Is intelligent design a plausible theory?

[tonyrey]

Buddhism accepts the existence of free will and denies the existence of a designer.

Then Buddhism has no explanation of free will and is inferior to Design in at least one respect.

Even without that, you are making a God of the gaps argument.

Design is hardly a God of the gaps argument since it explains all the most important aspects of existence: truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love.the order of the universe, the origin of life, the directiveness of the simple cell, the progressive nature of evolution and the existence of rational, autonomous, moral beings who have the capacity for unselfish love and the right to life, freedom and self-determination.

If Design can explain both beauty and ugliness then it becomes useless as an explanation.

An explanation which explains more than one aspect of existence is more useful than an explanation like NeoDarwinism which explains none of the most important aspects of existence.

Why are you looking to science for an explanation of beauty and ugliness? They are subjective and wholly dependent on human perceptions.

You used ugliness as a disproof of Design. Now you are saying it is subjective. How can a human perception possibly be a disproof of Design?

There is as yet no scientific evidence for design.

Scientific evidence for design consists of:

1. The laws of nature which are necessary for life and a rational existence.
2. The directiveness of a living cell.
3. The progressive nature of evolution.
4. The information system contained in the DNA code.
5. The survival of life despite overwhelming odds.
6. The development of the human brain, “a feat of fantastic difficulty” (Monod):
   “The phenomenon of human knowledge is the greatest miracle in our universe” (Karl Popper).
7. The existence of rational, autonomous, moral and responsible beings with a capacity for unselfish love.

One tried and tested way of detecting design is to examine human behaviour to determine whether it is rational and purposeful. In the law courts there are definite criteria for determining whether human actions are premeditated. Neurological experiments can determine whether or not intelligent design is produced solely by physical processes. If so Design is falsified because Design presupposes a non-physical Designer.

Design predicts that:

1. The laws of nature and physical constants necessary for life will hold good.
2. A computed simulation of the origin and development of the universe will never demonstrate that physical events can produce intelligent beings. .
3. Human beings will always be regarded as rational and responsible for their behaviour.
4. Human intelligence will remain more creative, original, powerful and versatile than artificial intelligence.
5. Neurological research will never fully explain for human intelligence.
6. Science will never explain all aspects of human activity.

The Intelligent Design explanation would be falsified if it were shown to be:

1. Unintelligible. You yourself have argued the concepts of Design and a Designer are unintelligible. If science fully explained all entities we believe to be immaterial Design would certainly be unintelligible because there could be no Designer.
2. Inconsistent. Atheists have often attempted to falsify Design by referring to the evil and suffering in the world. It would be sufficient to provide a detailed blueprint of a feasible world in which there are far fewer accidents, deformities, diseases and disasters.
3. Incoherent. According to Design the laws of nature are designed as a basis for life, development and rational existence. If those laws ceased to hold good it would demonstrate that the very foundations of Design have been removed.
4. Superfluous. Design claims that human beings free will and responsibility were designed. If neurological research showed that free will and responsibility are illusions Design would be falsified.
5. Uneconomical. If NeoDarwinism explained the existence of human beings it would refute Design by making it superfluous. The immense value of life implies that the Designer is good and would not resort to the subterfuge of mimicry.
6. Improbable. Design would be improbable if scientific calculations demonstrated that there is an extremely high probability that life emerged fortuitously.

 

[rossum]

Part One of Two

Then Buddhism has no explanation of free will and is inferior to Design in at least one respect.

Design has no explanation for the origin of the Designer and so is inferior to Buddhism in at least one respect.

Design is hardly a God of the gaps argument

It is. The design argument you are using runs “science cannot (currently) explain X, therefore the Designer made X” for various values of X. That is precisely a God of the gaps argument.

Consider “science cannot (currently) explain thunder, therefore Zeus makes thunder”. That is exactly your argument, yet it was not a good argument, for Zeus.

the origin of life,

You are on very dangerous ground here. Science is making progress in abiogenesis, see New Glimpses of Life’s Puzzling Origins. It is very unwise to bet your God’s existence on the assumption that science will not make further progress in abiogenesis.

An explanation which explains more than one aspect of existence is more useful than an explanation like NeoDarwinism which explains none of the most important aspects of existence.

You are expecting too much of evolution. Darwin’s book was “On the Origin of Species”. Evolutin explains the origin of species very well. It does not explain plumbing, Shakespeare’s plays or why Obama won the US Presidential election. There are a great many things that evolution does no even attempt to explain.

You used ugliness as a disproof of Design.

Because you used beauty as a proof of design.

Now you are saying it is subjective. How can a human perception possibly be a disproof of Design?

Exactly. Beauty is just as subjective as ugliness so neither can be used as a scientific proof or disproof of design.

Scientific evidence for design consists of:

1. The laws of nature which are necessary for life and a rational existence.

Cosmology, not design.

1. The directiveness of a living cell.

Evolution, not design.

