Is intelligent design a plausible theory?

[MindOverMatter]

Ipso facto, only I, Greylorn, have anything even close to resembling relevance to argue about. :bowdown:

jd

:bowdown::hypno:

 

[tonyrey]

The proposition of I.D. is irrelevant until the Designer is identified.

It is unnecessary to specify the nature of Designer at the outset in order to establish whether or not there is Design. There could be evidence of design by intelligent beings in the universe without any information about them. And to specify the nature of the Designer at this stage would complicate still further a discussion which is already straying in various directions. It is relevant and necessary but the focus now should be on the merits of Design as opposed to non-Design. Suffice it to say it is more economical to identify the Designer with the Creator rather than postulate more than one entity (the Designer and pre-existing matter).

Non-Design, i.e. "I don’t know ", is not a working explanation. It is an admission of ignorance, whereas Design is a working explanation which accounts for the evolution of rational, purposeful beings. The false dichotomy is not between Design and non-Design but between Design and Evolution. In fact Evolution by Design is a simpler, more intelligible, more adequate, more probable and more fertile explanation than an unDesigned universe.

 

[tonyrey]

No, I am going for the more parsimonious of the possibilities: Occam’s Razor. Evolution alone just requires evolution. Evolution with design requires both evolution and a designer. In the absence of direct evidence for the designer I will use the less complex of the two explanations.

Evolution alone does not just require evolution. “Evolution” is a description that amounts to saying persons have developed from impersonal forces. Economy is less important than adequacy. Evolution from inanimate objects is a hopelessly inadequate explanation of rational, autonomous beings.

You are assuming that Design may be the wrong answer but in your daily life you proceed on the assumption that purpose is not an illusion. What incorrect information is there in the Design explanation that could lead you to make mistakes?

That is not a falsification of intelligent design. As Dembski has pointed out, an intelligent designer can mimic either regularity or chance so merely by showing that something could be due to regularity or chance does not imply that it is not due to design. What you need to do is to describe something that could not have been designer rather than something that might not have been designed. A Jackson Pollock painting contains a large element of chance, yet it is designed.

This is a desperate manoeuvre! Belief in Design does not exclude the element of chance. It entails an element of chance! A Jackson Pollock painting contains a large element of chance but it exists within the framework of design. Your argument amounts to the belief that design exists within the framework of Chance. This gives rise to the insuperable difficulty of how Chance can produce design, i.e. how purposeless activity can produce purposeful activity.

What you need to do is to describe something that could not have been designed rather than something that might not have been designed.

Your argument amounts to an impossible requirement because you presuppose there could be an intelligence that conceals design. It merely highlights the superior power of intelligence…

So what experiments can we perform to show the designer acting now? I can perform experiments to show evolution acting now. Where are the equivalent ID experiments? If you want ID to be a plausible scientific theory then you will need to be able to provide us with the same sort of experimental evidence that we have for evolution.

Try making all your decisions by throwing a dice. Then tell us whether your results are more successful than using your intelligence.

Can you show us an experiment that demonstrates the origin of life as the result of random combinations of molecules?

That is abiogenesis, not evolution.It forms part of your non-Design explanation.

Currently abiogenesis is not a full theory but a large number of competing hypotheses.

Which fail to support the non-Design hypothesis and increase the improbability that such complexity originated fortuitously.

I can show you experiments that demonstrate evolution in the lab such as the Luria-Delbrück experiment.

What exactly do these experiments demonstrate? The emergence of intelligence?

[/QUOTE]

 

[MindOverMatter]

that the advent of human beings implies divine intervention. Otherwise the soul, intellect, emotions and free will would be produced by physical processes!

Nope. That the human body arises through a process is not evidence that the intellect, emotions, and freewill, are wholly caused by a physical process. At best, science describes how various qualities emerge according to natural processes. If you are an agnostic concerning belief in God, you will probably entertain the possibility that the “personal self” is nothing more then an arrangement of atoms. However, not only is this view philosophically implausible as to be ridiculous, I think that scientists are coming to terms with the reality that the mind body problem is a philosophical problem that cannot be solved by scientific measurement. Those that try to involve science usually ignore the existence or the relevance of the “subjective self” and even freewill and thus forever have an incomplete unprovable hypothesis.

It would weaken the argument though leaving only physical energy to be explained. Atheists argue that there is an unknown physical explanation or that physical energy is eternal.

Firstly; you can certainly ignore and avoid the question of existence by positing an infinite regress of something, but It would not sufficiently explain the reality of change or the origin of all the many qualities that continue to this day to express themselves through physical laws and principles; which are absolutely needed before there can ever be an infinite universe. Like i said before, where did all these meaningful ingredients come from. It isn’t an accident that there are such things as people.

