Is intelligent design a plausible theory?

[rossum]

(Q 1) Then why did you say it was “incredibly unlikely”?

I have never said that abiogenesis was “incredibly unlikely”. In post #511 I talked about the ordering of two packs of cards shuffled together. Later in post #557 I denied saying that abiogenesis was “incredibly unlikely”, only that the creationist strawman of evolution-without-selection was incredibly unlikely. If you have a different reference then please give it.

(Q 2) I am referring to the survival of the individual.

How is this relevant to the plausibility of ID as a scientific theory.

(Q 3) If intelligence can exist without a material body why do you reject Design by a disembodied Designer?

Because I have insufficient scientific evidence of the design of living organisms by an immaterial designer. Such a designer may exist and may have designed things, but there is currently insufficient scientific evidence to allow such a hypothesis to be taught in science classes. Furthermore, I get my evidence of the existence of such intelligences from Buddhist scriptures and they explicitly deny that the universe was created by such a disembodied designer: Brahmajala sutta, Digha Nikaya 1.

(Q 4) There is scientific evidence for Design.

Then please show it. This whole argument comes about because the ID side does not currently have enough scientific evidence to justify a place in science classes.

(Q 6) Even if you were discussing the development of intelligence?

I strongly suspect that many parents would have complained if I started preaching Buddhist theology in a biology class. My classes included Protestants, Catholics, JWs, Jews, Hindus, Moslems and Sikhs to my knowledge.

(Q 7) If you cannot answer the question you have no reason for claiming that Design requires an embodied Designer.

I disagree. It is you who is asserting that the disembodied designer moves DNA base pairs around so it is up to you to say how those base pairs get rearranged.

(Q 9) Some biologists argue that universal common descent is logically an untestable, but necessary, axiom of biology

Other biologists disagree. The universality of the genetic code is just one evidence of common descent. Had there been many different unrelated codes then that would have been evidence against common descent.

(Q 10) Unless a good reason for deception is forthcoming the deception hypothesis is vacuous. It is obvious that the Designer must have immense wisdom and power to design the universe.

You are attributing something to the designer that the ID movement does not do.

(Q 11) In that case you should not have insisted on “impossible”, i.e. apodictic certainty, as a condition for evidence of Design.

I am happy to settle for 95% or better.

(Q 12) There is ample scientific evidence that animals do not have sufficient intelligence to distinguish between right and wrong.

You need to read more. See Animals are able to tell right from wrong.

(Q 50) No but human beings have been given the freedom and the responsibility to choose what to design for good or evil purposes.

My apologies for not framing my question more clearly. I shall rephrase it:50. What scientific experiment can I perform in the lab to show the action of the intelligent designer(s) proposed by the ID hypothesis?

(Q 51) Undesigned evolution does not explain beauty nor colours because the beauty and colours of inanimate objects are not necessary for survival. The sky need not be blue.

The blue sky is explained by the scattering of sunlight in the atmosphere, not evolution. You have not shown that “evolution does not explain X” is an answer to my question 51: “What observation can I make in the field to show the action of the intelligent designer(s) proposed by the ID hypothesis?” I have taken the opportunity to clarify my phrasing, as with question 50.

(Q 52) You are mistaken. Intelligibility, adequacy, consistent, coherence and probability are the fundamental criteria of a scientific theory.

Take the “adequacy” example, how would we show that the ID hypothesis was not adequate?

The Designer does not necessarily design every object in the universe individually

So how do we tell the difference between individually designed objects and non-individually designed objects? What evidence do you have for the existence of either type of object? Are there any non-designed objects in the universe?

He does not “make” particular objects like the bacterial flagellum or monstrosities by piecemeal intervention.

Professor Behe would seem to disagree with you.

By remembering that the Designer of such a valuable and beautiful universe is hardly likely to indulge in infantile pranks.

