things and designed things without any evidence of it, and don’t give any references, but still claim to be based in science. Red herring indeed.

I answered pages of your questions, and you terminate the conversation after I ask questions in only 2 posts?

All I’ve heard so far is your opinion on purpose. You even conceded that some changes and development were by random mutation… so if some, why not all? How are you making that distinction in a scientific way?

Here is just a sample of questions I’ve answered for you. Forgive me if I grew tired of repeating myself and asking for *you *to back up *your *theory.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5277292&postcount=660
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5275801&postcount=653
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5279066&postcount=680
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5280298&postcount=693
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5343057&postcount=807
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5331008&postcount=799
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5345436&postcount=821
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5344218&postcount=815
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5348615&postcount=826

So I’ll ask again, for the 3rd time.

1. How does ID account for all the horrid genetic diseases out there, or with genetic physical defects? Your claim that there aren’t that many or that it’s just not the designed parts is not adequate without further explanation of how you know this.
2. How does ID account for all the animal extinctions over the years (99.9% of all species). You never answered this.
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? You casually threw out that only things with purpose are designed… how do you know that? How did you test for it? How do you define purpose?
4. How does ID account for viruses, and other diseases? Are these in the “not designed” bucket, or were you hinting that these keep population levels down or something to that effect?
5. How does ID show that changes are from design and not a natural change as thought by evolution? This is really the big one.
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? You didn’t even touch this one, and it was more of my asking you to properly define the details of your theory.
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? Again, just a “not designed” aspect? Considering it’s a disease in humans, are humans not designed, or did the designer just design us in a poor way so that we could develop such a horrible disease naturally?
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.

In short, the reason I’m not answering your questions is because I’m tried of explaining grade school science, and I want you to defend your theory against questioning instead of me defending current scientific theory as if its failure means the success of ID in some alternate universe of logic.

 

[tonyrey]

1. How does ID account for all the horrid genetic diseases out there, or with genetic physical defects? Your claim that there aren’t that many or that it’s just not the designed parts is not adequate without further explanation of how you know this.

I pointed out that they are due to random mutations, that there is an element of chance within the framework of Design.I know this because it is a scientific fact.

1. How does ID account for all the animal extinctions over the years (99.9% of all species).

I pointed out that life has survived just as it originated against all the odds. That in itself requires explanation. Animal species are not designed to last indefinitely. If they did there would be no room for progressive development. They have to make way for more advanced forms of life.

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?

Animals are not designed individually but prior to the origin of the universe. Design is primarily based on harmony and co-ordination but it does not exclude competition. Life cannot exist without life. It cannot survive on minerals alone. All life is parasitic if parasitism is defined as dependence on other living organisms.
You casually threw out that only things with purpose are designed…
The entire physical universe is designed and serves the purpose of providing a basis for life but it is not purposeful in the same way that a living organism is purposeful because a living organism is goal-seeking .A living organism is not purposeful in the same way that an intelligent being is purposeful because it does not plan like a human being. I know all this because they are scientific facts.

*4. How does ID account for viruses, and other diseases? Are these in the “not designed” bucket, or were you hinting that these keep population levels down or something to that effect?
*
Since the origin of viruses is obscure it is impossible to know to what extent they are due to chance but according to new hypotheses they played a critical role in major evolutionary transitions such as the origin of DNA and DNA replication mechanisms.
If that is so they are necessary for development even though some have harmful consequences.

5. How does ID show that changes are from design and not a natural change as thought by evolution? This is really the big one.
The major changes in the history of the universe are the origin of the universe itself, the origin of life and the origin of intelligent beings, none of which have been explained scineitifcally. By any standards the development of intelligent, purposeful persons from inanimate particles which lack intelligence and purpose is progressive and requires explanation.

6. Does ID follow the “tree of life” or some form of it, or was everything designed as is? I don’t know what you mean by follow the “tree of life” but it makes no difference because I believe the origin and development of life was designed before the universe existed and guided at critical stages like the origin of life and the origin of human beings. Fossil records are evidence of evolution and have no bearing on whether evolution is designed and purposeful or fortuitous and purposeless.

*7. You mentioned purpose a lot, how do you think that is scientific at all?
*Human intelligence and purpose are studied and tested by scientific methods. Tests are often carried out to determine whether events and activities are purposeful or the result of physical processes.

*Can you test for this designer’s purpose? *
I have pointed out that as in medicine the criteria of design are normality, health, functionality, development and success as opposed to abnormality, disease, dysfunction, regression and failure.