1. The progressive nature of evolution.

Evolution is not progressive. It can regress as well as progress.

1. The information system contained in the DNA code.

Is a product of evolution, as is shown by the minor variants in the code forming a well established tree.

1. The survival of life despite overwhelming odds.

I will need to see the mathematical model and your calculations of those odds please.

1. The development of the human brain,

Which is not difficult to see, given a chimp-like brain. All structures present in our brains are also present in chimps brains. Our parts are of different relative sizes, but all parts are present in both brains.

1. The existence of rational, autonomous, moral and responsible beings with a capacity for unselfish love.

All of those are present to some degree in other animals. We may have them in larger quantities, but they are not unique to us.

One tried and tested way of detecting design is to examine human behaviour to determine whether it is rational and purposeful. In the law courts there are definite criteria for determining whether human actions are premeditated. Neurological experiments can determine whether or not intelligent design is produced solely by physical processes. If so Design is falsified because Design presupposes a non-physical Designer.

There is so far no scientific evidence of any non-material designer. Nor is there any scientific evidence of how such a proposed non-material designer can actually shape DNA according to its design.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Part Two of Two

Design predicts that:

1. The laws of nature and physical constants necessary for life will hold good.

So does cosmology. This does not allow us to distinguish design from cosmology.

1. A computed simulation of the origin and development of the universe will never demonstrate that physical events can produce intelligent beings.

Physical events, such as humans mating, can produce intellegent beings. This one has already been falsified.

1. Human beings will always be regarded as rational and responsible for their behaviour.

Is a 1 week old human being rational and responsible for its behaviour? This has already been falsified in some cases.

1. Human intelligence will remain more creative, original, powerful and versatile than artificial intelligence.

Chess computers can beat humans. You are making a dangerous prediction here. Excellent.

1. Neurological research will never fully explain for human intelligence.
2. Science will never explain all aspects of human activity.

Two more dangerous predictions. You are doing better than many ID supporters.

The Intelligent Design explanation would be falsified if it were shown to be:

1. Unintelligible. You yourself have argued the concepts of Design and a Designer are unintelligible. If science fully explained all entities we believe to be immaterial Design would certainly be unintelligible because there could be no Designer.

Not strictly a falsification, but in practice design would fall to Occam’s razor.

1. Inconsistent. Atheists have often attempted to falsify Design by referring to the evil and suffering in the world. It would be sufficient to provide a detailed blueprint of a feasible world in which there are far fewer accidents, deformities, diseases and disasters.

Easily done. Take the current world and remove malaria. That will greatly reduce the incidence of disease. It is also worth pointing out that this makes an assumption about the designer that the DI does not make.

1. Incoherent. According to Design the laws of nature are designed as a basis for life, development and rational existence. If those laws ceased to hold good it would demonstrate that the very foundations of Design have been removed.

Or that the designer changed its mind. We know that human designers can change their minds, why not other designers?

1. Superfluous. Design claims that human beings free will and responsibility were designed. If neurological research showed that free will and responsibility are illusions Design would be falsified.

Only the design of those particular things would be falsified. It would not falsify the assertion that the bacterial flagellum was designed.

1. Uneconomical. If NeoDarwinism explained the existence of human beings it would refute Design by making it superfluous. The immense value of life implies that the Designer is good and would not resort to the subterfuge of mimicry.

How do you scientifcally measure the value of life? This is a moral argument you are making, not a scientific one.

1. Improbable. Design would be improbable if scientific calculations demonstrated that there is an extremely high probability that life emerged fortuitously.

This is another Occam’s razor falsification rather than a strict falsification. It may be that the designer likes to look at black holes, because the designer finds them beautiful. As a side effect of designing a universe in which black holes are commom that universe also has life. That would be a designed universe, but one in which life emerged fortuitously and not as part of the designed purpose.

rossum

 

[liquidpele]

Then Buddhism has no explanation of free will and is inferior to Design in at least one respect.

Design is hardly a God of the gaps argument since it explains all the most important aspects of existence: truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love.the order of the universe, the origin of life, the directiveness of the simple cell, the progressive nature of evolution and the existence of rational, autonomous, moral beings who have the capacity for unselfish love and the right to life, freedom and self-determination.

An explanation which explains more than one aspect of existence is more useful than an explanation like NeoDarwinism which explains none of the most important aspects of existence. You used ugliness as a disproof of Design. Now you are saying it is subjective. How can a human perception possibly be a disproof of Design?

I think the point there is that you can’t use “beauty” as an argument for design because somethings are ugly… OR because both are subjective. Either way it’s not a valid argument.

I agree design is not “God of the Gaps”… but it certainly is a religious argument at it’s core and not a scientific one, even though by it’s very definition ID tries to refute that. Is it really any wonder that it is so staunchly supported by creationists and nearly no respectable biologists or cosmologists in the scientific community?

