Is intelligent design a plausible theory?

[liquidpele]

liquidpele

All evidence points to the fact that a designer was not necessary, so even though it’s a theoretical possibility, there is no direct evidence to support it.

With respect to accidental abiogenesis, this is absolutely false and you know it. What “evidence” are you talking about? What “fact” are you talking about? Do you know something nobody else in the scientific world knows? Or do you just have blind faith in your non-existent evidence and fact?

:bowdown: ACCIDENTAL ABIOGENESIS!

:banghead: I’ve given article after article, videos explaining things, scientific definitions, quoted popes, quoted research experiment results, and taken the time to explain things in my own words. Every thing I’ve provided has been supportive of no designer… you have given zero sources, articles, or evidence for anything.

I’m leaving, this will be my last post regarding ID. I’m not sure what my goals were, but I’m clearly arguing against confirmation bias and I don’t wish to waste my life trying to convince others that I’m right… so I just hope that you at least *understand *my position even if you don’t agree with it. Good day everyone, and I wish you all the best.

 

[masterjedi747]

You seem to want to believe in only science.

In all honesty, I don’t think that’s quite what liquidpele was saying.
EDIT: …but I see that he already addressed that point. Nevermind.

This is a Catholic forum so don’t be surprised if you get answers from a Catholic perspective.

There is some variety of answers that can be given from a Catholic perspective, however.

Science is not the only way of knowing. It is not to be worshipped - that is idolatry.

Yes.

Science is not god. Only God is God and He has spoken through the prophets.

Yes.

Design needs a designer. The Catholic Church recognizes design in nature. It’s true but you are free to deny it.

Yes.

…see the article published in the New York Times by Cardinal Schoenborn titled Finding Design in Nature. He rightly says that any science that denies actual design in nature is ideology, not science.

Yes.

It is very clear that the knee jerk reaction to reject actual design in nature is out of a concern over sneaking God back into the classroom or people starting to believe in God.

See, now it seems to me that you’re confusing things by talking about “actual design in nature” as if it were unequivocally identical with the position of “intelligent design”. On the contrary, the phrase “intelligent design” is such a loaded term, it’s not even funny. For one, you could simply mean that “there is design evident in nature” (and thus a designer), and you would pretty much be in perfect agreement with St. Thomas and the Catholic Church. But on the other hand, you could also mean “not only is there design evident in nature, but this design is of such a kind that it could not possibly have been produced by any natural causes”… and that’s where you lose a whole lot of people. Because adding that second step is not necessary, and denying that second step does not necessarily entail denying the initial position. I can hold the existence of design in nature, and the existence of God as the creator of nature, while still holding that God is entirely capable using natural causes to bring about His intended design.

And I don’t particularly care about having “intelligent design taught in the classroom”… in fact, I’m pretty much all for it. But I AM concerned about having it taught in the science classroom (since it more properly belongs to natural philosophy), and I AM concerned about ever having the second version of “intelligent design” taught (since I happen to be rather convinced that it’s not correct).

 

[Charlemagne_II]

liquidpele

*Science is not the only way of learning, I never said that. I simply said that ID is not science. I have no problem with it being an idea. In fact, I think it’s very interesting. It should not be in a science class though, and I personally don’t think it to be plausible which was the original question. The catholic church also recognizes evolution by the way, go back a page or two and you’ll see where i quoted John Paul II. *

In case you return for a last peek, I think you maybe never quite understood what this thread was supposed to be about. I for one never denied evolution. The question all along for me has been whether evolution was by happenstance or by intelligent design. No pope has ever said that evolution ever happened fortuitously without some guiding intelligence behind it. That would be heresy! I think you already know that.

Again, I think you put up a spirited and admirable effort to have abiogenesis accidental and without intelligent design. But I think intelligent design for abiogenesis can be inferred and be scientific without being observed, all the more so because the time has long passed for observing it; and the likelihood that it ever will be observed, even as a result of intelligently designed experiments, is getting increasingly remote.

You can argue that intelligent design is not scientific and smacks of the bias of religion. But I can argue that accidental abiogenesis also is not scientific and smacks of the bias of atheism.

