Their personal views about organized religion don’t change the fact that Intelligent Design is not science.
Again, their personal views about the existence of God don’t change the fact that Intelligent Design isn’t science.
Abiogenesis is the process of forming the first living organisms from raw simple chemicals. A journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step. Miller-Urey was a first step, showing how we can get from raw simple chemicals to more complex chemicals, and moreover that those more complex chemicals were amino acids that are used inside all living organisms to this day.
Precisely, you have contradicted yourself. Science is a process of “standing on the shoulders of giants”. We work on what has been done previously, correcting and extending it. Miller-Urey gave us a first step to start building on.
Agreed. No scientist has ever claimed that Miller-Urey was the complete story. It is merely the start of the story.
Did you read it?Here we show that activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides can be formed in a short sequence that bypasses free ribose and the nucleobases, and instead proceeds through arabinose amino-oxazoline and anhydronucleoside intermediates.
At least we have some dust, and are working to get more. ID has absolutely nothing, and does not even appear to be working on rectifying the defecit. ID is not a plausible scientific theory.
Don’t you believe you have the power to design something? If so how do you explain the origin of that power?
I have pointed out that the most adequate explanation of intelligent designers is an Intelligent Designer. Your explanation is that there is no Intelligent Designer and you are obliged to fall back on inexplicable physical laws, the origin of which you refuse to discuss.
“Part of an answer” is not an answer. There is no need to show that the designer is making one chemical if we already know the most adequate explanation of intelligent Design.
If evolution does not explain the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity what does? If you cannot answer, your belief in non-Design is clearly inferior to Design which does explain the inestimable value of human life.
The complex machines produced by human beings - which are evidence of intelligent design.
The scientific evidence for Intelligent Design is the existence of intelligent designers. Evolution by Chance has produced no evidence for the origin of intelligent designers.
The Designer acts as you act: by intelligent activity.
The Designer acted when the universe was designed.
The Designer acts whenever He chooses.
You can pretend that the Designer does not exist and try to explain the origin of intelligent designers.
It is not necessary when we have constant evidence of intelligent design in our own activity. Until you produce an alternative explanation an Intelligent Designer is the best explanation. How has intelligent, purposeful activity emerged from purposeless, irrational activity? That is the fundamental question you cannot answer. All the rest is evasion of the issue. It also reveals why you have not answered and cannot answer:
- Why are animals not regarded as morally responsible?
- Why don’t they have the same rights as human beings?
- How can free will exist in a physical system which functions according to the laws of science?
- How are personality, consciousness and karma produced by random combinations of molecules, random mutations of genes and natural selection?
Your questions are irrelevant. Why do you assume that God uses the same method that humans do (intelligent design) to generate complexity?
You are not correct. The Pope does not support purely materialist evolution. Pope John Paul II has said that there is actual design in nature. The kind of evolution promoted here is the purely materialist kind. The great fear is that some intelligent agent will be referred to and that it might make people consider God. That is the whole point of most of these “debates.” Not science. Not the truth. But to make certain that Intelligence (any identifiable or even hinted at) does not enter the public consciousness.
Then shouldn’t you be able to provide scientifically positive evidence that supports your conclusion that God also shares our method of generating complexity? Truth cannot contradict truth.
Quote mining has really gotten you nowhere in this discussion.
Per definitionem, an accusation takes the form of, “you are a liar,” or, “why did you lie?”
Yes you have, up to this point.
Clearly the implication of your post was inflammatory, and it would be nice if you could simply acknowledge this without delving into semantics in an attempt to defend yourself.
What’s more important is whether life can be created in a lab while replicating the conditions present around the time when life arose. This would involve intelligently designing an experiment that replicates an event originally absent of intelligent design. Hopefully that makes senseMichaelo
I’ll ask you the same question I asked rossum:
Thought experiment: suppose in the laboratory it was possible to create life. Would you still be arguing that the conditions for creating life were not intelligently designed?
Can you answer it?
I am more concerned with the actual theory of evolution and the science behind it than with potentially misrepresented quotes from Darwin.