Scientific evidence for design consists of:
(previous stuff taken out due to 6000 char limit of posts)

Rules of nature do not mean design… rules ARE existence, but this does not imply a creator. Directiveness? I’m not even sure what you mean by that. The progressive nature of evolution is not that progressive. Dolphins used to be land animals and went back to water. Besides, as things compete, it’s quite reasonable to assume that progression gives benefits in most situations. DNA is hardly as organized as I think you think it is. If it were, it would be much more interesting. Survival of life?? We’ve had mass extinctions several times… only small percentages of life survives on a few occasions. The human brain is not all that different than animals brains… see my videos from TED I’ve posted on several occasions about how physical our consciousness is. “The existence of rational, autonomous, moral and responsible beings with a capacity for unselfish love” could be said for Chimps too. Morality is not evidence for a designer, it’s just something that we see. You’re placing more “well it’s just really complicated” arguments as proof, and they are not.

Design predicts that:
(previous stuff taken out due to 6000 char limit of posts)

The laws you cite are scientific laws and change a lot over time. #2 Would a simulation really imply that we were not designed? It might lean towards being a way to falsify I suppose. #3 isn’t even a prediction… who’s making the judgment call about what’s rational and responsible? Society? Same with #4… #5 is not a prediction but might be a way to falsify… you could probably claim that if we created AI it would falsify it… but then again would our process of designing it imply anything about our own development? It can, but I doubt it would ever be accepted as a falsification. #6 is silly… we can’t explain ALL aspects of anything, things are too complicated and the uncertainty principal forbids it.

The Intelligent Design explanation would be falsified if it were shown to be:
(previous stuff taken out due to 6000 char limit of posts)

#1 you are putting the burden on other theories… yours needs to stand on it’s own. No more of these “well other theories don’t explain XYZ” arguments please. #2 is easy… a world with no life. There, no accidents, or death, or even bad! #3 is ridiculous… breaking the rules falsifies theories, but saying that some scientific rule being broken falsifies a designer is silly. Scientific rules are broken all the time. A balloon with helium goes up and defies gravity… WOW! General relativity defies Newtonian physics… and the the double slit experiment defies pretty much what we knew about matter and energy. #4, while proving it 100% is probably not possible (what is though), most scientific evidence does point against free will and consciousness being more than physical qualities. Again, see the TED videos I’ve posted a lot or talk to a neurologist about what they think. #5… value of life? That’s subjective… Like I said… mass extinctions… we kill and hurt each other all the time… value of life indeed. #6 According to recent studies, it likely WAS probable… especially given the timespan. Either way though, the formation of life argument is not even part of this one… ID is a drop in replacement for evolution, not abiogenesis, don’t be like Charlemagne and keep attacking abiogenesis in order to try and support ID.

In short, the evidence for ID is lacking or non existent, and there is already much evidence against it.

 

[tonyrey]

Part One of Two

Neither Buddhism nor Design explain the ultimate origin of existence but Design postulates** one **Supreme Being Who explains the existence of intelligent persons with free will whereas Buddhism has no explanation whatsoever.

Design is a more **comprehensive **explanation than science which is limited to the physical aspect of existence. Design explains both the physical and non-physical aspects of existence. Science presupposes rationality and the value of rationality without explaining either. Science cannot explain itself…

Science is making progress in abiogenesis, see New Glimpses of Life’s Puzzling Origins.

“Glimpses” sums up the situation nicely. An explanation which explains all of the most important aspects of existence. is more useful than an explanation like NeoDarwinism which explains **none **of them.

There are a great many things that evolution does not even attempt to explain.

That is why Design is an incomparably more adequate explanation.

You used ugliness as a disproof of Design.
Because you used beauty as a proof of design.
Now you are saying it is subjective. How can a human perception possibly be a disproof of Design?
Beauty is just as subjective as ugliness so neither can be used as a scientific proof or disproof of design.

Then why didn’t you point that out in the first place when you jubilantly used ugliness as a disproof of Design?

Scientific evidence for design consists of:
1. The laws of nature which are necessary for life and a rational existence.
Cosmology, not design.

What explains cosmological facts? Design.

Scientific evidence for design consists of::
2. The directiveness of a living cell.
Evolution.

How does evolution explain the directiveness of a living cell?

3 .Evolution is not progressive. It can regress as well as progress.

You deduce from the fact that evolution has regressed that it has not progressed. Has it regressed to the same extent that it has progressed? The **overall **picture of evolution is progressive as Monod and many others have pointed out.

1. The information system contained in the DNA code.

How does evolution explain the origin of the DNA code?

5. The survival of life despite overwhelming odds.
I will need to see the mathematical model and your calculations of those odds please.

In the past 600 million years there have been five major mass extinctions that on average extinguished half of all species. The largest mass extinction to have affected life on earth was in the Permian-Triassic, which ended the Permian period 250 million years ago and killed off 90% of all species. Global environmental catastrophes which place the entire population of the earth at risk are estimated to take place several times per million years on average.

