Is intelligent design a plausible theory?

[liquidpele]

Oh, my!!!

Here is the first line of text at that website:

A fundamental but elusive step in the early evolution of life on Earth has been replicated in a laboratory.

In other words, what they have succeeded in doing is replicate **by intelligent design **(isn’t that what you’d call an experiment) what they think might have been a fundamental step in the early evolution of life?

Isn’t this really more of a proof for intelligent design?

I’ll offer you some imagery. I have my hand put against my forehead, sitting back in my seat, shaking my head in amazement from your perfect example of confirmation bias.

We didn’t “design” anything. We put stuff together and it happened to make RNA pieces. Consider this… could we have “designed” DNA the same way? No. There are physical limitations to what can be created in such a manor.

Even if you wanted to call it “designed”, we were replicating what could potentially happen in nature by itself without any help. Think of it like us creating ice, or anything else that can naturally occur. We hardly “designed” ice.

 

[PaulAndrew83]

What is funny is that this article in wired magazine makes no mention of structure/chirality which are very significant things when one is talking about the building blocks of life.

The other thing is RNA, DNA and so on exists in out bodies so one would rightly be surprised if we couldn’t find a way to synthesize them.

Paul

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Even if you wanted to call it “designed”, we were replicating what could potentially happen in nature by itself without any help.

No, the scientists were deliberately and intelligently designing a situation to achieve a certain result. *Nor could they even know for sure *whether the situation they designed was the same situation in which abiogenesis occurred. After all, they were not present at the event, were they?

It’s all speculation! No proof whatever! :banghead:

Likewise, at the time of the Big Bang was anyone present to observe the event that laid down the laws of the universe that would eventually produce stars and planets and life? Was that also done, as you would say, “by nature without any help”?

Seems to me you are arguing a whole lot of unintended consequences here.

As one goes up the ladder of complexity it becomes more and more unlikely that life was produced by accident. What I find most convincing of all is that the first life form must have been formed to reproduce itself on top of sustaining its own existence. It would be one very improbable thing to argue that life might accidentally form; it’s quite another thing vastly more improbable to argue that this same life form accidentally formed to reproduce itself.

Don’t these accidents make you begin to wonder at some point that intelligent design might be plausible after all?

 

[liquidpele]

Even if you wanted to call it “designed”, we were replicating what could potentially happen in nature by itself without any help.

No, the scientists were deliberately and intelligently designing a situation to achieve a certain result. *Nor could they even know for sure *whether the situation they designed was the same situation in which abiogenesis occurred. After all, they were not present at the event, were they?

It’s all speculation! No proof whatever! :banghead:

Likewise, at the time of the Big Bang was anyone present to observe the event that laid down the laws of the universe that would eventually produce stars and planets and life? Was that also done, as you would say, “by nature without any help”?

Seems to me you are arguing a whole lot of unintended consequences here.

As one goes up the ladder of complexity it becomes more and more unlikely that life was produced by accident. What I find most convincing of all is that the first life form must have been formed to reproduce itself on top of sustaining its own existence. It would be one very improbable thing to argue that life might accidentally form; it’s quite another thing vastly more improbable to argue that this same life form accidentally formed to reproduce itself.

Don’t these accidents make you begin to wonder at some point that intelligent design might be plausible after all?

Ha! Love the banging head on a brick wall… it reflects my sentiments exactly

The Big Bang is not something scientists just came up with over some beers one day. There was evidence that was gathered, and this theory seemed to fit the bill according to the evidence. That, of course, does not mean it’s correct, just that we were pushed towards that theory because of evidence. Same with abiogenesis, there is some evidence pointing towards that theory.

With ID, there is no evidence besides one’s opinion that things are too complicated to form complex life. Moreover, it actually contradicts some evidence that exists that says the exact opposite, including the link I sent you and most of what we know about evolution.

In answer to your question about whether ID is possible… of course it is. Anything is possible. However, the evidence does not support it, and the theory is entirely unscientific. I think it would not be nearly as dramatic a theory if it wasn’t being presented as science when it clearly is not.

 

[liquidpele]

What is funny is that this article in wired magazine makes no mention of structure/chirality which are very significant things when one is talking about the building blocks of life.

The other thing is RNA, DNA and so on exists in out bodies so one would rightly be surprised if we couldn’t find a way to synthesize them.

Paul

Indeed, the article didn’t go into specifics because they did not make life, or even full RNA. It was simply an example of some evidence that supports that theory of abiogenesis, it did not prove it. My point was just that there is some evidence that supports that it could be possible, not that abiogenesis was proven or even that I believe it was responsible for creating life.

