Is intelligent design a plausible theory?

[rossum]

Let’s concentrate on two fundamental issues and return to the others when we have dispatched these

Fine.

I am not claiming evolution is a **internally **chance process, although it does contain an element of chance. I am claiming unDesigned evolution has a random origin and is geared solely to survival. It is a physical mechanism and like all other physical mechanisms it has no end in sight. It is purposeless because purpose in the full sense of the term implies an intention, a plan in a person’s mind. Selection is not purpose. Computers and robots are programmed to make selections but they are not genuinely purposeful.

I agree that evolution has no long term purpose. I disagree that evolution taken overall is a chance process. Specifically I disagree that evolution can be mathematically modelled as a chance process. My own calculations, which I referenced, showed a difference of 124 orders of magnitude between pure chance and evolution. If you disagree with my calculations then show your calculations please.

“By chance” is the opposite of “by design”, e.g. they met by chance. So if you reject evolution by design you must accept evolution by chance.

No. Even Dembski accept that there are three processes: chance, regularity and design.

Please let us know which of the following statements you accept:

1. Life had a fortuitous origin with random arrangements of molecules.

No. Chemistry is a regular process not a chance process.

1. The evolution of life commenced with random mutations.

No. The evolution of life commenced with the origin of the first imperfect replicator. The random mutations came shortly afterwads when the imperfect replicator imperfectly replicated.

1. Biological evolution is in many ways a ruthless, haphazard process.

Not “many”, but I would accept “some”: natural selection is far from haphazard. Also “ruthless” has an emotional baggage attached to it, perhaps “indifferent” might be better.

1. Biological evolution is geared solely to physical survival.

False. Biological evolution is geared towards successful reproduction. A male spider is successful if he impregnates a female and then serves as her meal to help her grow a nice healthy clutch of eggs, half of whose genes are his.

1. Biological evolution could have terminated with the extinction of all life on this planet.

Agreed, assuming life had not previously left the planet.

1. Biological evolution is not directed to personal development.

Agreed.

You cannot see the mind of the designer and it is the mind, not the body, that is responsible for design. Many atheists claim, of course, that all minds are embodied but I don’t think that is your view. So why do you have such a problem with a Designer?

Show me a lab experiment, then you can call ID science. I do not have a problem with a disembodied mind, but I do have a problem with trying to put that disembodied mind into science class rather than theology class.

Now a question for you. Do you accept that ID currently has insufficient evidence to be considered for inclustion in a science curriculum?

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

Natural selection is “chance” by your description then?

Where have I stated or even implied that natural selection is “chance” ?

The outcomes being set up are not chance, they are just the reality of the situation.

The individual outcomes are not due to chance but you have agreed that biological evolution is in many ways a ruthless, haphazard process. Moreover survival is not guaranteed. It is amazing that life has not already become extinct on this planet but the ultimate result is inevitably total extinction. So what is the ultimate purpose of evolution? Extinction? No. It has no ultimate purpose it originated with random mutations, not natural selection. It is purposeful but only within a limited context. In your opinion the dice were not loaded at the outset because you reject Design!

I also think both you and Charlemagne II keep blurring abiogenesis and evolution. Evolution has nothing (ZERO) to do with abiogenesis. One is how life originated, the other is how it evolved.

I’m surprised that you cannot see how evolution is the sequel to abiogenesis (according to atheism). It is arbitrary to separate them when we are examining the nature and significance of evolution. Abiogenesis provided the raw material without which evolution could not even take off.

In answer to your question, I only agree with #3 and #6 (assuming you mean what I think you mean by #6), although I personally think #1 and #2 are likely.

What else is evolution geared to apart from survival? Why do think evolution could not have terminated with the extinction of all life on this planet? It has nearly occurred on at least one occasion and very probably more.
More significantly, you agree that evolution is not directed to personal development. So why has it occurred? By chance?! It fits into Rossum’s scheme of things but not yours.

 

[tonyrey]

I agree that evolution has no long term purpose. I disagree that evolution taken overall is a chance process.