1. The development of the human brain.
   Which is not difficult to see, given a chimp-like brain. All structures present in our brains are also present in chimps brains. Our parts are of different relative sizes, but all parts are present in both brains.

Similarity of physical **structure **does not explain the subsequent development of human beings nor does it entail similarity of **mind. **Do Buddhists believe all minds are identical?

1. The existence of rational, autonomous, moral and responsible beings with a capacity for unselfish love.
   All of those are present to some degree in other animals. We may have them in larger quantities, but they are not unique to us.

How do you explain the development of the power of abstract reasoning, belief in eternal values like compassion, self-consciousness, self-control, self-determination, moral responsibility and unselfish love for all creatures? Do you regard chimps as persons with a right to life? If so why not other animals?

One tried and tested way of detecting design is to examine human behaviour to determine whether it is rational and purposeful. In the law courts there are definite criteria for determining whether human actions are premeditated. Neurological experiments can determine whether or not intelligent design is produced solely by physical processes. If so Design is falsified because Design presupposes a non-physical Designer.
There is so far no scientific evidence of any non-material designer.

We are considering scientific evidence for intelligent Design not for a intelligent Designer. You have agreed that there cannot be design without a designer.

Nor is there any scientific evidence of how such a proposed non-material designer can actually shape DNA according to its design.

I have pointed out more than once that Intelligent Design is **directional **rather than mechanistic.

 

[rossum]

Neither Buddhism nor Design explain the ultimate origin of existence but Design postulates** one **Supreme Being Who explains the existence of intelligent persons with free will whereas Buddhism has no explanation whatsoever.

The Buddhist dharmakaya explains the origin of your proposed designer. Hence Buddhism is superior to design.

Design is a more **comprehensive **explanation than science which is limited to the physical aspect of existence.

By explaining everything, design explains nothing. “The designer did it” is not useful in any scientific sense. For example evolution can explain why men have nipples. All design can say is “the designer did it that way”, which tells us nothing.

“Glimpses” sums up the situation nicely. An explanation which explains all of the most important aspects of existence. is more useful than an explanation like NeoDarwinism which explains **none **of them.

Darwinism does not attempt to explain the origin of life; that is for abiogenesis. You are trying to fit your designer into an ever diminishing gap with abiogenesis. Do you really want to have a designer who gets smaller and smaller as science advances? Remember Zeus? - his gap disappeared and look what happened to him.

Then why didn’t you point that out in the first place when you jubilantly used ugliness as a disproof of Design?

There were two faults with your argument. Firstly by asserting X as proof of design, then not-X must be evidence against design. Secondly was the subjective nature of the particular X that you picked. I pointed out both faults.

How does evolution explain the origin of the DNA code?

Google “RNA World”.

Similarity of physical **structure **does not explain the subsequent development of human beings nor does it entail similarity of mind.

Similarity of physical structure is evidence for the evolution of our physical bodies. As a Buddhist I see much less difference between animal minds and human minds than I suspect you do.

Do you regard chimps as persons with a right to life? If so why not other animals?

The first of the moral rules of Buddhism is to avoid injury to living things. That includes all animals.

We are considering scientific evidence for intelligent Design not for a intelligent Designer. You have agreed that there cannot be design without a designer.

Correct. So in the absence of evidence for any designer and with alternative explanations for all the proposed examples of design there is no scientific case for intelligent design.

I have pointed out more than once that Intelligent Design is **directional **rather than mechanistic.

So how does the designer direct DNA to form as required rather than in other patterns. ID cannot escape the requirement to form DNA if it claims that the bacterial flagellum is designed. At some point some DNA molecules had to be (re)arranged. That is a mechanical task and should be susceptible to scientific experiments. Where are those experiments?

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

The Buddhist dharmakaya explains the origin of your proposed designer.

How does dharmakaya explain the origin of the Designer?

“The designer did it” is not useful in any scientific sense.

A person designed it, not physical causes, is a useful scientific explanation.

All design can say is “the designer did it that way”, which tells us nothing.

Design explains evolution from non-intelligent molecules to intelligent beings. An explanation which explains all of the most important aspects of existence is far more useful and fertile than an explanation like NeoDarwinism which explains none of them.

Firstly by asserting X as proof of design, then not-X must be evidence against design.

Design does not entail that everything is beautiful or harmonious. Beauty is evidence of harmony within Design whereas ugliness is the result of disharmony.

Secondly was the subjective nature of the particular X that you picked.

Beauty is not entirely subjective. How do you explain the Golden Rule? Is that also a human perception?

How does evolution explain the origin of the DNA code?
Google “RNA World”.

Hypotheses are provisional not definitive explanations.

Do you really want to have a designer who gets smaller and smaller as science advances?

Design is a more comprehensive explanation than science which is limited to the physical aspect of existence.

How does evolution explain the origin of the DNA code?
Google “RNA World”.

Hypotheses are provisional not definitive explanations.

Similarity of physical structure is evidence for the evolution of our physical bodies.