 

[Dave59]

Dave,
That was a rather interesting link! Welcome to Catholic Answers!
Charlie

Thanks, Charlie.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

*The Big Bang is not something scientists just came up with over some beers one day. There was evidence that was gathered, and this theory seemed to fit the bill according to the evidence. That, of course, does not mean it’s correct, just that we were pushed towards that theory because of evidence. *

The Big Bang initially was opposed by almost all scientists, including Einstein. Originally proposed by a Catholic priest/mathematician, Georges LeMaitre, it took several decades for the theory to gradually take hold as evidence mounted. Finally it became, more or less, establishment science. I think the same thing is happening with Intelligent Design. The evidence is not conclusive at present, though there are strong signs pointing in that direction. I predict Intelligent Design will eventually be just as conventional science as the Big Bang, and just as mysterious!

Atheists, of course, will continue to look for an out (just as they fought the Big Bang), but they won’t find it because the mathematics is really too strongly against the chance gathering of molecules that first produced life.

I won’t be able to post again until Friday morning. See you then.

 

[liquidpele]

*The Big Bang is not something scientists just came up with over some beers one day. There was evidence that was gathered, and this theory seemed to fit the bill according to the evidence. That, of course, does not mean it’s correct, just that we were pushed towards that theory because of evidence. *

The Big Bang initially was opposed by almost all scientists, including Einstein. Originally proposed by a Catholic priest/mathematician, Georges LeMaitre, it took several decades for the theory to gradually take hold as evidence mounted. Finally it became, more or less, establishment science. I think the same thing is happening with Intelligent Design. The evidence is not conclusive at present, though there are strong signs pointing in that direction. I predict Intelligent Design will eventually be just as conventional science as the Big Bang, and just as mysterious!

Atheists, of course, will continue to look for an out (just as they fought the Big Bang), but they won’t find it because the mathematics is really too strongly against the chance gathering of molecules that first produced life.

I won’t be able to post again until Friday morning. See you then.

Indeed, theories change as evidence or contradictions are found. If evidence is found for ID, I would be extremely surprised though, since by it’s very definition it seems as though it’s completely unprovable. While the BB might be wrong, we can find and see things about the universe that either support or contradict it. You can’t do that with ID because it’s premise is something that is not science, is not based on scientific method, is not testable, etc etc.

Atheists are not looking for an out, we are calling it like we see it, as are a lot of theists. You do realize that a lot of Christians don’t consider ID to be science too right? This country is overwhelmingly Christian, do you really think the small percentage of atheists could really stop a movement if that many people really believed it? ID is not science, it’s just an idea, and while interesting, it does not constitute anything beyond a friendly theoretical discussion.

Have a good night and Thursday

 

[PaulAndrew83]

Indeed, the article didn’t go into specifics because they did not make life, or even full RNA. It was simply an example of some evidence that supports that theory of abiogenesis, it did not prove it. My point was just that there is some evidence that supports that it could be possible, not that abiogenesis was proven or even that I believe it was responsible for creating life.

Yes but molecules that support life all have to same the same chirality depending on what type of molecules they are. There is no mention of the chirality of those molecules in that article.

Paul

 

[liquidpele]

Yes but molecules that support life all have to same the same chirality depending on what type of molecules they are. There is no mention of the chirality of those molecules in that article.

Paul

Heh, I had to google that…

The ability of a chemical substance to exist in two mirror-image forms, each of which
rotates polarized light in opposite directions.

Found a great resource about it too…
rsc.org/Shop/books/2008/9780854041565.asp

And this has some citations, including that some bacteria use a different chirality:
talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB040.html

Not sure about the molecules they created though, the wired article was short on specifics… but my point was not that we created life or that we even created a full biological molecule… it was just that it was some evidence that pointed in the direction that abiogenesis might be correct. Later studies might show that it would have been impossible, you never know.

 

[antunesaa]

Indeed, theories change as evidence or contradictions are found. If evidence is found for ID, I would be extremely surprised though, since by it’s very definition it seems as though it’s completely unprovable. While the BB might be wrong, we can find and see things about the universe that either support or contradict it. You can’t do that with ID because it’s premise is something that is not science, is not based on scientific method, is not testable, etc etc.

Atheists are not looking for an out, we are calling it like we see it, as are a lot of theists. You do realize that a lot of Christians don’t consider ID to be science too right? This country is overwhelmingly Christian, do you really think the small percentage of atheists could really stop a movement if that many people really believed it? ID is not science, it’s just an idea, and while interesting, it does not constitute anything beyond a friendly theoretical discussion.