How do you know that the designer is not an infant designer who is only 100th of the way through her lifetime and hence very likely to indulge in “infantile pranks”. This is science, not philosophy. You need to produce scientific evidence for any statements you make.

You misunderstand me. Science would falsify Design if it explains (away) immaterial entities by showing they have a physical explanation

Again you fail to avoid the problem with a designer who mimics regularity and chance.

rossum

 

[MindOverMatter]

reggieM

*I think it’s important also to try to place God in this discussion – since you are a believer. ID is merely an extension of St. Thomas Aquinas’ 5th proof of the existence of God. So, it’s an ancient component of Catholic philosophy (it actually goes back to St. Paul). *

Who got it from Isaiah, who got it from Genesis. :bible1: :takeoff:

But, Aquinas does not deny the existence of a natural order of secondary causes. So his arguement for intelligent design is completely compatible with natural evolution.

Intelligent design, as represented by Behe, is not a biblical revelation, so please stop bringing religion into science.

 

[edwest2]

But, Aquinas does not deny the existence of a natural order of secondary causes. So his arguement for intelligent design is completely compatible with natural evolution.

Intelligent design, as represented by Behe, is not a biblical revelation, so please stop bringing religion into science.

Can I ask then that others don’t bring science into religion?

Adam and Eve – two individuals, not a population.

Peace,
Ed

 

[MindOverMatter]

Can I ask then that others don’t bring science into religion?

Adam and Eve – two individuals, not a population.

Peace,
Ed

Adam and Eve…why you say this, does science disprove that there was not an Adam an eve?

Of coarse, i accept Adam and eve by faith.

But, hypothetically speaking, If the idea of Adam and Eve was disproved by science, why would this be a problem? Would it not simply mean that we are mistaken about the meaning of the Bible? It doesn’t necessarily mean that the Bible is false. Truth cannot contradict truth. Poor interpretation can contradict truth.

In any case, i don’t see how evolution is showing us that the human race as we know it
evolved from a group rather then two individuals.

Perhaps this is a real issue that we should discuss.

 

[StAnastasia]

Can I ask then that others don’t bring science into religion? Adam and Eve – two individuals, not a population.Peace,Ed

Ed, both can be true, just as with the elements in the Eucharist. The bread and wine are at the same time (1) chemically bread and wine, and (2) Christ present in the Eucharist.

“Adam” and “Eve” are both (1) the progenitors of the human race, and (2) symbolic of evolving homo sapiens.

StAnastasia

 

[edwest2]

You know that there are things science cannot demonstrate yet people post here all the time saying it can cross the line into religion.

And no. You’re wrong. Adam and Eve, two individuals. Eve made from Adam’s side. Faith and reason are complementary. But here, only science is given any credibility. Sad.

The deposit of faith contains facts revealed by God. Was Jesus Christ just a symbol? Give me a break. Just make it symbolic is not the correct answer, and again, science must be right, otherwise, the Bible is just wrong.

My faith in Jesus Christ is not just faith but actual history as well, as evidenced by the 2,000 year old Church He founded.

Peace,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

My faith in Jesus Christ is not just faith but actual history as well, as evidenced by the 2,000 year old Church He founded.Peace,Ed

Absolutely!

 

[tonyrey]

*1. Later in post #557 I denied saying that abiogenesis was “incredibly unlikely”, only that the creationist strawman of evolution-without-selection was incredibly unlikely.
*
In the context of abiogenesis your exact words were “Incredibly unlikely things happen all the time”. This can be taken to mean that no matter how unlikely abiogenesis was we should not be surprised if has happened. Is that correct?