Perhaps we are both better off at the movies?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

masterjedi

*I can hold the existence of design in nature, and the existence of God as the creator of nature, while still holding that God is entirely capable using natural causes to bring about His intended design. *

Does this mean you can believe God intelligently designed the universe but that natural causes are not part of God’s intelligent design?

Can you clarify?

 

[edwest2]

In all honesty, I don’t think that’s quite what liquidpele was saying.
EDIT: …but I see that he already addressed that point. Nevermind.

There is some variety of answers that can be given from a Catholic perspective, however.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

See, now it seems to me that you’re confusing things by talking about “actual design in nature” as if it were unequivocally identical with the position of “intelligent design”. On the contrary, the phrase “intelligent design” is such a loaded term, it’s not even funny. For one, you could simply mean that “there is design evident in nature” (and thus a designer), and you would pretty much be in perfect agreement with St. Thomas and the Catholic Church. But on the other hand, you could also mean “not only is there design evident in nature, but this design is of such a kind that it could not possibly have been produced by any natural causes”… and that’s where you lose a whole lot of people. Because adding that second step is not necessary, and denying that second step does not necessarily entail denying the initial position. I can hold the existence of design in nature, and the existence of God as the creator of nature, while still holding that God is entirely capable using natural causes to bring about His intended design.

And I don’t particularly care about having “intelligent design taught in the classroom”… in fact, I’m pretty much all for it. But I AM concerned about having it taught in the science classroom (since it more properly belongs to natural philosophy), and I AM concerned about ever having the second version of “intelligent design” taught (since I happen to be rather convinced that it’s not correct).

People are fond of pointing out the quote about evolution from Pope John Paul II. But he also spoke about design in nature.

It is clear that some people are here about what can only be called a power struggle. Science is not viewed from a proper Catholic perspective. The Church does not recognize the idea that random mutation and natural selection alone could have brought about life as we see it today. To inject any form of Intelligent Design would have the effect of acknowledging some type of intelligence.

Instead of viewing science as something that should be excluded from itself, the Church views science as complementary to faith. The only concern that is brought up here constantly is that nothing, whatever it is called, can disturb the idea that only so-called natural, impersonal forces led to life on earth. God is a throw-away concept often added to make the idea palatable to Catholics. The sacred science classroom must only be entered by those carrying the biology textbook which reveals evolution as a process devoid of any intelligence, one is that is self-starting and self-generated. This contradicts those areas of human reason which clearly show design in nature and the work of God.

Peace,
Ed

 

[greylorn]

You are thinking experimentation must be complex. An example of something simple would be looking at a blank part of the sky, coming up with a hypothesis that even the blank parts are filled with things that are just too far away for us to see, designing an experiment that could even be as simple as the hubble looking over there for 40 days in a row (very complicated actually), and seeing what we see in the ultra deep field.

howtonotbedepressed.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/hubble_ultra_deep_field.jpg

An experiment doesn’t mean we have to touch the item, it just means we are testing a hypothesis in some way… which can be by observation.

One easy observation we can make is that you’ve never taken a physics course with a lab section, or an engineering course, and that you dislike distinctions which, if made, would condradict your opinions.

Believe it or not, real scientists devise experiments. Astronomers plan observations.

There is a genuine distinction between observing that light exists, or observing things with light, and devising an experiment designed to measure the speed of light.

I do not expect you to acknowledge the distinction between observation and experiment, but I mention this so that other thread participants are not confused by your ignorance. And I propose to bury this dead horse.

 

[tonyrey]

I can hold the existence of design in nature, and the existence of God as the creator of nature, while still holding that God is entirely capable using natural causes to bring about His intended design.

If you believe God never intervenes you are a deist rather than a Christian…

 

[MindOverMatter]

JDaniel

The devil has to have something to do.

And is very busy punching away in this thread! :slapfight:

I hope i don’t have anything to do with that.

 

[masterjedi747]

The Church does not recognize the idea that random mutation and natural selection alone could have brought about life as we see it today.

Because the Church doesn’t recognize that “random mutation and natural selection alone” is even a valid concept, since both of those things are deeply dependent upon Divine Providence.

The only concern that is brought up here constantly is that nothing, whatever it is called, can disturb the idea that only so-called natural, impersonal forces led to life on earth. God is a throw-away concept often added to make the idea palatable to Catholics.