Have a good night and Thursday

Yeah, I’m a catholic and I dislike ID. But Charlemagne’s example of the Big Bang theory (against the so-called steady state theory) should remind us that, unlike most people think and we would like to admit, scientists are extremely conservative and dogmatic as far as their profession is concerned. And this is of course a reasonable thing because only really strong new theories replace the established ones. Sometimes, however, we make colossal mistakes due to our vanity and stubbornness. There’s a famous example of a British archeologist of the early 20th century who refused to recognize the validity of competing theories. But because we was very influential, no one dared to confront him until he died and his theories were rapidly replaced.

 

[liquidpele]

Yeah, I’m a catholic and I dislike ID. But Charlemagne’s example of the Big Bang theory (against the so-called steady state theory) should remind us that, unlike most people think and we would like to admit, scientists are extremely conservative and dogmatic as far as their profession is concerned. And this is of course a reasonable thing because only really strong new theories replace the established ones. Sometimes, however, we make colossal mistakes due to our vanity and stubbornness. There’s a famous example of a British archeologist of the early 20th century who refused to recognize the validity of competing theories. But because we was very influential, no one dared to confront him until he died and his theories were rapidly replaced.

Of course, everyone can be biased without even really realizing it, and scientists are only human. However, saying “scientists are extremely conservative and dogmatic” is too wide a generalization. It would be like me saying Catholics believe in a 6000 year old Earth. Neither is true as stated even if there are some cases of it. The one thing I really love about science is that evidence should trump all else, your opinion on how it “should” be doesn’t matter in the least. I’m glad you dislike ID though… it really is a solution looking for a problem as I’ve never seen any science that directly contradicts non-literal interpretations of the bible or even many of the miracles in it. Surely if there is a God, he would know how to create a universe where things can evolve and become complex on their own… I find it ironic that ID basically claims that God couldn’t make a universe without him having to constantly keep it working.

 

[rossum]

I find it ironic that ID basically claims that God couldn’t make a universe without him having to constantly keep it working.

Agreed. I sometimes use the analogy of two pool players. The first player takes her shot. The cue ball goes exactly where she wants it to and her shot gives her exactly the result she intended at the beginning when she was setting up her shot. The second player takes his shot, but needs to nudge the cue ball occasionally to make the shot come out the way he wanted it to.

Which player is the better pool player? Which player more closely resembles the God of ID?

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_II]

liquidpele

*While the BB might be wrong, we can find and see things about the universe that either support or contradict it. You can’t do that with ID because it’s premise is something that is not science, is not based on scientific method, is not testable, etc etc. *

Well, I guess I’ll just have to repeat your own argument back to you. There is no scientific way to create life by accident in the laboratory. Right? If you did it in the laboratory, you would be doing it by intelligent design. So how have you proven abiogenesis by accident? There no where even the start of such proof. Put your articles aside. They prove nothing but that when circumstances were intelligently designed … something happened.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum

*Agreed. I sometimes use the analogy of two pool players. The first player takes her shot. The cue ball goes exactly where she wants it to and her shot gives her exactly the result she intended at the beginning when she was setting up her shot. The second player takes his shot, but needs to nudge the cue ball occasionally to make the shot come out the way he wanted it to.

Which player is the better pool player? Which player more closely resembles the God of ID?*

All analogies fail if you are not allowed into the mind of God, whereas *you are allowed into the mind of man.*What you take for nudging may be just the cue ball going exactly where God wants it to go. Indeed, the Catholic Church has not opposed the idea that God might be nudging his creation through evolution. You seem to be arguing that God should have been able to create the universe in one fell swoop to prove himself divine. That might be the Creationist’s view. Are you actually arguing that if there is a God, He should have done the whole job in one shot?

Then again, since God does not exist in time, for God it might have been a one-shot creation, and only seems to us like endless nudging because the universe is 13 billion years old.

 

[liquidpele]

liquidpele
Well, I guess I’ll just have to repeat your own argument back to you. There is no scientific way to create life by accident in the laboratory. Right? If you did it in the laboratory, you would be doing it by intelligent design. So how have you proven abiogenesis by accident? There no where even the start of such proof. Put your articles aside. They prove nothing but that when circumstances were intelligently designed … something happened.

Welcome back.

So because I haven’t had a child yet, there is no way for me to have a child? If I have a boy, that means that girls couldn’t possibly exist? That reasoning is ridiculous. Furthermore, I never said it would prove abiogenesis, I said that the study (or even if we totally reproduced it) would support the theory. By the way, I’d love to see some evidence that everything is designed, since you are so willing to poke at my evidence but not provide any of your own. Saying that abiogenesis can’t be proven is hardly supportive of a deity as religion sees it.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

liquidpele

*Saying that abiogenesis can’t be proven is hardly supportive of a deity as religion sees it. *

I didn’t say it was. I said it points to, or makes plausible, the idea of intelligent design. The leap from intelligent design to God is a metaphysical leap. But the leap from abiogenesis to intelligent design is not, since we can see intelligent design all around us and play with it ourselves all the time.