If so, what is the purpose of Parkinson’s disease exactly?
Parkinson’s disease is purposeless.

Considering it’s a disease in humans, are humans not designed, or did the designer just design us in a poor way so that we could develop such a horrible disease naturally?
Parkinson’s disease is due to the failure of a brain mechanism and may be hereditary. Design does not imply that every event is directly designed or caused by the Designer.

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 latter, how in the world could you possibly test for that?
The genetic code was designed prior to the origin of the universe. It is an information system which implies an intelligent source. Since there is no evidence that information systems have ever emerged fortuitously Design is the best available explanation…

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.
Events which appear to be random are random unless there is a better explanation.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

greylorn

*Indeed, I.D. as represented by proponents too weak to acknowledge that it needs an identifiable designer will forever wallow in its current obscure position, as a pseudo-scientific stand-in designed to give a semblance of intellectual credibility to beliefs which are totally religious, and which cannot be related to scientific principles on their own merits. *

I see, you think Einstein and Darwin were totally religious? I never heard that one before!

Here are the quotes you pretend not to have seen. They have only been posted about thirty times in this thread, but you and others nicely manage to ignore them or smear them with your crude insults.

“[Reason tells me of the] extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capability of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting, 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.

“My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.” Albert Einstein

Would you like to state for the record that Darwin and Einstein were totally religious?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

greylorn

I’m not trying to put down your version of I.D, only to point out its limitations. Are you pretending that they don’t exist? I don;'t get that. I do get that you are trying to justify a weak conceptual position by pointing out another, equally weak,position in the form of Big Bang theory.

No, you apparently have not been following the thread. I have been comparing ID with abiogenesis by chance. That notion has been discussed at length earlier in the forum. All attempts to prove life can happen by chance have failed, and are also doomed by the fact that such attempt are themselves intelligently designed. So there is no scientific proof that there is any likelihood that abiogenesis arose by chance. If there is, you are obliged to offer it.

So where is your proof? Aren’t you supposed to be all for science, which says that you just don’t allege a thing to be so without proof? Whereas the odds that abiogenesis are so small (tell what you think are the odds … you have to provide odds opposed to the odds presented by Dembski, Weinberg, Hoyle and others, or you have to be quiet about the odds, which so far you have managed to do).

In the absence of absolute proof either way, the odds are that intelligent design of the universe and everything in it makes a whole lot more sense than blind chance. Darwin and Einstein thought so. So did Newton. But about all I hear from you is a hateful diatribe against Darwin. :tsktsk:

 

[Michaelo]

In the absence of absolute proof either way, the odds are that intelligent design of the universe and everything in it makes a whole lot more sense than blind chance.

I’m not going to let you keep getting away with this. What is the probability that intelligent design accounts for the origin of life?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum

I do not yet have enough information to give you an accurate answer. The odds are greater than zero.

That’s all I needed to hear. And exactly who are you to have enough information to give us an accurate answer?

If the designer is alive, then the explanation for the origin of life must include an explanation for the origin of the designer.

Tell me if the following sentence makes sense to you: “If the Big Bang happened, then an explanation for the cause of the Big Bang must be included.”

Since the error on the measured energy of the big bang is much greater that that, I very much doubt that Dr Weinberg said what your creationist quotemine attributed to him. If your reference to Scientific American was for this quote then the number is doubly useless. Cosmology has made a lot of progress since 1979; any calculation made in 1979 will have used obsolete measurements and will not longer be scientifically current.

This point is taken from an October 1994 Scientific American article titled “Life in the Universe.” I am not aware that Weinberg has admitted to any error in this calculation. Are you? In your opinion, is 1994 also a watershed year for inaccurate calculations? Or is it that any year’s calculations, including the present one, would also be inaccurate if they didn’t agree with your prejudice against ID?

 

[liquidpele]

(1-3 removed for char limit)

4
Since the origin of viruses is obscure it is impossible to know to what extent they are due to chance but according to new hypotheses they played a critical role in major evolutionary transitions such as the origin of DNA and DNA replication mechanisms.
If that is so they are necessary for development even though some have harmful consequences.

5
The major changes in the history of the universe are the origin of the universe itself, the origin of life and the origin of intelligent beings, none of which have been explained scineitifcally. By any standards the development of intelligent, purposeful persons from inanimate particles which lack intelligence and purpose is progressive and requires explanation.

6
don’t know what you mean by follow the “tree of life” but it makes no difference because I believe the origin and development of life was designed before the universe existed and guided at critical stages like the origin of life and the origin of human beings. Fossil records are evidence of evolution and have no bearing on whether evolution is designed and purposeful or fortuitous and purposeless.