*2. How is this relevant to the plausibility of ID as a scientific theory?
*
You have stated that the purpose of unDesigned evolution is reproduction not survival - which I have refuted. It is relevant because unDesigned evolution has no long-term purpose - as you have admitted - and the fundamental role of chance in the struggle for survival has made it a haphazard process which has led to sterile monstrosities as well as dead ends. Yet in spite of this lack of foresight there has been systematic development with a definite trend towards increased complexity, a higher degree of organization, consciousness, sensitivity and autonomy culminating in what Monod describes as “a feat of fantastic difficulty” - the human brain. Natural selection is a grossly inadequate explanation:

“We still seek a theory of Order in its most interesting and important form, that which is represented by the complex functional and structural integration of living organisms… In our moods of abstract theorization we tend to forget how great and diverse are the functional commitments of biological macromolecules. They insulate, they fill out; they fetch and carry; they prevent the organism as a whole from falling apart or dissolving in water; they prop up, they protect; they attack and defend; they store energy and catalyze its transfer; they store information and convey messages. The successful prosecution of all these activities depends upon properties more complex, various and particular than can be written down in the language of energetics or information theory.” - Sir Peter Medawar: The Art of the Soluble.

3*. Because I have insufficient scientific evidence of the design of living organisms by an immaterial designer… Furthermore, I get my evidence of the existence of such intelligences from Buddhist scriptures and they explicitly deny that the universe was created by such a disembodied designer: Brahmajala sutta, Digha Nikaya 1.
*
How do you know the Buddhist scriptures are true?

*4. Then please show it. This whole argument comes about because the ID side does not currently have enough scientific evidence to justify a place in science classes.
*
No. This particular argument comes about because you want schools to misrepresent NeoDarwinism as the only explanation of human beings.

6. I strongly suspect that many parents would have complained if I started preaching Buddhist theology in a biology class.

It is not a question of preaching but of teaching rather than NeoDarwinist proselytizing.

*7. I disagree. It is you who is asserting that the disembodied designer moves DNA base pairs around so it is up to you to say how those base pairs get rearranged.
*
You have failed to explain how physical and non-physical reality are related and yet you arbitrarily separate embodied designers from disembodied designers. What will happen to your intelligence when you die? Can it function without your body? If so you have no reason to object to a disembodied designer as unscientific.Can you explain how there is designerless, purposeless, valueless design in nature within the Buddhist scheme of things?

• 1. Other biologists disagree. The universality of the genetic code is just one evidence of common descent. Had there been many different unrelated codes then that would have been evidence against common descent.

The fact that there is disagreement undermines the falsifiability of evolution

10. You are attributing something to the designer that the ID movement does not do.
So what? Does that mean I must be mistaken?!

11. I am happy to settle for 95% or better.
Thank you for your concession.

12. You need to read more. See Animals are able to tell right from wrong.

You are assuming that morality is solely a social phenomenon resulting from biological evolution - which is surely at odds with your Buddhist beliefs.

 

[rossum]

(Q 1) In the context of abiogenesis your exact words were “Incredibly unlikely things happen all the time”. This can be taken to mean that no matter how unlikely abiogenesis was we should not be surprised if has happened. Is that correct?

No, it is not correct. In post #511 I was talking specifically about shuffling two packs of cards together to show that incredibly unlikely things can easily happen. The point was to show that you were misapplying Borel’s Law. I was not talking about abiogenesis in that context.

(Q 2) Yet in spite of this lack of foresight there has been systematic development with a definite trend towards increased complexity

There is a lower limit on the complexity of living organisms - below that limit life is not possible. As far as we are aware there is no upper limit, or if there is we have not reached it yet. Given a randomly spreading inkblot with a solid wall on one side then you will have the average moving further from the wall. There is nothing “systematic” about it, a simple random simulation will show increased complexity in those conditions.

(Q 3) How do you know the Buddhist scriptures are true?

I have followed their advice and it works. Hence I am provisionally prepared to trust them. My point is that your concept of an immaterial being and mine are different. I use different sources and get different information from those sources. Neither of our sources are scientific. We are agreed that intelligence can exist independent of a physical body. We differ as to the properties of those intelligences.

(Q 4) No. This particular argument comes about because you want schools to misrepresent NeoDarwinism as the only explanation of human beings.