Design by evolution does not deny that our bodies have evolved.

The first of the moral rules of Buddhism is to avoid injury to living things.

What is the reason for that rule?

So in the absence of evidence for any designer and with alternative explanations for all the proposed examples of design there is no scientific case for intelligent design.

Where are the alternative explanations of intelligence, free will and purpose?

So how does the designer direct DNA to form as required rather than in other patterns.

By setting up the information system.

That is a mechanical task and should be susceptible to scientific experiments.

If all tasks are mechanical how do you explain the origin of purposeful tasks? How do you explain mechanically the development of the power of abstract reasoning, belief in eternal values like compassion, self-consciousness, self-control, self-determination, moral responsibility and unselfish love for all creatures?

Similarity of physical structure is evidence for the evolution of our physical bodies.

Evolution by Design accounts for the evolution of our physical bodies **and **our minds.

 

[rossum]

How does dharmakaya explain the origin of the Designer?

In precisely the same way you claim the designer explains the origin of life.

Design explains evolution from non-intelligent molecules to intelligent beings.

And chemistry had nothing to do with it I suppose?

An explanation which explains all of the most important aspects of existence

That “most important” of yours is an unscientific value judgement. It has no scientific validity.

Design does not entail that everything is beautiful or harmonious.

So you are saying that the existence of beauty is not evidence for design, since design can also produce ugliness. A designed universe could be entirely ugly, with no beauty at all.

Hypotheses are provisional not definitive explanations.

All of science is provisional, including all theories. Hypotheses are just less complete than theories. Both are always provisionsl.

Design is a more comprehensive explanation than science which is limited to the physical aspect of existence.

Which is why large parts of ID lie outside science. The success of scence is due to it limiting itself to the physical aspect.

Design by evolution does not deny that our bodies have evolved.

The DI version does. Witness the claims for the bacterial flagellum being impossible to evolve made by Behe.

What is the reason for that rule?

To gain peace, happiness and nirvana. To avoid greed, hatred and delusion.

Where are the alternative explanations of intelligence, free will and purpose?

Sticking strictly to the scientific, they are emergent properties of our large brains.

By setting up the information system.

An information system cannot move molecules around on its own. Behe asserts that the bacterial flagellum could not have evolved. Hence some other mechanism must have been used to arrange the DNA correctly. What was that physical mechanism? In the absence of any mechanism all that ID has is a blueprint, not a finished flagellum.

I notice that much of your argument has moved away from science and into things like truth, beauty and free will. Those are the in the domain of philosophy or theology. Your arguments are making my point that ID is currently not science but is better described as theology or philosophy. By all means teach ID is philosophy class, but since it is not yet science it shoould not be taught in science classes.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

Design explains evolution from non-intelligent molecules to intelligent beings.
And chemistry had nothing to do with it I suppose?

Is chemistry a complete explanation of intelligence?

An explanation which explains all of the most important aspects of existence.
That “most important” of yours is an unscientific value judgement. It has no scientific validity.

Science is based on belief in the value of truth and rationality. To reject the value of truth is to reject the value of science.Is that your idea of being scientific?
If you prefer: Design is an explanation which explains all of the most significant aspects of existence

A designed universe could be entirely ugly, with no beauty at all.

It could be if the Designer were evil but the inestimable value of life makes it an untenable hypothesis. BTW Beauty is not entirely subjective. How do you explain the Golden Rule? Is that also a human perception?

Hypotheses are just less complete than theories.

“just less” seems to cover explanations with very little evidence - as in this instance.

Design is a more comprehensive explanation than science which is limited to the physical aspect of existence.
Which is why large parts of ID lie outside science. The success of science is due to it limiting itself to the physical aspect.

“large parts” implies that Design is scientific to a certain extent. It is not weakened but reinforced by being part of a comprehensive explanation of reality.

Design by evolution does not deny that our bodies have evolved.
The DI version does.

I am not advocating the ID version. I believe in evolution by Design.

What is the reason for that rule?
To gain peace, happiness and nirvana. To avoid greed, hatred and delusion.

Which presuppose that the existence of purpose. Purpose without Design?

Where are the alternative explanations of intelligence, free will and purpose?
Sticking strictly to the scientific, they are emergent properties of our large brains.

Where is the detailed physical explanation of how intelligence has evolved from that which lacks intelligence and purpose from that which lacks purpose?

Hence some other mechanism must have been used to arrange the DNA correctly.

The information system is implemented by **selection **from the vast number of possibilities not by random or mechanistic means.

I notice that much of your argument has moved away from science and into things like truth, beauty and free will. Those are in the domain of philosophy or theology.

Purposeful activity is scientific. If all tasks are mechanical how do you explain the origin of purposeful tasks? How do you explain mechanically the development of the power of abstract reasoning, belief in eternal values like compassion, self-consciousness, self-control, self-determination, moral responsibility and unselfish love for all creatures

 

[tonyrey]

I agree design is not “God of the Gaps”… but it certainly is a religious argument at it’s core and not a scientific one, even though by its very definition ID tries to refute that.