(7 removed for char limit)

8
The genetic code was designed prior to the origin of the universe. It is an information system which implies an intelligent source. Since there is no evidence that information systems have ever emerged fortuitously Design is the best available explanation…

9
Events which appear to be random are random unless there is a better explanation.

#1 - You say there is an element of chance in the design… so where do you draw that line? What evidence do you have? You admit that chance plays a part, so what makes you think all of it isn’t besides that your religious beliefs tell you that universe was designed and created just for you?

#2 - Some life surviving against the odds doesn’t excuse 99.9% of species going extinct. As you said, animals compete, are parasitic, etc. Given that and cataclysmic events like climate change, extinctions are almost certain. However, given the vast spectrum of life, it’s very probably for at least some life (for instance the 1%) to survive such things, so I’m not sure why you need an explanation for it. You say it needs to work towards more advanced forms of life, I agree with that, but why not just design the life to start off advanced instead of all this messy competition and dying off stuff? How does ID account for the fact that it looks like there is no designer (or a really inefficient one) in this regard?

#3 - Animals are designed prior to the origin of the universe? Smells like religion to me. I can agree with you comment on purpose besides the universe having a purpose. The purpose of “having life” is one you conjour from your religious background. A rock doesn’t have purpose, if we are only physical we then have not set purpose from the universe or it’s creation. Your claim of universal purpose is based only on your religious beliefs.

#4 - You say some viruses are necessary… so why design the ones that are harmful at all? The designer didn’t have the ability to make viruses that were only helpful in evolving things along? This don’t make much logical sense.

#5 - you answer by claiming science hasn’t answered these questions either, which is a none answer. Things do lack explanation, but this hardly means we get to start guessing at it. If you have some evidence of a designer, let me have it. Otherwise, just say “There is none, we don’t know yet” like science does when it doesn’t yet have evidence for something. However, without any evidence to support it’s main attribute, ID is lacking in credibility.

#6 - fair enough, I was curious about your opinion on there is all.

#7 - You claim purpose has been scientifically tested, which I am very curious about because I believe it is subjective to a large degree. Citations please.

The purpose (as defined by medicine) basically just hints that survival is the purpose. Would you agree with that? If so, then why is a designer necessary? You say parkinson’s disease is purposeless… so I assume you think it is a random mutation? Why would a designer design things that can so easily be damaged and mutate? Your action of simply attributing all “bad” things as purposeless seems convenient and part of the human condition to me. Would it not be more reasonable to say that all mutations have a purpose, in that they are a gamble for further evolution of the species?

If every event is not caused by the designer, how are you drawing the line? What evidence do you have beyond your opinion about purpose and non-purpose that is based off of a designed universe?

#8 - if DNA was designed with the origin of the universe, why have it mutate all the time and cause the bonanza of genetic diseases? Do you think all species started off separate then, or was the chain of evolution set in motion at the beginning with the designer knowing what to expect? In that case, how could the designer have accounted for environmental factors such as ice ages that killed off many many species? Can the designer see the future? Can we just use the word God and get over this renaming silliness?

#9 - the “better explanation” is in your head, that is the problem. ID proponents used to question the evolution of the eye, and this was fully explained in the last few decades. Now it’s something else. How many explanations must be found? There are thousands that support random genetic mutation and genetic drift, while none (ZERO) so far that support a designer. Saying it’s not explained yet is NOT support of a designer, it just means we don’t know.

Since you answered my questions, I will answer your older ones in another post.

 

[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.

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 perfection, growth, health, life, design and harmony everywhere around you, I can’t help you.

Evolution - the magic word that explains everything…

All the evidence you select…

There is plenty of evidence of design - which is evidence of a designer.

But according to you they don’t show we’re much different from animals…

Which means Mozart’s achievements are not great?

Speak for yourself. It doesn’t mean much to you!

So murderers are just unconventional!

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…

I don’t know why you’re shocked by unconventional behaviour!

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.

So given enough time anything is possible?

Do molecules have an urge to survive?

That is not clear or scientific. Where is the evidence?

I’m glad you admit you’re just speculating.

That is exactly what Design claims!!!

Blind, slow, disorganized evolution is exactly what we have. Or have you not noticed? We don’t see much evolution today going on very fast, beyond very simple and fast reproducing things like bacteria and fruit flies for this very reason.

Of course I can see the good things, but ignoring both sides makes you irresponsible, and my claim was that you were only considering the good things, saying I am not considering the bad is not a valid response. You have to consider BOTH.