I am talking strictly about science class. Evolution is the only available scientific explanation. ID can be discussed in theology, religion or philosophy classes. I do not want non-science to be misrepresented as science. Unless and until ID has greatly sharpened up its act on the scientific front it cannot be classed as science.

(Q 6) It is not a question of preaching but of teaching rather than NeoDarwinist proselytizing.

In a Biology class I would have followed the curriculum. As a teacher, that is part of my job, to teach the curriculum against which the exam would be set.

(Q 7) If so you have no reason to object to a disembodied designer as unscientific.

By the laws of physics if you move molecules around then you need energy to do it. If the disembodied designer is moving molecules around then the disembodied designer needs to manipulate physical energy in some way. Energy manipulations can in principle be detected by scientists. Such manipulations should be “directly observable”, to quote your original question. I am objecting to the refusal of ID to do the obvious experiments to show the actual manipulation of physical DNA molecules by their proposed designer.

Can you explain how there is designerless, purposeless, valueless design in nature within the Buddhist scheme of things?

In Buddhism the universe does not have a purpose, it merely exists. It is the living beings within that universe that have purposes. Buddhism instructs us as to what our purpose should be and how best to act within the universe to attain our goal. The universe is a neutral backdrop within which the action takes place.

(Q 9) The fact that there is disagreement undermines the falsifiability of evolution

Why? Pretty much every bit of science that is still active has disagreements among scientists. That does not invalidate possible falsifications.

(Q 10) So what? Does that mean I must be mistaken?!

No, but it does mean that what you are talking about is not ID as proposed by the Discovery Institute. I am discussing the DI version of ID, since it is that version which is proposed for inclusion in science classes.

(Q 12) You are assuming that morality is solely a social phenomenon resulting from biological evolution - which is surely at odds with your Buddhist beliefs.

No. I am saying that animals show evidence of morality, which is consistent with Buddhist belief. Buddhism is silent on the origin of morality, merely saying that it exists and is universal. In general Buddhism is silent on the origin of many things, it merely accepts their existence and describes their use or avoidance as a means to progressing on the path.

(Q 50) What scientific experiment can I perform in the lab to show the action of the intelligent designer(s) proposed by the ID hypothesis?

(Q 51) What observation can I make in the field to show the action of the intelligent designer(s) proposed by the ID hypothesis?

(Q 52) How could the Intelligent Design hypothesis be falsified?

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

(Q 1) No, it is not correct. In post #511 I was talking specifically about shuffling two packs of cards together to show that incredibly unlikely things can easily happen.

There are obviously too many variables to determine the precise (im)probability of abiogenesis but what is your approximate estimate?

(Q 2) *Yet in spite of this lack of foresight there has been systematic development with a definite trend towards increased complexity.

There is a lower limit on the complexity of living organisms - below that limit life is not possible. As far as we are aware there is no upper limit, or if there is we have not reached it yet. Given a randomly spreading inkblot with a solid wall on one side then you will have the average moving further from the wall. There is nothing “systematic” about it, a simple random simulation will show increased complexity in those conditions.
*
A randomly spreading inkblot is hardly an appropriate analogy for the development for living organisms. What about their systematic development with a definite trend towards increased complexity, a higher degree of organization, consciousness, sensitivity and autonomy culminating in what Monod describes as “a feat of fantastic difficulty” - the human brain? And Medawar’s admission of the need for a theory of Order?

(Q 3) We are agreed that intelligence can exist independent of a physical body. We differ as to the properties of those intelligences.

We can merge this question with (Q 7).

(Q 4) *No. This particular argument comes about because you want schools to misrepresent NeoDarwinism as the only explanation of human beings.

I am talking strictly about science class. Evolution is the only available scientific explanation.*
Opinions differ about that. We can merge this question with (Q 6).

(Q 6)* It is not a question of preaching but of teaching rather than NeoDarwinist proselytizing.