1.Design is a metaphysical explanation which is partly scientific It is certainly not a “God of the gaps” argument because it explains the entire universe and its inhabitants. The rules of nature are descriptions of its regularities which require explanation. The universe need not be orderly. It could be chaotic. It could also be orderly in an immense number of ways unfavourable to life. So the fact that there is life is evidence for Design.
2. You will find the text of a book on THE DIRECTIVENESS OF ORGANIC ACTIVITIES at
archive.org/stream/directivenessofo035049mbp/directivenessofo035049mbp_djvu.txt
3. Despite regressions there has been an overall progression in evolution from molecules to rational beings. Competition is an inadequate explanation of our existence because our powers greatly exceed our biological needs.
4. Like all physical mechanisms DNA is defective in some respects but consider the amazing results that it has achieved, culminating in the human brain which is probably the most complex structure in the solar system. The richness, complexity and beauty of nature far exceeds any human invention or design.
5. The survival of life for billions of years on this planet against all the odds despite at least five mass extinctions, one of which reduced the population to 5%, is further evidence of Design when taken in conjunction with the other evidence.
6. To regard human beings as no more than physical organisms does not do justice to our intellectual power, moral and spiritual awareness, scientific and artistic creativity, imagination, versatility, self-awareness, self-control and self-determination.

Design predicts that:

1. The laws of nature and physical constants necessary for life will remain the same even though they are provisional, empirical generalizations.
2. Simulations of the development of the physical universe will never produce purposeful activity.
3. Law courts will always exist to determine whether human beings are responsible for their crimes. Intelligent robots will never be put on trial in a law court.
4. Intelligent robots will never become more creative, original, powerful and versatile than human beings.
5. Neurologists will never fully explain human intelligence.

Design will be falsified if it is shown to be:

1. Unintelligible. If science explains persons as physical organisms in every respect the concept of a non-physical Designer (and hence Design) will become unintelligible.
2. Inconsistent. A detailed blueprint of a world with far less suffering will falsify Design because Design presupposes there is no unnecessary suffering.
3. Incoherent. If the order and regularity of nature diminishes so much that life begins to become extinct it will demonstrate that the universe is not designed to sustain life.
4. Redundant. If scientific discoveries and calculations show life and evolution occurred entirely as the result of natural selection and random mutations it will show Design is an unnecessary hypothesis.
5. Improbable. If science establishes that there is more failure than success in nature it will demonstrate that Chance is a far more probable explanation than Design.

What is the evidence against Design?

 

[rossum]

Is chemistry a complete explanation of intelligence?

No, but it is part of the explanation of the material part of intelligence. Design alone is not a complete explanation.

Science is based on belief in the value of truth and rationality. To reject the value of truth is to reject the value of science. Is that your idea of being scientific?

Science does not deal with “truth”, it deals with “the best answer we have to hand”. Truth, in the sense which you seem to be using it, is more of a philosophical or theological concept. For example, truth is constant and cannot change. Science is not constant and changes. Newton’s theory of gravity was excellent science, but it was not “true”. It was replaced by Einstein’s gravity.

It could be if the Designer were evil but the inestimable value of life makes it an untenable hypothesis.

Why evil? The designer may just have a different idea of what constitutes beauty. Perhaps anything with less than 25 tentacles will be seen as ugly by the designer. Since ID refuses to say anything concrete about the designer you have no basis to assign it any concept of ugliness, beauty or whatever. The existence of beauty is not evidence for a designer, because ugliness could also be designed.

The designer seems not to value human life as you say, since bacteria and malaria parasites have both been proposed as examples of design. They kill millions of people thanks to the way they have been designed.

“just less” seems to cover explanations with very little evidence - as in this instance.

I am glad that we can agree that the ID explanation has very little evidence. I have repeatedly asked for the ID experiments showing design, even micro-design, and you have not been able to provide anything.

“large parts” implies that Design is scientific to a certain extent.

It is. I have repeatedly pointed out that archaeology is a science of design and is scientific. The problem with ID is that it is unable to characterise its designer so it is unable to progress much beyond proposing its hypothesis. The next step is to undertake experiments to test its hypothesis, and that step it has failed to undertake.

I am not advocating the ID version. I believe in evolution by Design.

I have no quarrel with theistic evolution. The title of this thread is “Is Intelligent Design a plausible theory”. I take that to refer to the DI version of ID, since the DI claims that their version is legitimate science.

Where is the detailed physical explanation of how intelligence has evolved from that which lacks intelligence and purpose from that which lacks purpose?

Read all of the studies that have been done on animal intelligence. You have internet access - the data is available. Google Scholar is a good place to start: scholar.google.com/

The information system is implemented by **selection **from the vast number of possibilities not by random or mechanistic means.