Evolution DOES explain it all… which is why the theory is so strong. Any part that you think it doesn’t explain is from ignorance willing or otherwise. Abiogenesis is the only part that is still shakey, but it does have a bit of evidence to support it so far, although it likely will adjust itself as further evidence comes in.

You say all the evidence I accept… I’m asking you for evidence, so let me have it! Are you holding out some kind of study that proves a creator? Did you find Mozart encoded in our DNA or something? Your opinions about complexity and purpose is not evidence.

You’re right, I don’t think we are much different from animals… in many respects. In others, we are. However, our Mozart is as important to us as a song bird’s song is to it, even if the importance is for different reasons. My point is that we have evolved things differently, but we are not alone in creating complex and (defined by us) beautiful things by a long shot.

Yes, murderers are unconventional to the extreme. While not for a praying mantis, we evolved as a social animal and thus killing each other is not an ideal way to go about living in a social structure.

You asked for a detailed blueprint of another workable world… but I suspect if I gave any you would then request even more detail. My point of no life was that a less violent way exists, period. If you want a less violent way with life, then perhaps you could have a world with no evolving and only a cow and grass. The cow gives of oxygen, the grass CO2, you have equilibrium. Sure, there are other factors, but my point is that the randomness, competition, and violence in the world is not exactly the mark of a designer unless he’s a very poor one or has some reasoning which you can only speculate about which is more of a religious debate than science would you not agree?

Given enough time not anything is possible, but one thing changing a lot sure is… is that not kind of obvious? You have thing A, and over 2 billion years, you can’t see it changing a lot when it’s replicating as fast as it can over and over and mutations are happening here and there, a few helpful, some neutral, and most harmful?

Anything that reproduces will cease to exist if it doesn’t reproduce… including molecules. No citation is needed, I can demonstrate this. Take out 50 pennies and flip them. If you get a heads, add a penny, if you get tails, take away that penny. If you take away all pennies, the game is over. For reproducing things to continue, they must not hit zero… basic logic. How add dimes… in addition to the previous rules, if a penny is heads 5 times in a row, add a dime. If a dime is heads, add a dime and take away a penny. You’ll end up with all dimes… Silly experiment to show the logic behind replicating species replacement, but you should get the idea. Things that reproduce better in any way (including taking better advantage of their environment or competing better) will get preference, and while may not drive the original organism to extinction, will likely replace it as time goes on for one of many factors including inter species mating that still goes on, or environmental changes that it is more adapted to meet.

I was not speculating, I was saying that we should not speculate about things we don’t know or can’t know, or for which there is no evidence for.

Intelligence and life are a function of reality, not he other way around as ID claims. I think reality exists and therefore intelligence and life are possible. ID claims that intelligence created reality (or at least the life). That’s another good questions… if there is a designer, how did the designer get created? Another designer? Are there designers all the way down?

 

[rossum]

rossum:

I do not yet have enough information to give you an accurate answer. The odds are greater than zero.

That’s all I needed to hear. And exactly who are you to have enough information to give us an accurate answer?

I am not sure of that “who” in the middle of you question - it makes the sentence difficult to parse.

Do you have any references to Dr Dembski’s probability calculations?

If the designer is alive, then the explanation for the origin of life must include an explanation for the origin of the designer.

Tell me if the following sentence makes sense to you: “If the Big Bang happened, then an explanation for the cause of the Big Bang must be included.”

You question is not related to my point about the designer. If the designer is alive then the designer cannot make the first living thing, the best it can do is to make the second living thing. If the designer is alive then an explanation for the origin of life is by definition an explanation of the origin of the designer.

As to the causes of the big bang, have a look at The Myth of the Beginning of Time for one hypothesis that scientists are examining. Do you have anything similar for the origin of the designer?

Since the error on the measured energy of the big bang is much greater that that, I very much doubt that Dr Weinberg said what your creationist quotemine attributed to him. If your reference to Scientific American was for this quote then the number is doubly useless. Cosmology has made a lot of progress since 1979; any calculation made in 1979 will have used obsolete measurements and will not longer be scientifically current.

This point is taken from an October 1994 Scientific American article titled “Life in the Universe.” I am not aware that Weinberg has admitted to any error in this calculation. Are you? In your opinion, is 1994 also a watershed year for inaccurate calculations? Or is it that any year’s calculations, including the present one, would also be inaccurate if they didn’t agree with your prejudice against ID?

That article has to be paid for. Do you have a link where it is available for free?