 

[liquidpele]

Where have I stated or even implied that natural selection is “chance” ?
The individual outcomes are not due to chance but you have agreed that biological evolution is in many ways a ruthless, haphazard process. Moreover survival is not guaranteed. It is amazing that life has not already become extinct on this planet but the ultimate result is inevitably total extinction. So what is the ultimate purpose of evolution? Extinction? No. It has no ultimate purpose it originated with random mutations, not natural selection. It is purposeful but only within a limited context. In your opinion the dice were not loaded at the outset because you reject Design!

I’m surprised that you cannot see how evolution is the sequel to abiogenesis (according to atheism). It is arbitrary to separate them when we are examining the nature and significance of evolution. Abiogenesis provided the raw material without which evolution could not even take off.
What else is evolution geared to apart from survival? Why do think evolution could not have terminated with the extinction of all life on this planet? It has nearly occurred on at least one occasion and very probably more.
More significantly, you agree that evolution is not directed to personal development. So why has it occurred? By chance?! It fits into Rossum’s scheme of things but not yours.

No, ruthlessness does not mean we all go extinct because everything doesn’t evolve at once. 6 billion people accross the world all don’t evolve into something that kills us all, but several people do (just google “genetic disease”). It does mean a species can be put into a situation that drives it to extinction though… such as polar bears currently are, or the other millions of species that went extinct over the years, but in such cases most (or at least many) species still survive because they are all suited to different conditions across the earth, so each can survive in different situations.

Abiogenesis and evolution are separate, and although typically both supported by scientists, do not act like they support or falsify one another.

Evolution is geared towards other things apart from survival, although survival (reproduction specifically) is the major influence. If you really want to know more, just read the wikipedia article… for instance, genetic drift.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Maybe I don’t know what you mean by “personal development”… do you mean like learning math for instance? That is not evolution in the strict sense because it is not inherited genetically. I suppose you could say ideas and lessons evolve over time in a society, but that is a different discussion.

 

[reggieM]

reggieM

You still haven’t offered any scientific evidence that supports ID

You’re not a molecular biologist. I don’t think you’re a professional scientist either.

Here is a list of scientists who are more qualified than you are, who find evolutionary theory inadequate:

dissentfromdarwin.org/

You might consider reading Michael Behe’s books. He has far more credentials related to this topic than you do.

Here are some peer-reviewed scientific papers supporting ID:

D. A. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341 (2004): 1295-1315.
this link offers an explanation from the scientist …
Scientist Says His Peer-Reviewed Research in the Journal of Molecular Biology “Adds to the Case for Intelligent Design”

Lönnig, W.-E. Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity, Dynamical Genetics, Pp. 101-119

You might consider reading these peer-reviewed works and offering your critique to the scientific community.

Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)

It’s flattering to think that you consider me to be an expert in this field. But, again, there are scientists who are far more qualified than you are who provide the scientific evidence for ID.

You were questioned about your Catholic faith and gave a very feeble reply. When questioned again, you turned the subject back to a defense of Darwin.

 

[MindOverMatter]

You’re not a molecular biologist. I don’t think you’re a professional scientist either.

Here is a list of scientists who are more qualified than you are, who find evolutionary theory inadequate:

dissentfromdarwin.org/

You might consider reading Michael Behe’s books. He has far more credentials related to this topic than you do.

Using credentials and arguments from authority in order to downplay somebody’s arguement, is at best weak. There are many other scientists who are just as qualified such as Kenneth miller, who disagree with you.

An atheist could say to you, you are not as qualified as Richard Dawkins. But does that mean you are wrong, or that your arguments shouldn’t get a fare hearing?

You can do better then that.

 

[Michaelo]

You’re not a molecular biologist. I don’t think you’re a professional scientist either.

You’re right, I’ve actually just graduated from high school, but this doesn’t disqualify me from challenging ID–much to your chagrin, I’m sure.

