Is intelligent design a plausible theory?

[tonyrey]

A great deal of science does not explain the origin of matter. Abiogenesis gets us from non-living chemicals to a living organism. Evolution gets us from a single species to many species. Anything outside of that is another part of science.

Which part of science explains how matter emerged from a void?

In this thread I have been careful to say that ID is not a plausible scientific theory. I have said nothing of its plausibility as either theology or philosophy.

In other words you are unwilling to commit yourself because you know that to do so will put you in an untenable position: a marriage of Buddhism and evolution by Chance… It would be rather odd if you maintain that Design is scientifically implausible and metaphysically plausible!
The Darwinian theory may be a fully worked out scheme but it is a grossly inadequate explanation of human existence as you yourself have revealed by supplementing it with Buddhism. As I keep explaining, you have direct experience of intelligent design and you refuse to acknowledge its significance. You have not even dared to state that it is unscientific.

Buddhism has no observations of its proposed immaterial elements.

Whether or not Buddhism is taught in science classes your adherence reveals that you regard Chance evolution as an inadequate explanation of human existence.

There is not such thing as a theory of “evolution by chance”. The scientific theory of evolution includes non-chance elements. Natural selection is not a chance process.

Natural selection is not a chance process.but random combinations of molecules and random mutations make evolution a process that is initially fortuitous, purposeless and undesigned, do they not? The subsequent arrival of natural selection does not alter the fact that evolution without Design is ultimately an irrational, purposeless, pointless process - even for you unless you supplement it with Buddhism. If you refuse to admit this you are being intellectually dishonest.

If teachers do not refer to the Design explanation they are misrepresenting the scope of science.
No. This whole discussion has shown that ID is not science, so by excluding it from science classes nothing is being omitted from the scope of science.

If only NeoDarwinism is taught in schools it gives a false impression that evolution by Chance is the **only **explanation of human existence. If you are a sincere Buddhist you should be deeply concerned…

 

[VanDoodah]

It’s not a theory.

So what’s an alternative explanation for abiogenesis that is a theory and is testable?

ID isn’t a theory. It’s not even a testable hypothesis. Scientific hypotheses have to be testable and falsifiable - ID is neither.

Sorry to burst your pseudo-scientific bubble.

 

[rossum]

Which part of science explains how matter emerged from a void?

Do you even bother to read what I post? I have already answered your question. It is not polite of you to expect me to repeatedly answer the same question. Does the word “cosmology” strike a spark of recognition? With particular reference to my posts #561, #594 and #598. This is a written discussion, there is no excuse for you not referring back to previous answers to your questions.

In other words you are unwilling to commit yourself

I have committed myself to ID not currently being a plausible scientific theory. I have gone on ad nauseam about what ID needs to do in order to be accepted as science. I have not talked about theology because I am not Christian so it would be rude of me to try to tell Christians what their theological response to ID should be. As far as I can see the vast majority of ID supporters come from the Abrahamic religions, while I do not.

evolution by Chance

Again, I have to ask you, do you actually read my posts? Go back to my post #610. What part of There is not such thing as a theory of “evolution by chance”. do you have a problem with? I thought that I put the point very plainly. Should I have made it simpler for you? My apologies if I should have.

Evolution includes natural selection. Natural selection is not a chance process. Evolution is not a chance process.

It would be rather odd if you maintain that Design is scientifically implausible and metaphysically plausible!

It would indeed be odd, since that is not what I maintain. Again you are failing to read my posts, go back to my post #391 in this thread: Science has no problem with design. Archaeologists and forensic scientists look at design all the time. Astronomers considered the LGM (Little Green Men) hypothesis to explain the first pulsar, though in the event that hypothesis was rejected. What science does have a problem with is design by the Invisible Pink Unicorn, when there is a) no evidence for the existence of the IPU and b) plenty of evidence for a non-design explanation of the same phenomena.

Design may well be scientifically plausible. Design by non-existent entities is scientifically implausible. The problem is not design per se, as I have shown, but the absence of any evidence for the alleged designing entity.

The Darwinian theory may be a fully worked out scheme but it is a grossly inadequate explanation of human existence as you yourself have revealed by supplementing it with Buddhism.

Darwin called his book “On the Orign of Species”. Evolution explains the orign of species. For me Buddhism explains some things that are not related to how species originate. If you go to a school you will notice that there are more than just science classes taught there. That is because there are many aspects of human knowledge and science only covers some of them. You seem to have a strawman idea of evolution as some kind of all-embracing theory of everything. It is not, it is a biological theory describing the origin of species. There are many other aspects of human knowledge outside evolution.

As I keep explaining, you have direct experience of intelligent design and you refuse to acknowledge its significance.

I have no experience of design by non-existent designers. “The universe looks designed, therefore the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists.” is not a valid argument.

Whether or not Buddhism is taught in science classes your adherence reveals that you regard Chance evolution as an inadequate explanation of human existence.

Your “chance evolution” is a creationist strawman, a lie told to you by lying creationist websites that ignore one of the Ten Commandmants. Hardly a good Christian source.

Natural selection is not a chance process.