I do not mistrust Dr Weinberg, but I do mistrust creationist quotemines. I would want to see the original article rather than what an internet creationist has said about what is in the original article. Secondary sources can be inaccurate, especially secondary sources with an axe to grind.

rossum

 

[liquidpele]

I’m taking a break from this forum for a while… I find myself wasting far too much time here over issues that I honestly don’t consider very controversial, and my todo list for work and home just keep growing.

Good luck with everyone on their search for truth.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Michaelo

*I’m not going to let you keep getting away with this. What is the probability that intelligent design accounts for the origin of life? *

I ignored your question before because it is not a valid question. It’s like asking what are the odds that the Big Bang was intelligently designed? We are reasoning from effects backward. The odds of a certain number of atoms and molecules coming together by accident to produce an irreducibly complex bacteria can be mathematically calculated. When the calculation yields the almost infinite unlikelihood that such a thing could happen by chance, we look for another explanation. We have that explanation in intelligent design, a fact of life with which we are thoroughly familiar because we use it all the time in our daily lives. It isn’t as if we’re making up some mystical process for which there is no parallel in our own thinking. It isn’t as if Einstein and Darwin fell on their knees to worship this great Designer. They logically saw a problem with the fact that there is so much order in the universe that there needed to be more than the merely speculation that everything in the universe is without design or goal toward which it is directed. For this reason along, they had reason to deny, as they both did, that they were atheists.

As a Catholic, you already believe that God designed the universe, don’t you? So how is it that you find this explanation so obtuse and at odds with Catholic theology, never mind secular science? Do you believe that secular science can arrive at truths that contradict your religion? If so, you’re going to have to explain that, so that we can see why you believe that two equally true statements that you believe in (God’s design and abiognesis by chance) can contradict each other. Why is it that ID is scientifically absurd, yet you can believe it as a doctrine of your faith because it is stated in scriptures that design, not chance, is at the foundation of the universe and everything in it.

You do remember the quote from Isaiah, don’t you?

 

[Michaelo]

When the calculation yields the almost infinite unlikelihood that such a thing could happen by chance, we look for another explanation. We have that explanation in intelligent design

Simple logic prevents you from automatically reverting to ID once the improbability of abiogenesis has been demonstrated. That is why I ask for positive evidence–the probability of ID being responsible.

As a Catholic, you already believe that God designed the universe, don’t you? So how is it that you find this explanation so obtuse and at odds with Catholic theology, never mind secular science?

I think we’ve already gone through this. I believe God designed the universe via processes like evolution, which is essentially what theistic evolution posits.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

This is from an article printed in 2005 which references Weinberg, but I can’t access Weinberg’s article in Scientific American by internet. Any good library should have it.

*Journal of the Mississippi Academy of Sciences *

*There has been considerable debate lately in the physics community over an idea called the “anthropic cosmological principle” (Barrow and Tipler, 1986; Barrow, 2002; Susskind, 2003). According to this idea, the universe is made just right for life to occur. As one author puts it, “The universe must be suitable for life, otherwise we would not be here to wonder about it” (Overbye, 2003). There are numerous features and mathematical constants in the equations of physics and cosmology which do not seem predictable by any known theory, and which seem to be miraculously tuned to allow life. Any slight deviation from these settings would be disastrous, causing things like stars to collapse and atoms to evaporate. One of the most striking examples of the anthropic principle is the cosmological constant, a number that measures the amount of cosmic repulsion caused by the energy in empty space (Carroll and Press 1992). As predicted by quantum theory, empty space should be brimming with this energy. In fact, recent discoveries have shown that cosmic repulsion is indeed present and seems to be helping in the expansion of the universe. However, the observed cosmological constant (lambda) is perhaps as much as 1,000 times lower than its estimated value (Weinberg, 1989; Carroll and Press, 1992). So why is the cosmological constant what it is? Why is it different from that expected based upon mathematical formulas? It is at this point that people invoke the anthropic principle.

The anthropic principle is often used as a religious argument for special creation with reasoning like this, “The reason our universe is so peculiar and well-fitted to life is because the Creator wanted (willed) it to be that way for the formation of life.” Dr. Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate from the University of Texas, puts it like this. “A person is dealt a royal flush in a poker tournament. It may be chance, but on the other hand, the organizer of the tournament may be our friend” (Overbye, 2003; Susskind, 2003). *

Clearly Newton, Darwin, and Einstein chose the latter alternative.

Atheists will always choose the former.

Like liquidpele, I am played out in this forum and have nothing more to say (even though I said that before quite a few pages ago!)

Pax vobis cum.