What you don’t seem to understand is that natural causes must always be dependent upon God, who creates and sustains the very natures by which they act. So saying that something is produced “by natural causes alone” does not deny God’s intimate role in causing those natural causes to act in the way that they do.

The sacred science classroom must only be entered by those carrying the biology textbook which reveals evolution as a process devoid of any intelligence, one is that is self-starting and self-generated. This contradicts those areas of human reason which clearly show design in nature and the work of God.

Same as the above. Natural science does not (and cannot) somehow exclude the role that God has in nature, simply by limiting its scope to the natural world. There’s no problem saying “we should only study natural causes in the science classroom”, unless you happen to think that natural causes somehow stand in opposition to Divine causality.

If you believe God never intervenes you are a deist rather than a Christian…

Deism couldn’t possibly be more opposed to my position (as an Aristotelian/Thomist).* Natural causes* are not somehow capable of acting “alone”, or apart from God’s constant causality. (And I don’t think “intervene” is really the right word, really, unless you’re talking about a miraculous/supernatural event. In the normal course of things, God doesn’t need to intervene… He simply causes things to act according to their internal nature.)

 

[rossum]

What you don’t seem to understand is that natural causes must always be dependent upon God, who creates and sustains the very natures by which they act. So saying that something is produced “by natural causes alone” does not deny God’s intimate role in causing those natural causes to act in the way that they do.

Agreed. If God is as advertised, then whatever God wants to happen happens. If God wants it to happen through natural causes then it happens through natural causes. If God wants it to happen through random mutation and natural selection then it happens through random mutation and natural selection. If God wants it to happen through a miracle then it happens through a miracle.

Any God that could be replaced by natural causes would be so small a God as not to be worth worshipping.

$0.02

rossum

 

[MindOverMatter]

Any God that could be replaced by natural causes would be so small a God as not to be worth worshipping.

$0.02

rossum

Do you know ground of all being?

 

[tonyrey]

Since I believe in civilized, rational discussion rather than argumenta ad hominem I am deleting and ignoring your irrelevancies.

Are animals morally responsible for their behaviour?

You completely miss how probably evolution actually is (not to mention we have witnessed it in a lab)…

Have you witnessed the evolution of intelligence, freedom and responsibility?

I agree with you about the animal trials.

Then you agree that animals are not morally responsible for their behaviour?

Simple molecules become more complex because of probability, but not all of it…

That explains nothing.

You might see this as a condemnation of advanced molecules forming in the real world - remember that most of the time we are trying to replicate molecules we already found in the real world, we just need them manufactured in greater numbers.

You still have not explained why molecules became complex in the first place.

Simple organisms become more complex because mutations sometimes give them an advantage, and they stay more complex after that…

That is not an explanation of how unicellular organisms became multicellular, nor of how mitosis and meiosis originated.

An abstract concept of the self we like to think is black and white, but it’s not.

Are you suggesting that animals have an abstract concept of “self”? Why is there no syntax in animal language?

Abiogenesis does appear to be unlikely at first glance, but there is some evidence supporting it.

Rossum’s “incredibly unlikely” is a more honest assessment.

Mutations are random, but they do not define evolution…

The entire edifice of evolution depends on random mutations. It is the foundation without which development could not even have commenced. Therefore the non-Design version of evolution is based on fortuitous events.

[/QUOTE]

 

[tonyrey]

In the normal course of things, God doesn’t need to intervene… He simply causes things to act according to their internal nature.

If you agree that God intervenes He ensures evolution is progressive rather than coming to an abrupt halt - as could have occurred many times in prehistory. The process of development from matter to life and from living cells to persons is not adequately explained by fortuitous events. To adapt Einstein’s memorable words, God does not play dice with evolution…

 

[MindOverMatter]

If you agree that God intervenes He ensures evolution is progressive rather than coming to an abrupt halt - as could have occurred many times in prehistory. The process of development from matter to life and from living cells to persons is not adequately explained by fortuitous events. To adapt Einstein’s memorable words, God does not play dice with evolution…

I have heard this said many times but i don’t see your justification for it. Do you deny that there are deterministic qualities to the process of evolution?

 

[MindOverMatter]

And I propose to bury this dead horse.

Why would you want to bury a dead horse on the basis of a debate? Is that some kind of ritual you into?