As when scientists intelligently design an experiment to prove abiogenesis…

 

[liquidpele]

liquidpele

*Saying that abiogenesis can’t be proven is hardly supportive of a deity as religion sees it. *

I didn’t say it was. I said it points to, or makes plausible, the idea of intelligent design. The leap from intelligent design to God is a metaphysical leap. But the leap from abiogenesis to intelligent design is not, since we can see intelligent design all around us and play with it ourselves all the time.

As when scientists intelligently design an experiment to prove abiogenesis…

Again, they didn’t prove it. There is a difference between evidence and proof.

Also, you seem to be under the impression that us creating something is somehow proof that other things are created intelligently as well. There is no causation there, it is just your assumption. Just because we can create fire doesn’t mean that it’s designed everywhere. Take into account cancer, pathogens, parasites, etc, and this “designer” appears to have gone quite mad.

Lastly, as I stated before, the idea of ID seems to reject a God that is able to create a universe that can evolve through normal physical principals as opposed to him babysitting the thing. This is a very ironic view of God, and don’t try to say that some “designer” is not really God - everyone knows ID is religiously oriented, claiming is is not will not be taken seriously.

 

[MindOverMatter]

ID claims that irrational, purposeless processes cannot produce rational, purposeful activity. It is the only adequate explanation. If you disagree explain why.

I was not aware that this is what evolution was proposing. If this is in fact true, then i think that Evolution is a false theory and i must reject it; since ideas such as " divine purpose", for or against, are purely metaphysical and religious concepts. Divine purpose is not a scientific concept.

However, i absolutely do not believe that this is what evolution actually proposes, regardless of what popular scientists might want to tell the media. In fact, metaphysically speaking, i believe that a desired purpose can be achieved through a system that incorporates chance or random events with natural selection, so long as you have predetermined irreducibly complex information at the root of an evolutionary system.

Of coarse, if evolution is true, one has to look for a different kind of design arguement that doesn’t rely purely upon biological processes for its information, since evolution would explain those processes. But Evolutionists cannot say that there is no purpose at the root of nature, and this is simply because a system can only produce the fruits of its ingredients; and if thats the case, what created the ingredients? Merely pointing out that the qualities we recognize as life arises through a medium of natural processes, is not enough to disprove design.

In any case, that there is a purpose at the root of physical reality, cannot be defined by a scientific theory, since science is the study of natural processes. Therefore any arguments for or against can only be philosophical in nature. It is true that, only if one ignores everything else and focuses purely on evolution and biological processes, one can entertain the possibility that the appearance of purpose in nature is all just an illusion; but the fact still remains that the eye still appears to function for the sake of sight and the heart still appears to pump blood for the sake of life regardless of the processes involved in their actuality.

In order for evolution to be an alternative explanation for the appearance of purpose, it would not only have to explain how biological beings became actualized, it would also have to explain how physical reality became actualized, which is logically impossible since you cannot apply chance to the root of physical reality in terms of actuality. Chance can only function once nature exists.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

liquidpele

*Lastly, as I stated before, **the idea of ID seems to reject a God that is able to create a universe that can evolve through normal physical principals as opposed to him babysitting the thing. **This is a very ironic view of God, and don’t try to say that some “designer” is not really God - everyone knows ID is religiously oriented, claiming is is not will not be taken seriously. *

I don’t follow your reasoning. Why can’t the normal physical laws be subject to nudging, or “babysitting” as you call it? We Christians always believe that God is not always in complete control of us by granting us free will. He nudges us to do good, even when we stumble and do bad. I don’t think of God as babysitting, so much as driving evolution. He makes a turn here, a turn there, sometimes a u-turn, sometimes a complete halt, sometimes racing us toward oblivion as the galaxies move farther and farther away from each other until some day, if we were still here, we would see nothing but black sky.

This is a very ironic view of God, and don’t try to say that some “designer” is not really God - everyone knows ID is religiously oriented,

Well, it might be for those inclined, just as the “blind watchmaker” notion nudges some people toward atheism. That’s neither here nor there. The question is: Does something look like it is designed or not? If it looks designed, why not just accept it as such because it is the most logical explanation, rather than a Big Bang by accident and evolution by accident and man by accident, and space exploration by accident, etc. etc.? At some point you have to explain why it is that we are running out of accidents and things are starting to look purposeful.