Some where along the line, physics has to come to a “brute fact”. But a brute fact is only valid if no better explanation is available or possible. Secondly, there is a difference between a “Scientific brute” fact and “metaphysical brute” fact. A scientific brute fact is not necessarily claiming that no other explanation is better or possible, but rather that natural science has reached the limit of its explanatory power. Thus if any more knowledge is to be obtained, it would have to be reached through some other method.

Chance can be used to describe a purposeless, uncaused event, such as the spontaneous appearance of an atomic particle.

Purposeless? That is a false arguement.To say that something has no cause in respect of “classical physics” is not the same thing as saying that some event has no purpose.
Randomness does not equal Purposelessness.

Why not the entire universe?

The very question is meaningless. Nothingness is a negation of being, not a being itself.
Out of nothing comes nothing. It is never reasonable to believe that something can begin to exist with out a preexisting environment. There are different kinds of causality, indeterminate and determinate. However physical events take place in existence and are therefore caused ultimately by the nature that is existence, regardless of the laws that govern its behavior.

I find the idea absurd

Then don’t believe it.

but at least one scientist has claimed to explain it mathematically.

Its probably based a false representation of “nothing”. Numbers deal with beings, not nothing. How does one “demonstrate” logically or mathematically how something arises from a state of negation with out assuming or applying a causal mechanism?

Being a scientist obviously doesn’t ensure rational dialog.

(I thought his name is Peter Evans but I must be mistaken.)

His name doesn’t sound like it belongs to nobel prize winner.

 

[Dameedna]

Is the OP honestly interested in the rebuttals to the arguments provided by behe and the like?

These rebuttals have been given many times by reputable scientists.

I’m curious, if this is just an attempt to find out if athiests on “this” forum have read the arguments, or if the OP hasn’t actually found out any sources that can challenge and refute behe?

If that’s the case, I can provide some for the OP.

Cheers

 

[liquidpele]

Nope. That the human body arises through a process is not evidence that the intellect, emotions, and freewill, are wholly caused by a physical process. At best, science describes how various qualities emerge according to natural processes. If you are an agnostic concerning belief in God, you will probably entertain the possibility that the “personal self” is nothing more then an arrangement of atoms. However, not only is this view philosophically implausible as to be ridiculous, I think that scientists are coming to terms with the reality that the mind body problem is a philosophical problem that cannot be solved by scientific measurement. Those that try to involve science usually ignore the existence or the relevance of the “subjective self” and even freewill and thus forever have an incomplete unprovable hypothesis.

Firstly; you can certainly ignore and avoid the question of existence by positing an infinite regress of something, but It would not sufficiently explain the reality of change or the origin of all the many qualities that continue to this day to express themselves through physical laws and principles; which are absolutely needed before there can ever be an infinite universe. Like i said before, where did all these meaningful ingredients come from. It isn’t an accident that there are such things as people.

Some where along the line, physics has to come to a “brute fact”. But a brute fact is only valid if no better explanation is available or possible. Secondly, there is a difference between a “Scientific brute” fact and “metaphysical brute” fact. A scientific brute fact is not necessarily claiming that no other explanation is better or possible, but rather that natural science has reached the limit of its explanatory power. Thus if any more knowledge is to be obtained, it would have to be reached through some other method.

Purposeless? That is a false arguement.To say that something has no cause in respect of “classical physics” is not the same thing as saying that some event has no purpose.
Randomness does not equal Purposelessness.

The very question is meaningless. Nothingness is a negation of being, not a being itself.
Out of nothing comes nothing. It is never reasonable to believe that something can begin to exist with out a preexisting environment. There are different kinds of causality, indeterminate and determinate. However physical events take place in existence and are therefore caused ultimately by the nature that is existence, regardless of the laws that govern its behavior.

Its probably based a false representation of “nothing”. Numbers deal with beings, not nothing. How does one “demonstrate” logically or mathematically how something arises from a state of negation with out assuming or applying a causal mechanism?

Being a scientist obviously doesn’t ensure rational dialog.

His name doesn’t sound like it belongs to nobel prize winner.

First of all, our minds ARE physical… would you care to cite sources where scientists say otherwise? Watch this wonderful presentation by a neurologist that shows examples of how physical our minds really are:

ted.com/index.php/talks/vilayanur_ramachandran_on_your_mind.html

Calling it ridiculous without sources is ironic.

The “source” of everything is a good question, but not one that we have enough information to answer, and deciding that it’s “designed” without evidence is silly. I’ve never heard any scientist anywhere try to explain anything before the big bang, because there is literally zero evidence regarding it… don’t try to then claim things that you have no proof for.