Here is a list of scientists who are more qualified than you are, who find evolutionary theory inadequate:

dissentfromdarwin.org/

You might consider reading Michael Behe’s books. He has far more credentials related to this topic than you do.

Here are some peer-reviewed scientific papers supporting ID:

D. A. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341 (2004): 1295-1315.
this link offers an explanation from the scientist …
Scientist Says His Peer-Reviewed Research in the Journal of Molecular Biology “Adds to the Case for Intelligent Design”

Lönnig, W.-E. Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity, Dynamical Genetics, Pp. 101-119

You might consider reading these peer-reviewed works and offering your critique to the scientific community.

Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)

It’s flattering to think that you consider me to be an expert in this field. But, again, there are scientists who are far more qualified than you are who provide the scientific evidence for ID.

Wow, I’m impressed. Perhaps you can summarize this evidence in layman’s terms for my feeble mind? :bowdown:

You were questioned about your Catholic faith and gave a very feeble reply.

I’ll let God decide, but thanks anyways fellow Catholic

When questioned again, you turned the subject back to a defense of Darwin.

Wrong. When questioned again, I defended the theory of evolution, and I’m well aware that you’ve got many more ad hominems waiting to be unleashed against Darwin.

 

[reggieM]

You’re right, I’ve actually just graduated from high school, but this doesn’t disqualify me from challenging ID–much to your chagrin, I’m sure.

I didn’t realize your age. You’ve done well in the discussion.

There are several books that provide a background on the scientific case for ID.
As I mentioned, the two books by Michael Behe (The Edge of Evolution, and Darwin’s Black Box) provide evidence from molecular biology.

Evidence for Intelligent design from a cosmological perspective can be found here:

Modern Physics and Ancient Faith by Stephen M. Barr (Mar 2003)

Professor Barr is a physicist and his book is a superb overview of the evidence that can be found in the universe. He ties it to the logical and rational progressions that give evidence for an Intelligent Creator. I think you will find this one very useful and enjoyable to read.

Also – The Priviledged Planet by Gonzalez and Richards. Guillermo Gonzalez is a peer-reviewed astronomer and he explains how the universe is finely tuned for life, and how precise cosmological symmetries place planet earth in the optimal position in which to study the universe itself.

As an overview – Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe by Michael Behe, William A. Dembski, Stephen C. Meyer Dec 2000 – this is published by the Catholic publisher, Ignatius Press. I haven’t read it but it has gotten good reviews.

The Design Inference by William A. Dembski
This gives the mathematics behind ID theory

The Biotic Message - Walter ReMine
I’ve read some excertps from that but not the whole book. It’s a unique view providing evidence that the universe is the product of a single Designer (again showing symmetry in nature)

Nature’s Destiny : How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe by Michael Denton
Denton is a molecular biologist (since retired) who gives the evidence supporting ID.

I haven’t read Anthony Flew’s book but he writes about how evidence for Intelligent Design in nature converted him from an atheist to a theist.

Famous atheist, A.N. Wilson also was recently converted to Christianity after reading this pro-ID book, Why Us by James Lefanu. I haven’t read that book but it looked like it gives a strong case in support of ID theory.

 

[reggieM]

Using credentials and arguments from authority in order to downplay somebody’s arguement, is at best weak. There are many other scientists who are just as qualified such as Kenneth miller, who disagree with you.

Then it would not be correct to say that there is “no debate” on this issue. That alone is a major point and makes this argument far from weak, considering that there are many who deny that “any” scientsts at all support ID.

An atheist could say to you, you are not as qualified as Richard Dawkins. But does that mean you are wrong, or that your arguments shouldn’t get a fare hearing?

For what I was attempting to show, I think the point stands.

You can offer opinions, but they come from an unqualified amateur.

So, on what basis can you ridicule ID theory? You’re not even a scientist.

If you’re not interested in ID theory enough to read some of the many serious books on the topic, then what is the point of giving your opinions here?

 

[liquidpele]

I didn’t realize your age. You’ve done well in the discussion.