In a Biology class I would have followed the curriculum. As a teacher, that is part of my job, to teach the curriculum against which the exam would be set.
*
In other words you teach nothing apart from the curriculum even if you give a false impression of NeoDarwinism as the only explanation of human existence?

(Q 7)* If so you have no reason to object to a disembodied designer as unscientific.

By the laws of physics if you move molecules around then you need energy to do it. If the disembodied designer is moving molecules around then the disembodied designer needs to manipulate physical energy in some way. Energy manipulations can in principle be detected by scientists. Such manipulations should be “directly observable”, to quote your original question. I am objecting to the refusal of ID to do the obvious experiments to show the actual manipulation of physical DNA molecules by their proposed designer.
*
You are assuming that the laws of physics explain all biological and human activity, that even intelligent design by a person is explicable (in principle) by energy manipulations. In other words you are denying we are autonomous, purposeful agents. In your view we are simply biological machines manipulated by DNA molecules.

(Q 8) *Can you explain how there is designerless, purposeless, valueless design in nature within the Buddhist scheme of things?

In Buddhism the universe does not have a purpose, it merely exists. It is the living beings within that universe that have purposes. Buddhism instructs us as to what our purpose should be and how best to act within the universe to attain our goal. The universe is a neutral backdrop within which the action takes place.*

No explanation of the universe, no explanation of personality, no explanation of purpose, no explanation of free will, no explanation of morality? Simply a neutral backdrop within which the action takes place? We can merge this question with (Q 12).

(Q 9) T*he fact that there is disagreement undermines the falsifiability of evolution.

Why? Pretty much every bit of science that is still active has disagreements among scientists. That does not invalidate possible falsifications.

*Yes, but only in topics where there is no disagreement.

(Q 10)* So what? Does that mean I must be mistaken?!

No, but it does mean that what you are talking about is not ID as proposed by the Discovery Institute. I am discussing the DI version of ID, since it is that version which is proposed for inclusion in science classes.*

Are you implying my version of Design is acceptable?!

(Q 12) *You are assuming that morality is solely a social phenomenon resulting from biological evolution - which is surely at odds with your Buddhist beliefs.

No. I am saying that animals show evidence of morality, which is consistent with Buddhist belief. Buddhism is silent on the origin of morality, merely saying that it exists and is universal. In general Buddhism is silent on the origin of many things, it merely accepts their existence and describes their use or avoidance as a means to progressing on the path.*

I have great admiration and respect for Buddhism (and Buddhists) but, in my view, much as I appreciate silence, its silence undermines its cogency.

I shall answer your questions separately.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Eve made from Adam’s side.

Is there nothing about this that suggests to you that this story might be using analogy and poetry to express that Adam and Eve are one in nature? Is it not possible that this did not literally happen, and yet the bible is still true?

 

[rossum]

(Q 1)There are obviously too many variables to determine the precise (im)probability of abiogenesis but what is your approximate estimate?

I have no estimate. The error on the estimate would be greater than the magnitude of the estimate.

(Q 2) A randomly spreading inkblot is hardly an appropriate analogy for the development for living organisms.

In this case it is. Common descent ensures that new species are similar (i.e. near to) existing species so the inkblot spreads at its edges. Given the existence of a barrrier there is only one thing complexity can do, which is to increase on average.

(Q 3) We can merge this question with (Q 7).

Agreed.

(Q 4)We can merge this question with (Q 6).

Agreed.

(Q 6) In other words you teach nothing apart from the curriculum even if you give a false impression of NeoDarwinism as the only explanation of human existence?

There were Religous Studies teachers on the staff who were better trained, more knowledgeable and who knew their curriculum better than me to provide the alternative explanations. I did not teach their subject, and they did not teach mine. I did not teach French irregular verbs of the history of the Civil War in my lessons either. Evolution is the only scientific explanation available. This whole discussion is about whether or not ID is a plausible alternative.