Excellent, it seems that you do notice some of the things I post.

but random combinations of molecules and random mutations make evolution a process that is initially fortuitous, purposeless and undesigned, do they not?

The (name removed by moderator)ut to the process is random; the output is not. Put random sized particles through a sieve. The output from the sieve is a pile of non-randomly sized particles bacause all the larger particles have been removed by the sieve. The result of evolution is similarly non-random.

You have still failed to show any scientific support for ID; it remains outside the boundaries of science.

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Michaelo

*Even if I were unable to conceive of another explanation, this absolutely does not mean that one doesn’t exist. Personal incredulity is another fallacy that has unfortunately pervaded this debate. *

It’s clear the incredulity is on your side. You would rather argue the existence of a possible third explanation which you can’t even begin to imagine than consider the possibility of intelligent design.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

VanDoodah

*ID isn’t a theory. It’s not even a testable hypothesis. Scientific hypotheses have to be testable and falsifiable - ID is neither.

Sorry to burst your pseudo-scientific bubble. *

ID is a virtual mathematical certainty. Accidental abiogenesis is a virtual mathematical impossibility.

Sorry to burst your pseudo-mathematical bubble!

 

[Michaelo]

It’s clear the incredulity is on your side. You would rather argue the existence of a possible third explanation which you can’t even begin to imagine than consider the possibility of intelligent design.

Not at all, I have most definitely considered the possibility of ID by evaluating the arguments offered by proponents like yourself. Your rhetoric essentially boils down to “The probability of abiogenesis occurring is small, therefore ID offers a superior explanation.” But this argument operates on the assumption that ID is the only other option. So now I return to my original question that you ignored:

Why does only one alternative exist?

 

[Michaelo]

ID is a virtual mathematical certainty.

Oh really?

Please explain how you calculated the probability that ID is responsible for the origin of life, and remember to identify all variables used in the calculations.

 

[masterjedi747]

ID is a virtual mathematical certainty.

You’d be better off defending it as a virtual philosophical certainty.

Because…

Accidental abiogenesis is a virtual mathematical impossibility.

You’re basing this on a number of premises that are (quite honestly) debatable.

Do me a favor and approach the question from this angle for a moment: Maybe the right conditions will tremendously increase the chance that life is produced by natural causes… maybe they won’t. If not, then your position has certainly gained a huge step. But if you’re wrong, then the direct supernatural intervention of an Intelligent Designer is unnecessary, and you’re up a creek without a paddle. But if, instead, you hold the Intelligent Designer to be the author and sustainer of all natural causes (the Thomistic position), then your position doesn’t suffer in the slightest even if abiogenesis could be proved to be produced by natural means on a daily basis.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum

When science makes a statement about something, then it is almost always the case that there are scientific observations or measurements to back up the statement. This is just one such example. When I searched on “early atmosphere” in Google scholar I got about 1,200,000 hits, “early oceans” got me about 617,000 hits. Just as forensic science can tell us what happened before the police arrived, so ordinary sceince can tell us what happened before we arrived.

I would agree with this up to a point. I would hope too that you would agree that every discovery to which you refer was made not by accident, but by intelligent design of a premise that seems to work.

That the entire universe is pointless and without purpose or design seems to most people an absurd premise. The question then arises, why do some people voraciously adopt this position of existential atheism? Why would they rather see the universe as pointless, and suppose there is scientific evidence to proof that it is pointless (when in fact there is none), than welcome the mathematical odds that it is not?

Why is there something, rather than nothing? Oops, that was an accident!

No Catholic believes that.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

masterjedi

*… then your position doesn’t suffer in the slightest even if abiogenesis could be proved to be produced by natural means on a daily basis. *

You are asking me to make a conditional surrender to an argument that has never been proven and looks more and more like science fiction?

I don’t think so. Intelligent design is bolstered by mathematics, just as the Creation of the universe was bolstered by the Big Bang.

For a true Catholic this should be a welcome truth rather than a bold concession to the atheists.

 

[Michaelo]

Intelligent design is bolstered by mathematics

More baseless claims…

 

[masterjedi747]

You are asking me to make a conditional surrender to an argument that has never been proven and looks more and more like science fiction?

Not quite. I’m asking whether you want your belief in an Intelligent Designer to be based on anything that potentially could be falsified, however unlikely. What I’d like to see, to be honest, is that your Intelligent Designer is not threatened in any way by what scientists say they might be able to prove.

For a true Catholic this should be a welcome truth rather than a bold concession to the atheists.

Unless perhaps you want to short-circuit their argument in two seconds flat.

In all seriousness though, assume you grant it, if only for the sake of argument – show that you’re willing to consider the possibility of their claim for even a fraction of a second – and they can no longer argue with you. You’ve now transferred the argument from the realm of natural science into metaphysics, and they can no longer use science to disprove the Intelligent Designer (IMHO, as it should be).

I guess right now I’m just asking whether you would be, in theory, even open to the possibility of this alternative… just in case you wake up one day to find that what you once called science fiction has become a reality.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Abiogensis by accident is not science. If so, prove it. And don’t just talk about experiments that don’t prove it!!!