You also think that some other method to obtain knowledge is necessary besides physical sciences… so I’ll just come out and ask… what do you recommend? Just making stuff up and claiming you are smart? Without evidence, any method is as ridiculous as a child’s dream.

You claim that “It is never reasonable to believe that something can begin to exist with out a preexisting environment” and yet you neglect that in a pre-cosmos the same rules we live with today do not apply (time itself might not have even existed), so making such an assumption is completely ludicrous. Any claim about before creation at this point besides “I don’t know” is arrogance in thinking you somehow can know something that no one CAN know.

The comment “His name doesn’t sound like it belongs to nobel prize winner.” shows that you have little regard for things that actually matter. Perhaps I should focus on the number of vowels in your screen name as a reference to your intelligence? Lets keep the conversation civil and without nonsense please.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Lets keep the conversation civil and without nonsense please.

You make more baseless assertions in this post then i care to challenge; and you back up none of them. So please just chill.

You think its reasonable to say that the mind is purely physical; fine, good luck with that.

 

[liquidpele]

You make more baseless assertions in this post then i care to challenge; and you back up none of them. So please just chill.

You think its reasonable to say that the mind is purely physical; fine, good luck with that.

Did you even watch the video? Anyway, pot, kettle, etc.

As for my assertions… I don’t know where to start… I mean, I thought most of what I said was common knowledge… like that time depends on matter for it’s existance as was stated by the theory of relativity:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity

You also didn’t answer my question about how to gain knowledge without the physical sciences… have you come up with a way?

The last thing was I said you can’t know about what the rules were before the big bang… so if it’s baseless please state those rules and how you know them.

Thanks. I raise you one smilie.

 

[reggieM]

Can you provide examples of these “artifacts”?

Yes, I can easily provide examples. I’m very surprised that you’re either are not able to or you don’t know any.
Computers, software, automobiles, hieroglyphics, architecture, robotic arms, sub-micron lithography, photosynthetic hydrogen created after designs modelled in natural systems …

 

[rossum]

Evolution alone does not just require evolution. “Evolution” is a description that amounts to saying persons have developed from impersonal forces.

No. The theory of evolution tells us about mechanisms, such as founder effect, neutral drift, natural selection etc. Those mechanisms give rise to material bodies. Evolution says nothing about souls or other theological objects.

Evolution from inanimate objects is a hopelessly inadequate explanation of rational, autonomous beings.

So you assert, but I have yet to see sufficient evidence that your assertion is correct. This whole thread is discussing the adequacy of ID as a theory and so far the ID side has not been able to come up with much more that “It sure looks designed to me”. That is completely inadequate from a scientific point of view.

Belief in Design does not exclude the element of chance.

I am glad that we can agree. Design can include elements of both chance and regularity, as Dembski says.

Your argument amounts to an impossible requirement because you presuppose there could be an intelligence that conceals design.

Unfortunately for ID, falsifiability is one of the requirements for a scientific theory - there must be a way to show that the theory is incorrect. Darwin knew this and provided means of falsifying his theory from the start:If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.

• both from Chapter Six of Origins.
  All that I am asking for is a similar means of falsifiability from the ID side. If you want to be a science then you have to play by the rules of science: “If it could be proved that … it would annihilate ID theory, for such could not have been produced through design.” All you have to do is to fill in the gap.

What exactly do these experiments demonstrate? The emergence of intelligence?

They demonstrate evolution happening now. Where are the experiments that demonstrate ID happening now? Again I reiterate, if you want ID to be thought of as science then you have to actually do science. I can show evolution in the laboratory; all I am asking you to do it to provide similar evidence for ID.

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum

So what experiments can we perform to show the designer acting now? I can perform experiments to show evolution acting now. Where are the equivalent ID experiments? If you want ID to be a plausible scientific theory then you will need to be able to provide us with the same sort of experimental evidence that we have for evolution.

No you can’t. Every experiment is intelligently designed. To be true to your position, you would have to notice evolution that was not intelligently designed in an experiment.

To prove there was a Big Bang, do I have to perform an experiment, or can I reason backward from the effect of the universe expanding to a primordial event?

 

[liquidpele]

rossum

So what experiments can we perform to show the designer acting now? I can perform experiments to show evolution acting now. Where are the equivalent ID experiments? If you want ID to be a plausible scientific theory then you will need to be able to provide us with the same sort of experimental evidence that we have for evolution.

No you can’t. Every experiment is intelligently designed. To be true to your position, you would have to notice evolution that was not intelligently designed in an experiment.