(Q 7) You are assuming that the laws of physics explain all biological and human activity, that even intelligent design by a person is explicable (in principle) by energy manipulations.

No. I am saying that if you move a physical molecule around then you are moving a physical object that has a meaasurable weight and will take a measurable (name removed by moderator)ut of energy to move. The base pairs in DNA are just such molecules. Given that the designer is moving molecules around in order to make, say, the DNA for a bacterial flagellum then that energy (name removed by moderator)ut should be detectable by normal scientific methods. ID asserts that the DNA for a bacterial flagellum cannot have evolved so ID must propose some other way that this particular piece of DNA formed.

(Q 8) We can merge this question with (Q 12).

It seems to me to fit better with Q 10 that Q 12, both are about falsifiability and how we can determine something that could not have been designed.

(Q 9)

Why? Pretty much every bit of science that is still active has disagreements among scientists. That does not invalidate possible falsifications.

Yes, but only in topics where there is no disagreement.

I am not sure what you mean here. There is much debate about the details of evolution, but there is no disagreement on Darwin’s two falsifications or Haldane’s rabbit.

(Q 10) Are you implying my version of Design is acceptable?!

It might be. What scientific evidence do you have to support it?

(Q 12) I have great admiration and respect for Buddhism (and Buddhists) but, in my view, much as I appreciate silence, its silence undermines its cogency.

Buddhism is not an Abrahamic religion. Things that appear important to Abrahamic religions may be seen as distractions in Buddhism. The approach and mindset are different: history is much less emphasised and the differences between humans and other living beings are far less significant.

This is not strictly relevant to the question of whether intelligent or non-intelligent processes are the better explanation.

I shall answer your questions separately.

Fine.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

(Q 1). I have no estimate. The error on the estimate would be greater than the magnitude of the estimate.

Don’t you think the immense complexity of life makes it highly improbable that random combinations of molecules would succeed where teams of scientists have failed? " We still seek a theory of Order in its most interesting and important form, that which is represented by the complex functional and structural integration of living organisms…"

(Q 2) A randomly spreading inkblot is hardly an appropriate analogy for the development for living organisms.
In this case it is. Common descent ensures that new species are similar (i.e. near to) existing species so the inkblot spreads at its edges. Given the existence of a barrier there is only one thing complexity can do, which is to increase on average.

You seem to be equating an increase of complexity with an increase of size. There is no organization, natural selection or co-ordinated development in an inkblot.

(Q 6) In other words you teach nothing apart from the curriculum even if you give a false impression of NeoDarwinism as the only explanation of human existence?
There were Religious Studies teachers on the staff who were better trained, more knowledgeable and who knew their curriculum better than me to provide the alternative explanations.

There are many students who do not study RE. You are content to leave them with a false impression?

(Q 7) You are assuming that the laws of physics explain all biological and human activity, that even intelligent design by a person is explicable (in principle) by energy manipulations.
Given that the designer is moving molecules around in order to make, say, the DNA for a bacterial flagellum then that energy (name removed by moderator)ut should be detectable by normal scientific methods. ID asserts that the DNA for a bacterial flagellum cannot have evolved so ID must propose some other way that this particular piece of DNA formed.

I have already pointed out that Design is not piecemeal intervention. It is not a question of physical energy (name removed by moderator)ut but of the purpose to which it is put. Science can explain the mechanism of a car but it cannot explain why it is going to London. It is the same with the directiveness of evolution. Science cannot explain why the development of biological organisms has progressed beyond the needs of survival to the existence of rational, free, creative, moral beings.

(Q 9) I am not sure what you mean here. There is much debate about the details of evolution, but there is no disagreement on Darwin’s two falsifications or Haldane’s rabbit.

I have pointed out the controversial assumption on which they are based.

(Q 10) Are you implying my version of Design is acceptable?!
It might be. What scientific evidence do you have to support it?