Rossum has repeatedly indulged your digressions, so I’m not going to beat that dead horse.How on earth would you or anyone else know those conditions were replicated in the laboratory? That’s science?
I am prepared to discuss the origin of physical laws on a cosmology thread. Different parts of science explain different things. Plumbing explains how to connect up your taps correctly, not how clouds form. Meteorology explains how clouds form, not the hydrogen fusion inside stars. Astrophysics explains hydrogen fusion in stars, not how to connect up your taps correctly.
It is more of the answer than “none of the answer”. You have no experiments and no results to show. At least I have part of the answer and scientists are working to find more parts. Whatever else ID is, it is not currently science.
Until you can show the designer making one chemical you have no evidence to support your hypothesis. Unsupported hypotheses do not fare well in science.
At what level are you asking your question? Either the history of the French Revolution or human psychology might be an answer.
They are not evidence that life was designed, only that automobiles and planes were intelligently designed. Science has no problems with automobiles and planes being intelligently designed.
Science has no problem with human design, we have evidence for the existence of human designers. Where is your evidence for the existence of any of the pre-human designers who are alleged to have designed life?
You are being lied to by your creationist websites. Why do you continue to read websites that disregard one of the Ten Commandments? Go to Google scholar, scholar.google.com/. Search on “evolution”. I get about 3,000,000 hits. That is a long way from being “no evidence”.
Insufficient. I can think about moving DNA around, but that does not actually move any DNA molecules. If I think of a design then I need to physically do something to make that design actual, rather than just a mental image. I am asking about the process by which the designer rearranges DNA to get it into the designed shape. You need to show me actual evidence of molecules moving around.
See below.
This is not consistent with your previous answer. How could I decide between your two answers by experiment?
That does not answer my question.
I am Buddhist so I say that they are morally responsible. Christians generally disagree with this position.
Because they are not the same as human beings. A parasitic wasp has the moral right to eat its prey alive from the inside - if it did not do so it would die. We do not have that moral right because doing so is not required for us to stay alive.
How many thousand years do you have to discuss that question?
How can free will exist if there is an omniscient God who knows exactly what you are going to do before you do it?They are not, I am a Buddhist so only one of the five constituent parts of a human being is produced by evolution. Karma is the moral law, it is not a part of a human being.
Every Christmas one of my local churches has a crib outside. In that crib is an intelligently designed model of God. By your argument God is also intelligently designed.
Yes. The experiment would be designed to model conditions on an early earth. That would say nothing about how the conditions on the early earth actually arose.
We would be wasting our time because cosmology does not explain the origin of matter nor does it explain any aspect of immaterial reality to which you are committed as a Buddhist. Matter is the lynchpin of abiogenesis and hence Chance evolution. If you evade the question of its origin it is another nail in the coffin of Non-Design.
If ID is not science then neither is Non-Design.
Until you can show how matter is either eternal or emerged from the void the Chance evolution hypothesis is unsupported. Buddhism is an unsupported hypothesis from the scientific point of view. Where is the scientific evidence for reincarnation?
Why don’t you admit that science cannot explain the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity. The only adequate explanation is that human beings are designed.
Science has no problems with automobiles and planes being intelligently designed because they presuppose the existence of intelligent designers. It has not explained how intelligent designers have emerged and evolved from inanimate matter, let alone a void.
Your analogy is unsound. The Designer not only designed but also created the universe.
It is perfectly consistent. The fact that you choose to act on one occasion does not entail inability to choose to act on other occasions.
Do you believe animals have free will? If not they cannot be morally responsible. If they have free will their free will is not explained by “evolution”, i.e. evolution by Chance.
Your view of morality is mere expediency. It is geared simply to physical survival.
You are evading the question. You know perfectly well that free will cannot exist in a physical system. Either you have to deny free will or admit that it has a non-physical explanation.
In other words “evolution”, (evolution by Chance) does not explain at least one aspect of human beings whereas Design does. Nor is Buddhism explained by Chance evolution, i.e. Non-Design, whereas Buddhism is explained by Design!