Erm. You did notice that evolution involves “Natural Selection”? Selecting from the range of possibilities is precisely what natural selection does. If by design you mean “selecting from the range of possibilities” then we do not have any disagreement, since that is just another way of describing evolution. Random mutations generate the range of possibilities and natural selection selects from among that range of possibilities.

How do you explain mechanically the development of the power of abstract reasoning, belief in eternal values like compassion, self-consciousness, self-control, self-determination, moral responsibility and unselfish love for all creatures

In scientific terms they are the results of large brains. We have never observed any abstract reasoning etc. apart from in animals with large brains. Do you have any scientific evidence of such things existing without a large brain being involved?

rossum

 

[liquidpele]

quote removed because of 6000 char limit, sorry

I agreed that it was not “God of the Gaps”… but only because it’s ignorance The argument of “It’s too complicated” is not a good one. Just because someone can’t comprehend how things like that occur, or does not have the background to understand it in what detail we do know, doesn’t mean other people can’t either.

I see what you mean by directiveness. If you don’t believe that competition and natural selection accounts for it, that’s your belief. I would disagree. In just a few hundred years, people have been able to breed new plants (plantains, corn, etc) and many species of dogs and race horses. Natural selection uses the same exact filters… except instead of humans holding the filters it is competition and the environment.

The computer you are typing on is also very complex. It was made by design right? Not in your lifetime. First we harnessed electricity in the 1800s, then we discovered the transistor, burned though maxwell’s equations, found the power of semiconductors, and then over 30 years improved the technology to build what you typed on. Complicated things build on foundation, even when designed. DNA is complex, but it has billions of years to build and build on itself. And it’s a mess if you look at it. genes are turned off and duplicated all over the place… causing things like cancer and genetic diseases here and there, but that’s how it evolves! Very inefficiently… but hey, it’s not designed

The survival of life is actually pretty good. The atmosphere and moon protect us quite a bit, and the odds of an astroid hit that whips out all life is pretty slim… do you not know how small of a target the Earth really is?

We are not the same as other creatures… but we are like them. If you don’t see that, I don’t know what to tell you. Want to see dolphins doing something you can’t do and playing with their creation?

youtube.com/watch?v=TMCf7SNUb-Q

I won’t go into detail on your prediction list… most of it is based on misconceptions, denial of the evidence out there, or putting the burden of your theory on other theories by claiming they are not complete.

Your ways to falsify… #1 - we are on our way already. We can target specific parts of the brain for certain things, can almost grow organs with stem cells, etc. However, just knowing how it works doesn’t mean no designer or not, it just means we know how it works. #2 - no life has less suffering. #3 - that’s silly… life won’t just start to go extinct, that defies logic. It CAN though… given a big enough asteroid. #4 is impossible because it requires perfect analysis, science gives evidence, and it points towards no designer #5 - imagine every species of animal that ever existed. Less than 1% of that exists today. Massive failure, would you not agree?

The evidence against design is that we have witnessed evolution in a lab. We can quite literally do experiments on it. We see all the bad things that come from bad random mutations… and see what these mutations in certain areas do. We have literally simulated evolution with corn and many many other plants and animals. We have produced evidence supporting abiogenesis in the lab. We see animals, and have dissected them, and understand how little we really differ from them. We have seen into our own minds and see that certain qualities come from certain physical attributes. We have seen the difference between children that develop normally and those without any social interaction, showing how much of our ability comes from our environmental upbringing. We have categorized animals in a way that looks like evolution in every way, shape and form… In short, we have seen many many things, and none of it looks like a designer unless you think the designer was trying to fool us into thinking he didn’t design it, which is unprovable so why even consider it unless you had a pre-existing bias about the topic.

 

[greylorn]

1.Design is a metaphysical explanation which is partly scientific …

I honestly cannot accept the “scientific” part of that statement. Admittedly there is plenty of evidence showing that deliberate intelligence might have participated in creation, but evidence alone does not constitute science.

Science is a complex process which begins with a theory or set of connected theories. The theory must be verifiable, whether by direct observation or inference from indirect observations. That’s where the evidence comes in.

But evidence alone does not science make.

Where is the theory behind I.D? That some intelligence is responsible for creation? That idea may constitute a deep belief of billions of people, but it is too weak and vague to serve as a serious theory. What is the source of the intelligence? Is it an entity, as most proponents of ID assume? If so, describe the entity in terms of its scientifically verifiable properties.

We all know that the Designer is understood by ID proponents to be the omnipotent, omniscient spirit God of Christian belief. This is not an entity whose properties can be verified.

I’ve presented logic (other threads) which show that if God is omniscient, He cannot think. How then might He truly be called a Creator?

There is another criterion which falls upon ID proponents, which does not fall to atheists. It is the question of motivation. With all due respect to Christian beliefs, I’ve yet to read an explanation for why God might have created mankind which meets the standards for a low grade soap opera plot. The old Baltimore Catechism’s answer as to why God created mankind was suitable for children, and has more holes in it than an Uzi target. The new Catechism version is, IMO, worse.