I suggest you read the references:

talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB050.html

BTW - Even if you want to erroneously claim that abiogenesis isn’t science; it doesn’t make ID science.

 

[rossum]

I would agree with this up to a point. I would hope too that you would agree that every discovery to which you refer was made not by accident, but by intelligent design of a premise that seems to work.

I agree. Science is a human construct, intelligently designed by humans to investigate the material universe. It has had a large degree of success in doing that.

Just because science was designed by humans does not imply that what it investigates was also designed. Theology was designed by humans to investigate the mind of God; I am sure you can see that fallacy in extrapolating the same argument.

That the entire universe is pointless and without purpose or design seems to most people an absurd premise.

What seems to me to be absurd is to look to science to provide that purpose. Science deliberately limits itself to dealing only with the material. For things like purpose I, like most people, look outside science.

Why is there something, rather than nothing? Oops, that was an accident!

In scientific terms it is possible that there is actually zero energy in the entire universe once all the positives and negatives are cancelled out. It may be that the entire universe is actually nothing, just rather elaborately arranged. One of the fundamental concepts of Mahayana Buddhsim is sunyata - emptiness:As stars, a fault of vision, as a lamp,
A mock show, dew drops, or a bubble,
A dream, a lightning flash, or a cloud,
So should one view what is conditioned.

• Diamond sutra 32

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

Which part of science explains how matter emerged from a void?

 

[tonyrey]

It may be that the entire universe is actually nothing, just rather elaborately arranged.

 

[rossum]

Nowhere have you indicated how cosmologists explain how the universe has emerged from a void.

You asked me “What part of science explains …” I told you the part of science that does the explaining. If you do not like the explanation given then that is your problem, not mine.

Why do you omit random mutations?

I do not. Why do you omit natural selection? The combination of random mutations and natural selection is not a chance process. You can easily see this by doing the mathematical calcualtions for a purely chance process and then doing the calculations for a RM + NS process. You will see that the results are very different. For example, I did a small example which came up with 6.35 x 10[sup]130[/sup] generations for the chance process and 2,096,000 generations for the RM + NS process. That is enough to show that evolution is not a chance process. If you are interested you can see my calculations at The Evolution of Boojumase.

How there can be Design without a Designer?

That depends on how you define “design”. If you define design as “picking one of the available options”, then natural selection is a way of “picking one of the available options”. If you define design as requiring a living designer, then you have to show evidence of that living designer. As I have pointed out, science does not have a problem with design when we can see the designer. It has a big problem with non-existent designers.

Precisely. That is why neoDarwinism is an inadequate explanation of human beings and other persons who may exist.

I am glad we can agree.

You are presuming that the Designer does not exist

I am saying that there is no scientific evidence for the proposed designer. Theological evidence does not make ID scientifically acceptable. Evolution explains the origin of our physical bodies.

The simplest and most adequate explanation is that we are designed, created and sustained by a Supreme Being.

Far from the simplest. The designer does not have to be “supreme”, he/she/it/they merely needs to be powerful enough to rearrange a few DNA molecules now and then. The designer(s) may not even need to be alive now, since they could have started evolution in the right direction and then died. You are importing a lot of Abrahamic theology into your version of ID. That is bad politics, since ID was intelligently designed to get round the constitutional bar on teaching religion in state funded schools in the USA.

What about our experience and implementation of intelligent design?

I have repeatedly said that design itself is not a problem with science. The problem is that ID is grossly lacking in any of the evidence that we expect all parts of science to have. I have given references to experiments that show evolution happening in the laboratory. You cannot point me to any experiment showing the ID designer acting in the laboratory. Where is your equivalent of the Lederberg Experiment?

rossum

 

[rossum]

rossum:

It may be that the entire universe is actually nothing, just rather elaborately arranged.

Cosmology, like quantum mechanics, is one of the areas of science where common sense is more of a hindrance than a help. Those areas are so outside our normal experience that you have to be prepared to believe six impossible things before breakfast.
There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle parts. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.

Now twice zero is also zero. Thus the universe can double the amount of positive matter energy and also double the negative gravitational energy without violation of the conservation of energy.

“It is said that there’s no such thing as a free lunch. But the universe is the ultimate free lunch.”

• Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Michaelo

*Please explain how you calculated the probability that ID is responsible for the origin of life, and remember to identify all variables used in the calculations. *

Please explain how you calculated the probability that life appeared by accident (not by natural selection, and remember to identify all variables used in the calculation).

Then explain how you proved based on an intelligently designed experiment that life appeared without intelligent design. What’s your text? Who won the Nobel for that achievement? Why isn’t it in the news?

You know you have zip … no science whatever … just blind faith.

And you don’;t even have the math on your side. If you think you do, prove it.

As to the math … read William Dembski, mathematician and philosopher. It’s impossible to do all that in this forum and you know it.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

EmperorNapoleon

*BTW - Even if you want to erroneously claim that abiogenesis isn’t science; it doesn’t make ID science. *

It is not erroneous to point out that abiogenesis by accident has not been proven, and therefore is not science.

More whistling in the dark?