Please refer to the next answer.

(Q 12) This is not strictly relevant to the question of whether intelligent or non-intelligent processes is the better explanation.

It is directly relevant because the origin and nature of intelligence directly affect that question. You stated: “I can see elements of intelligence in the behaviour of animals, such as chimps. What was present in our ancestor can be amplified in ourselves. We observably have a much larger brain that the other hominidae.” This implies intelligent activity is physical. Since physical activity constitutes scientific evidence intelligent activity must be scientific evidence. Moreover you must regard non-physical intelligence not only as non-scientific but also as non-existent because you believe intelligent activity is physical!

 

[reggieM]

This is an observation from personal experience, and from my occasional perusal of ID material. For example, Lee Strobel in “The Case for a Creator,” makes an excellent, detailed case in favor of I.D. If I recall correctly, he concludes his otherwise excellent book with the simpleminded declaration that Jesus Christ created the universe. Or God the Father. Or both.

I agree with two things here. He makes an excellent case for ID, providing some solid, well-documented information. But at the same time, I agree that the conclusion was simpleminded and poorly done – like an evangelical afterthought where they have to make an explicit Scriptural reference at the end, even if it doesn’t fit and provides no real support for the argument.

 

[edwest2]

Is there nothing about this that suggests to you that this story might be using analogy and poetry to express that Adam and Eve are one in nature? Is it not possible that this did not literally happen, and yet the bible is still true?

This is held as a fact by the Catholic Church. It appears that the great wall is between science and its complementary relationship with revealed truth and those who want a science that teaches all we see around us came about by purely natural means. Tacking on the word God does not change anything for them. As long as Catholics accept the idea that a self-starting, self-creating engine called evolution could bring about all life then they don’t mind, for now, the word God being added.

The Church tells us there are things God can do. Did Christ die and rise again? Yes or no? Why did He have to live and die as a sacrifice? The origin of Original Sin is?

Christ literally raised people from the dead.

Peace,
Ed

 

[rossum]

(Q 1) Don’t you think the immense complexity of life makes it highly improbable that random combinations of molecules would succeed where teams of scientists have failed?

I have repeatedly pointed out that chemistry is not random. Any model that just uses random combinations, as opposed to only chemically possible combinations, will give an incorrect answer.

In general you cannot show that ID is correct by criticising abiogenesis. The default scientific position is “we do not know”, and you need positive evidence for your position to move science away from its default.

(Q 2) You seem to be equating an increase of complexity with an increase of size. There is no organization, natural selection or co-ordinated development in an inkblot.

No, I am using the size dimension as a model of the complexity dimension. For a more detailed model have a look at: The Growth of Complexity. For an even more complete example look at Evolution of biological complexity.

The second reference is worth a look. It shows the level of detail at which scientists are working. It is that level of detail which ID is lacking, and why scientists do not accept it as science.

(Q 6) There are many students who do not study RE. You are content to leave them with a false impression?

When I taught in UK schools RE was compulsory. Parents could withdraw their children, but those parents were usually religious themselves (Jehova’s Witnesses for example) so the children would have been taught that aspect at home.

(Q 7) It is not a question of physical energy (name removed by moderator)ut but of the purpose to which it is put.

It is a question of energy (name removed by moderator)ut. A pure design can exist in my head, but unless I actually do something outside my head, then that design will be purely non-physical. I actually need to move things around in the material world if I want that design to exist in the material world. ID asserts that its designs exist in the material world, as with the bacterial flagellum. At some point the designer must have twiddled with some physical molecules. At that point ID becomes scientifically investigable. All the usual scientific questions can be asked: how? when? where? and so forth. ID needs to do the required scientific work to show the designer actually moving molecules around.

Science can explain the mechanism of a car but it cannot explain why it is going to London. It is the same with the directiveness of evolution. Science cannot explain why the development of biological organisms has progressed beyond the needs of survival to the existence of rational, free, creative, moral beings.