To prove there was a Big Bang, do I have to perform an experiment, or can I reason backward from the effect of the universe expanding to a primordial event?

The experiment does not define reality. I can make an experiment that happens to show that the sky is green, but it would be incorrect. Experiments are incorrect all the time. This is why we have peer review and reproducible experiments.

Consider a snowflake. It lands on my nose… did something design things so it would land there? Could random breezes simply have made that one land there, not for any reason but just because that’s what happened? What about my choices, are they designed? If you say that evolution is a product of design, but that you can’t detect the design, then you essentially open up everything to be designed, which pretty much takes away free will and any point to existence.

And this isn’t even taking into account that you are avoiding the fact that no evidence exists for ID by claiming that simply testing is the evidence itself.

Another question is what about all the bad things? Cancer, aids, parkinsons, parasites, natural disasters, etc etc. What in the world would be the point to designing all these horrible things that can even change and evolve (ie swine flu)? Using DDT and other various chemicals here in America were used but were a bad idea in hindsight, you think we “designed” the bad effects from it?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

I think this thread has pretty well played itself out with seemingly endless repetitions of the same arguments.

In short, as Nobel prize winner and professor of molecular genetics Werner Arber has pointed out, life started with one cell containing several hundred different specific biological macro-molecules. There is no way to explain how such a complex structure came together all at once by accident. Ergo, one looks to some kind of design for such complexity, for such an extraordinary leap from inanimate to animate matter with a capacity for both metabolism and reproduction.

Atheists want to believe this happened by accident and without purpose. They posit that, against all odds, it happened that way. Their theory is hardly plausible, yet they persist in the intelligent design of experiments to show that what happened was by accident, not by intelligent design.

Far more plausible is it to believe that the complexity of the first living creature was the result of some complex intelligent design. The universe at its creation was immediately friendly to the prospect of life by the creation of key elements for life: hydrogen, helium, carbon, etc. Was the creation of these elements, and the intelligible laws of nature that we are able to intelligently recognize, more likely an accident or an intended consequence?

Go figure.

 

[rossum]

No you can’t.

Yes I can. The experiments show bacteria, viruses, fruit flies or whatever evolving. What experiments can show ID happening now in the lab? If you want ID in science class, what are the pupils going to do for their ID lab work?

Every experiment is intelligently designed. To be true to your position, you would have to notice evolution that was not intelligently designed in an experiment.

All scientific experiments are intelligently designed. Geologists intelligently design experiments to look at rocks. Are rocks intelligently designed? Your point here is purely rhetorical and without any scientific substance.

To prove there was a Big Bang, do I have to perform an experiment, or can I reason backward from the effect of the universe expanding to a primordial event?

To show the Big Bang we observe the isotropic microwave background radiation. We observe the redshift of distant objects and so forth. Where are the observations of the designer?

rossum

 

[liquidpele]

I think this thread has pretty well played itself out with seemingly endless repetitions of the same arguments.

In short, as Nobel prize winner and professor of molecular genetics Werner Arber has pointed out, life started with one cell containing several hundred different specific biological macro-molecules. There is no way to explain how such a complex structure came together all at once by accident. Ergo, one looks to some kind of design for such complexity, for such an extraordinary leap from inanimate to animate matter with a capacity for both metabolism and reproduction.

Atheists want to believe this happened by accident and without purpose. They posit that, against all odds, it happened that way. Their theory is hardly plausible, yet they persist in the intelligent design of experiments to show that what happened was by accident, not by intelligent design.

Far more plausible is it to believe that the complexity of the first living creature was the result of some complex intelligent design. The universe at its creation was immediately friendly to the prospect of life by the creation of key elements for life: hydrogen, helium, carbon, etc. Was the creation of these elements, and the intelligible laws of nature that we are able to intelligently recognize, more likely an accident or an intended consequence?

Go figure.

There you go attacking abiogenesis AGAIN… I’ve already said 3 times that it’s just an option, and that attacking it serves no purpose for ID, since discrediting something does not lend credit to other theories.

As for “Atheists want to believe this happened by accident and without purpose”, I think we define our own purpose and that most things happen not by accident but because those are the changes that are most fit to survive… is that so hard to understand?