 

[tonyrey]

A snowflake is an example of “complexity in nature”. Please acknowledge that snowflakes are examples of complexity in nature that arise without an intelligent designer.

Even at the inanimate level complexity requires explanation. The development of complexity is a fact but it has not been scientifically explained.

Almost every arrangement of amino acids will build a protein; the majority of proteins will have some functions or other.

It is not just one protein that is required…

Evolution is not looking for a single target it is looking for any one of a very large number of targets.

Evolution is not looking for anything, still less a very large number of targets. It is a blind, haphazard process which stumbles on one limited solution at a time within a strictly circumscribed domain.

You need to bear in mind that evolution does not start from a random position,** it starts from an organism that functions well enough to be able to reproduce the next generation.**

You have given the game away here. How did the organism arrive at that stage if it was not by evolution? By an extraordinary saltus? (like the origin of life)

The starting point is constrained to be “able to reproduce”.

How did the ability to reproduce originate? By evolution?

If I put a lot of randomly sized particles through a sieve then what I get out is not longer random but only particles small enough to pass through the sieve. The (name removed by moderator)ut was random, the output is not. Evolution is the same, the output is not random.

The output is still the result of a random (name removed by moderator)ut. So the entire edifice of evolution depends on random mutations. It is the foundation without which development could not even have commenced.

Evolution is an iterative process over many generations. For example, it is next to impossible to get ten heads when throwing ten coins. Now change to an iterative process: throw the coins, keep any heads you get and just rethrow the tails. Repeat. You will get to ten heads a lot quicker.

But not quickly enough!

You have evaded several important questions:

1. Are animals morally responsible for their behaviour? How can chimps be morally responsible for their actions when they don’t even know what morality is?
2. Do you attach no significance to your personal experience of design? Is your own experience nothing? After all your entire argument stems from your use of **intelligence **rather than random events.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Intelligent design is not a plausible Scientific Theory. Those that say that it is, do not understand what empirical science is. Even if evolution was found to be in error, it would never justify intelligent design on scientific grounds. Why? It is because empirical science by its nature of investigation is the search for natural causes; it is the study of natural events. It is methodological naturalism. Similarly, an atheist is at fault when they say that science is the only justified method of investigation concerning any knowledge, since science itself is founded on assumptions that cannot be proven empirically, and there are other methods of investigation that can yield reasonably certain knowledge about that which transcends physics.

 

[rossum]

Even at the inanimate level complexity requires explanation. The development of complexity is a fact but it has not been scientifically explained.

I am not a meteoroligst, so I do not have the full details, but as far as I am aware the formation of snowflakes is completely explained by the chemisrty of water, the physics of crystallisation and the actions of the atmosphere. Non-design forces are fully capable of forming complex objects like snowflakes.

It is not just one protein that is required…

Correct. The initial self-replicating molecule was more likely to have been RNA than a protein. Proteins probably came later, after self-replication had got started. The earliest self-replicating forms were a great deal simpler than any bacterium living today, possibly as simple as a single RNA molecule.

You have given the game away here. How did the organism arrive at that stage if it was not by evolution?

Abiogenesis moves us from chemicals to some form of imperfect self-relication. Once we have an imperfect self-replicator then, and only then, do we have evolution. If you cannot distinguish between abiogenesis and evolution then you will make errors in this discussion. The distinction is important.

How did the ability to reproduce originate? By evolution?

No. Evolution explains how we get from one reproducing species to many reproducing species. Abiogenesis is working to explain how we get from chemistry to that first reproducing species. Darwin calle his book “On the Origin of Species”, not “On the Origin of Life”. Hence the differentiation between abiogeneis (origin of life) and evolution (origin of species).

1. Are animals morally responsible for their behaviour?

Yes. Scripture tells me so. How is this relevant to whether or not ID is a plausible theory?

How can chimps be morally responsible for their actions when they don’t even know what morality is?

They do, at least partially: Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior. Please provide the evidence for your side of the argument.

1. Do you attach no significance to your personal experience of design?

The human brain has evolved to see design in places where there is none: we see faces in clouds where thare is no design. I know from experience and from scientific training that “it sure looks designed to me” is not a reliable indicator. Quantum mechanics has been shown to be correct to many decimal places of accuracy yet it goes completely against common sense. I know that what may appear to be true to me may not actually be true. I am not infallible.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

Non-design forces are fully capable of forming complex objects like snowflakes.