There are several books that provide a background on the scientific case for ID.
As I mentioned, the two books by Michael Behe (The Edge of Evolution, and Darwin’s Black Box) provide evidence from molecular biology.

Evidence for Intelligent design from a cosmological perspective can be found here:

Modern Physics and Ancient Faith by Stephen M. Barr (Mar 2003)

Professor Barr is a physicist and his book is a superb overview of the evidence that can be found in the universe. He ties it to the logical and rational progressions that give evidence for an Intelligent Creator. I think you will find this one very useful and enjoyable to read.

Also – The Priviledged Planet by Gonzalez and Richards. Guillermo Gonzalez is a peer-reviewed astronomer and he explains how the universe is finely tuned for life, and how precise cosmological symmetries place planet earth in the optimal position in which to study the universe itself.

As an overview – Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe by Michael Behe, William A. Dembski, Stephen C. Meyer Dec 2000 – this is published by the Catholic publisher, Ignatius Press. I haven’t read it but it has gotten good reviews.

The Design Inference by William A. Dembski
This gives the mathematics behind ID theory

The Biotic Message - Walter ReMine
I’ve read some excertps from that but not the whole book. It’s a unique view providing evidence that the universe is the product of a single Designer (again showing symmetry in nature)

Nature’s Destiny : How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe by Michael Denton
Denton is a molecular biologist (since retired) who gives the evidence supporting ID.

I haven’t read Anthony Flew’s book but he writes about how evidence for Intelligent Design in nature converted him from an atheist to a theist.

Famous atheist, A.N. Wilson also was recently converted to Christianity after reading this pro-ID book, Why Us by James Lefanu. I haven’t read that book but it looked like it gives a strong case in support of ID theory.

Did anyone else notice that after hearing his approximate age, reggieM went from “You’re wrong” to “Now class, please turn to page 50”

I suppose I’ll throw in some good sources I know of.

amazon.com/Short-History-Nearly-Everything/dp/0767908171
(thick book, but good… currently reading this)

amazon.com/Briefer-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553804367
(short book, easy read, but full of very interesting information)

literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/
(free online!, harder to read though due to the dialect of that time).

Other than that… I recommend this entire video series (specifically the ones on evolution and probability):
youtube.com/profile?user=QualiaSoup&view=videos

This is a classic from the past…
hulu.com/watch/63317/cosmos-the-shores-of-the-cosmic-ocean

This video is a great run-through of taxonomy and evolution with examples
youtube.com/watch?v=5MXTBGcyNuc

Most actual information on Evolution, Natural Selection, Abiogenesis, and the processes can be easily found online from wikipedia… look through the sources for actual citations for more reading if you like, but the details are hardly entertaining enough for a book that is not educational by nature, I’m not aware of any that are a “fun” read.

PS: If you’re getting into a college with a psychology class, make sure you take it… that class still helps me a lot. Great and very interesting information

 

[Michaelo]

reggieM

To prevent the discussion from devolving into a game of tit for tat in which you list sources followed by myself listing sources, can you simply restate the central tenets of ID and we’ll go from there?

 

[greylorn]

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.

Imagine that a scientist designs a great pot (similar to the Miller experiment) which reproduces primeval conditions, and loads the pot with primeval gunk, and turns it on for a year. Suppose that upon opening the door, what steps out but a small tribe of little green men, carrying with them some handmade tools and clay tablets engraved with what appears to be writing. One of them asks to be taken to our leader. What will science have proven?

Only that it is possible for intelligent beings to create biological life from raw molecules.

 

[greylorn]

reggieM

To prevent the discussion from devolving into a game of tit for tat in which you list sources followed by myself listing sources, can you simply restate the central tenets of ID and we’ll go from there?

You dishonor men who have taken the trouble to acquire knowledge by refusing to follow their gentle suggestions to further your education. At your current level of knowledge, all you are bringing to this conversation is the all-knowing arrogance of youth.

We were there once. Print this and save it for the day when you’ll try to convince a fool to open a book instead of his mouth.