Regarding the nobel prize winner… the latest research shows that is NOT the case…

Quote is from here (which has citations): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organism

The “last universal ancestor” (LUA), or “last universal common ancestor” (LUCA), is the name given to the hypothetical single cellular organism or single cell that gave rise to all life on Earth 3.5 to 3.8 billion years ago[6]; however, this hypothesis has since been refuted on many grounds. For example, it was once thought that the genetic code was universal (see: universal genetic code), but many variations have been discovered[7] including various alternative mitochondrial codes.[8] Back in the early 1970s, evolutionary biologists thought that a given piece of DNA specified the same protein subunit in every living thing, and that the genetic code was thus universal. This was interpreted as evidence that every organism had inherited its genetic code from a single common ancestor, aka, an LUCA. In 1979, however, exceptions to the code were found in mitochondria, the tiny energy factories inside cells. Researchers studying human mitochondrial genes discovered that they used an alternative code, and many slight variants have been discovered since,[9] including various alternative mitochondrial codes,[10] as well as small variants such as Mycoplasma translating the codon UGA as tryptophan. Biologists subsequently found exceptions in bacteria and in the nuclei of algae and single-celled animals. For example, certain proteins may use alternative initiation (start) codons not normally used by that species.[11] In certain proteins, non-standard amino acids are substituted for standard stop codons, depending upon associated signal sequences in the messenger RNA: UGA can code for selenocysteine and UAG can code for pyrrolysine. Selenocysteine is now viewed as the 21st amino acid, and pyrrolysine is viewed as the 22nd. A detailed description of variations in the genetic code can be found at the NCBI web site.

It is now clear that the genetic code is not the same in all living things and this provides credence that all living things did not evolve on a firmly-rooted tree of life from a single LUCA. Further support that there is no LUCA has been provided over the years by horizontal/lateral gene transfer in both prokaryote and eukaryote single cell organisms. This is why phylogenetic trees cannot be rooted; why almost all phylogenetic trees have different branching structures, particularly near the base of the tree; and why many organisms have been found with codons and sections of their DNA sequence that are sometimes unrelated to other species.[12]

Information about the early development of life includes (name removed by moderator)ut from many different fields, including geology and planetary science. These sciences provide information about the history of the Earth and the changes produced by life. However, a great deal of information about the early Earth has been destroyed by geological processes over the course of time.

I’m not sure what else to say besides that unless you can come up with a way to actually test for ID, as you would with any science, it is then not science regardless of what you would like it to be. Call it an interesting idea, call it what you believe, but science it is not.

 

[Michaelo]

Computers, software, automobiles, hieroglyphics, architecture, robotic arms, sub-micron lithography, photosynthetic hydrogen created after designs modelled in natural systems …

Please identify these natural systems and explain why they demonstrate ID.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

*I’m not sure what else to say besides that unless you can come up with a way to actually test for ID, as you would with any science, it is then not science regardless of what you would like it to be. Call it an interesting idea, call it what you believe, but science it is not. *

This is certainly more true of accidental abiogensis than of anything else. ID has the advantage of being the only other alternative, and the most reasonable one based on what we know about the HUGE improbability of life arising spontaneously.

Scientists who discount ID tend to be more often biologists than from any other field, such as physics or astronomy or mathematics. The biologists see the small picture of abiogenesis and evolution only. They do not see that life is only part of a larger picture starting with the Big Bang, which brought into being the elements that would later produce life. Life was built into the blueprint of the universal program right from the start of the universe.

Biologists do not see this if they are atheistic, as Dawkins and many others are, because intelligent design is verboten to them. Perhaps for the same reason Einstein initially fudged his mathematics to rule out the discovery of the Big Bang. We know Einstein early in his career believed in an infinite and eternal universe. That he cheated himself out of discovering the Big Bang (calling it the biggest blunder of his career) is consistent with that prejudice against Genesis. It took a mathematician/priest like LeMaitre to correct Einstein’s blunder because LeMaitre was not threatened by Genesis.

Dawkins and other biologists are in approximately the same bind Einstein was in by blinding themselves to the possibility that they least wanted to confront on the supposition that it could not be true science … nor even the truth period.

In the end, the words of Darwin himself must come back to haunt them:

“[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.”

 

[MindOverMatter]

“[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.”

Its evident from this quote that Darwin was able to preserve philosophically the concept of God with out having it interfere with his study of natural processes. Why can’t you do the same?

As i said before, Aquinas is the way forward. Promoting ID as a science is not only a mistake; its unnecessary. Why do you find evolution sooooo frightening.
You should get down with Kenneth R Miller, he totally tore ID apart on Utube. I feel sorry for Behe.

 

[Michaelo]

ID has the advantage of being the only other alternative, and the most reasonable one based on what we know about the HUGE improbability of life arising spontaneously.

You continue to perpetuate this without offering any scientific substantiation. I despise intellectual laziness.

 

[reggieM]

Please identify these natural systems and explain why they demonstrate ID.

Please contradict what I think you said and explain why you don’t believe in God.