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

The initial self-replicating molecule was more likely to have been RNA than a protein. Proteins probably came later, after self-replication had got started. The earliest self-replicating forms were a great deal simpler than any bacterium living today, possibly as simple as a single RNA molecule.

This is all speculation without a trace of evidence.

Abiogenesis moves us from chemicals to some form of imperfect self-replication.

You have already conceded that abiogenesis is incredibly unlikely.

Once we have an imperfect self-replicator then, and only then, do we have evolution.

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

Evolution explains how we get from one reproducing species to many reproducing species.

Please indicate how this occurs.

Are animals morally responsible for their behaviour? How is this relevant to whether or not ID is a plausible theory?

Human beings are supposed to evolved from animals as the result of random mutations and natural selection. In other words moral responsibility is supposed to have evolved as the result of physical causes. At what stage of evolution do you believe this occurred? How have moral awareness, free will and responsibility developed gradually? Is there any indication of a conscience, free will and moral responsibility in chimpanzees?

Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior.

Dr. de Waal does not contend that chimpanzees possess morality. The basis of morality is not emotion, but reason. How have non-rational forces produced rational beings? If a natural explanation is deficient it is reasonable to accept a supernatural explanation. The only motive for rejecting Design is the assumption that only physical objects exist

The human brain has evolved to see design in places where there is none: we see faces in clouds where there is no design.

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

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

 

[Charlemagne_II]

MindOverMatter

*Intelligent design is not a plausible Scientific Theory. Those that say that it is, do not understand what empirical science is. Even if evolution was found to be in error, it would never justify intelligent design on scientific grounds. Why? It is because empirical science by its nature of investigation is the search for natural causes; it is the study of natural events. It is methodological naturalism. *

A plausible scientific theory is not something that has to have been proved in a laboratory. It is something that we believe to be true, whether we have empirical evidence or not. Democritus’ theory of the atom was not provable on the first publication of it. Einstein’s theory of Relativity was not scientifically proved on the first publication of it. Even Darwin’s theory was not decisively proven upon the first publication of it, and has experienced certain modifications and corrections ever since.

Intelligent Design is plausible as a scientific explanation if it is the best explanation for abiogenesis. It is the best explanation because evolution is no explanation at all. There is no third alternative! Every attempt to recreate life by accident has proven fruitless. Experiments have been going on for fifty years plus and we are still blocked from a plausible avenue toward creating a one-celled creature by accidental abiogenesis.

At some point science has to intersect with the divine. If it refuses to, it blocks itself from avenues toward its own knowledge. Einstein found this out when he refused to believe the Genesis account describing a created universe. It took a mathematician priest like George LeMaitre to put him back on the right track toward accepting the Big Bang because LeMaitre had no such bias against a created universe. And though science is generally agreed that the Big Bang happened, no one can offer a scientific explanation of how it happened, just as no one can offer a scientific explanation of how intelligent design works, though we see its fruits throughout the universe.

By the same token, what will science do when, century after century it keeps trying to make abiogenesis happen by accident, and discovers that the odds are, after all, just as the mathematicians predicted, virtually impossible. Will they just keep saying, Well, it happened, but we don’t yet know how? Don’t you dare offer another hypothesis that we cannot observe in the laboratory. That would not be scientific, even though we cannot prove the science in a laboratory ourselves.

And why is it that anthropologists can see intelligent design in the complex and symmetrical arrangement of the stones at Stonehenge, but biologists refuse to see it in the immensely more complex and symmetrical arrangement of atoms and molecules that must have attracted each other to form the first living cell?

Finally, if a Catholic believes that God designed the universe and everything in it, how does he square that with saying that science cannot entertain the same conclusion, whether it calls that intelligent design God or something else? Even Einstein used the term God loosely, not to reference the Christian God, but to acknowledge that some kind of superior reasoning power seems to pervade the universe. Why is this a notion that scientists abhor, unless it is really only a notion that atheistic scientists abhor? And if so, why are some Catholics agreeing with the atheistic scientists instead of Albert Einstein?

“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