Evolution does not claim to explain everything. Currently it explains more than ID, because ID has no scientific explanation for anything. It might have a theological or philosophical explanation for many things, but philosophy is not generally taught in science class.

(Q 9) I have pointed out the controversial assumption on which they are based.

There is no scientific controversy about either of Darwin’s proposed falsifications or Haldane’s. There is controversy about the complete failure of ID to provide any means of falsifying itself. This is why I asked my question #52.

(Q 12) It is directly relevant because the origin and nature of intelligence directly affect that question. You stated: “I can see elements of intelligence in the behaviour of animals, such as chimps. What was present in our ancestor can be amplified in ourselves. We observably have a much larger brain that the other hominidae.” This implies intelligent activity is physical. Since physical activity constitutes scientific evidence intelligent activity must be scientific evidence. Moreover you must regard non-physical intelligence not only as non-scientific but also as non-existent because you believe intelligent activity is physical!

Intelligence is partly physical. Physical damage to the brain can cause impairments to intelligence as can drugs or alcohol. We can measure intelligence in animals. A worm has less intelligence than a mouse. A mouse has less intelligence than a chimp. A chimp has less intelligence than a human. There is a relation between brain size and measured intelligence. It seems obvious to me that there is a physical component to intelligence, just as there is a physical component to being human. Evolution can help explain the origin of that physical component.

Non-physical intelligence is non-scientific because there is no scientific evidence for it. Since my beliefs encompass more than just science I do not see non-physical intelligence as non-existent. Some aspects of intelligence are open to scientific investigation, other aspects are not. Some aspects of nirvana are open to scientific investigation, other aspects are not. There are many things that exist that are not completely open to scientific investigation. I am not a philosophical materialist.

Please do not forget my three questions.

rossum

 

[MindOverMatter]

This is held as a fact by the Catholic Church. Peace,
Ed

Is it really true that the Church teaches us that we must literally believe that Eve was made from one of Adams ribs?

I suppose we must also believe that God parted the sea with the wind of his “nostrils” !!!

As long as Catholics accept the idea that a self-starting, self-creating engine called evolution could bring about all life then they don’t mind, for now, the word God being added.
Ed

You implying that there is a huge conspiracy within the science community to pervert scientific data in order to undermine religion.
That kind of paranoia will get you no where in life.

The Church tells us there are things God can do. Did Christ die and rise again? Yes or no? Why did He have to live and die as a sacrifice? The origin of Original Sin is?Peace,
Ed

What has that got to do with current scientific reasearch? Can science, in principle, prove that Jesus didn’t rise people from the dead? No.

Christ literally raised people from the dead.Peace,
Ed

Again, this has no bearing on the validity of evolution. You perceive evolution as a fret. But i have yet to see why evolution is necessarily a fret to Christianity.

 

[edwest2]

Yes, the Church teaches Eve was created from Adam’s side. With thanks to fellow poster, Buffalo:

kolbecenter.org/harrison.eve.html
DID WOMAN EVOLVE FROM THE BEASTS?
A DEFENSE OF TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC DOCTRINE

Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to defend a doctrinal thesis which is quite simple, very clear, very classical, but now very unpopular—not to say openly scorned and derided. I will argue that the formation by God of the first woman, Eve, from the side of the sleeping, adult Adam had, by the year 1880, been proposed infallibly by the universal and ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church as literally and historically true; so that this must forever remain a doctrine to be held definitively (at least) by all the faithful. I would express the thesis in Latin as follows:
Definitive tenendum est mulierem primam vere et historice formatam esse a Deo e latere primi viri dormientis.

Peace,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

I suppose we must also believe that God parted the sea with the wind of his “nostrils” !!!

“Nostrils”?

Exodus 14:21: “And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided.”

 

[liquidpele]

“Nostrils”?

Exodus 14:21: “And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided.”

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2015:8,