 

[Michaelo]

You dishonor men who have taken the trouble to acquire knowledge by refusing to follow their gentle suggestions to further your education. At your current level of knowledge, all you are bringing to this conversation is the all-knowing arrogance of youth.

We were there once. Print this and save it for the day when you’ll try to convince a fool to open a book instead of his mouth.

Easy there, in the essence of time, I’d prefer that reggieM summarize the salient points contained in those sources. Perhaps you can help? :bowdown2:

 

[greylorn]

Also, there’s no such thing as a “virtual mathematical impossibility”. It either is mathematically certain or it isn’t. There’s no mid-way point in maths.

Some reasonable thinkers (no, I do not have their names and quotes at hand) have arbitrarily set the probability of 10 exp -50 (ten to the negative 50th power) as the “it ain’t gonna happen” point. Personally, I wouldn’t bet a rusty lock-washer on odds worse than 10 exp -20 or the Cubs winning a World Series in the lifetimes of their present owners. .

Rigorous math and logic is a nice goal, but be grateful when it leads to a fair approximation of real physical phenomena.

 

[greylorn]

These again are important and essential questions. God changes nature by raising the dead (as many saints did), healing, bringing supernatural life into nature, creating spiritual souls which are capable of making decisions (and rise *above *nature – not caused by or enslaved by it), free will overcomes “selection” and refutes evolutionism. Supernatural assistance is constant – God’s intervention never stops. These are basic truths.

With considerable respect for much of your reasoning and appreciation for your arguments, I submit that these are basic beliefs, not necessarily truths. They are beliefs which I once held as deeply as you appear to, and back then, I too would have referred to them as “truth.”

There are two distinct aspects to the theory of evolution. One is the fossil evidence showing the extreme age of life forms and their gradual change into the forms seen today. The other is the theory used to explain the evidence.

ID is an attempt to explain the same evidence in a different way from Darwinism and neo-Darwinism. But like evolution theory, ID has two distinct aspects of its own. One of these is badly neglected by ID proponents.

The first of these is the aspect focused upon by ID proponents— proof of ID theory. This is being accomplished by arguments in favor of design, and others disproving elements of neo-Darwinism. But what about the neglected aspect?

Suppose that I accept the general principles of Intelligent Design (which I actually do). My next question is, who is the designer? An intelligent entity is implied. What are the properties of the entity, or entities? Equally important, what are his or their motivations?

ID proponents generally assume that the designer is necessarily the omnipotent, omniscient God of Christianity. The evidence in favor of design does not support such a conclusion.

What say you?

And if Tonyrey is reading, what say you as well?

 

[Michaelo]

The evidence in favor of design does not support such a conclusion.

Can you first state what you believe to be evidence for design?

 

[greylorn]

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

…etc…

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…

I’ve shared many a metaphysical conversation with a cherished and wise Buddhist neighbor. From these and my perusals of your conversations with Rossum, I’ve formulated Greylorn’s two laws of Buddhism.

1. Arguing definable concepts with a Buddhist is like trying to grab an eel in a bucket of snot.
2. After awhile, reading arguments between a Buddhist and an interesting person becomes like watching someone try to grab an eel in a bucket of snot.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

I think maybe you are confusing science with science fiction?

I think you’ve clearly discredited yourself with your distorted view of what science is. The ability to apply the scientific method is what makes a hypothesis scientific. You cannot apply the scientific method to ID therefore it is not science.

 

[tonyrey]

I’ve shared many a metaphysical conversation with a cherished and wise Buddhist neighbor. From these and my perusals of your conversations with Rossum, I’ve formulated Greylorn’s two laws of Buddhism.

1. Arguing definable concepts with a Buddhist is like trying to grab an eel in a bucket of snot.
2. After awhile, reading arguments between a Buddhist and an interesting person becomes like watching someone try to grab an eel in a bucket of snot.

The solution is patience. Sooner or later we all reveal what we truly need and hence what we truly believe…