We expect that as humans show greater intelligence, their motivations become more powerful, more complex, and derived from rational considerations rather than simply emotions. Yet the Church’s official descriptions of God’s motivations show none of these characteristics. They are based upon ordinary human emotions exclusively,.

Until I.D. adopts a description of the Designer which can be taken seriously, it will only qualify as “scientific” in the minds of those who wish it to. This is not an implied put down of such minds, one of which you represent. It is a challenge. If you want anyone except believers to take I.D. seriously, adopt a description of God which science can believe in.

Incidentally, I don’t buy the notion that because one explanation doesn’t work, an opposing explanation is any better. My real thoughts about Darwinism are unfit for print. Suffice it to say that Darwinism is so obviously absurd to any engineer or mathematician that it would never have gained its size-20 foothold had the Church paid attention to Galileo and re-examined its dogma in light of scientific theory and evidence.

There. I’ve said it and I’m glad.

 

[greylorn]

1. Despite regressions there has been an overall progression in evolution from molecules to rational beings. Competition is an inadequate explanation of our existence because our powers greatly exceed our biological needs.

This, and the following arguments you present in your post #805 are superb and succinctly worded. I accept every one without a serious quibble. But what creator-thesis do they support which is any respect different from the God of Christian dogma?

Every non-Christian knows that I.D. is just the offspring of Creation Science, just a backdoor rationalization for existing Christian beliefs. The Darwinist/Creationist conflict has made it clear to every one except believers that it is time to do more than explain scientific theories in the context of their beliefs. It is time to examine those beliefs for their intrinsic logic and common sense, and re-invent them if need be.

What Christians seem to forget is that every belief they hold today originally sprang from the mouth or pen of another human being. That other human beings subsequently declared these words and writings to be the very words of God Himself is simply another belief, piled atop a previous belief.

Since humans made up these ideas in the first place, they can also make up the needed corrections and improvements. And if the need for religious credibility still remains, the Pope can declare that God did not tell us the whole story before because we lacked the scientific sophistication to understand it. Once he declares the new beliefs to be the revealed word of God, it will be officially a done deal, except for considerable upheaval both within and without the Church, and a lot of new attention to religion.

How much more success do atheist “progressives” need to achieve to convince Christians that they just might have gotten a few basic ideas wrong?

Design predicts that: 1. The laws of nature and physical constants necessary for life will remain the same even though they are provisional, empirical generalizations.

I don’t know what that means.

1. Simulations of the development of the physical universe will never produce purposeful activity.

I disagree. I doubt that it is possible to watch a symbolically displayed chess match between IBM’s “Big Blue” box and a human chess master and determine, without labels, which is which.

If simulations of the universe’s development include intelligence-directed activity, such as the construction of cells by a thoughtful mind carefully moving the right molecules into the necessary places (telekinesis has been demonstrated), in the proper sequence, the simulation will produce extremely purposeful activity!

At first glance one might think that a successful simulation with those parameters would prove that intelligence is behind it. But all that the Darwinist yokels will do is claim that the simulated mental actions could also be the result of random chance, nevermind odds of 10 to the googleplex power to the contrary.

Darwinism is a religion, you see. Like other religions, its hypothetical cause for creation, random chance, is as broad and as vague as the Christian definition of God. Darwinists can declare anything they want to and attribute it to random chance. We know so because that’s exactly what they do. A Christian can explain every possible tough question by inventing some reason for God to have done it that way. That is what they do.

Therefore, neither belief system has any legitimate claim to scientific validity because nothing can possibly invalidate its core belief.

1. Law courts will always exist to determine whether human beings are responsible for their crimes. Intelligent robots will never be put on trial in a law court.
2. Intelligent robots will never become more creative, original, powerful and versatile than human beings
3. Neurologists will never fully explain human intelligence.

I agree with these. But if we waited ten thousand years and your predictions remain intact, it will prove nothing. You must know a philosophical principle about the absence of a negative not being proof for a positive, or vice versa. ??

If you get too uppity about it, some Darwinists will simply find an excuse to put a robot on trial. .

 

[greylorn]

(From Post #805)

Design will be falsified if it is shown to be:

1. Unintelligible. If science explains persons as physical organisms in every respect the concept of a non-physical Designer (and hence Design) will become unintelligible.

I happen to believe that a non-physical Designer who interacts with the physical universe is a contradiction in terms, yet I believe in a created universe.

1. Inconsistent. A detailed blueprint of a world with far less suffering will falsify Design because Design presupposes there is no unnecessary suffering.

“Design” per se does not presuppose that. That presupposition comes from the belief that the God defined by Christianity is the Designer.

It is this kind of thinking which unmasks I.D. as a proxy for Christian-style Creationism.

Recall my invitation to Define the Designer. Until you do, explicitly, how can you fairly presuppose anything about the purpose or style of His design work?

Imagine Copernicus trying to propose evidence for his heliocentric description of the solar system, but without any planets. That looks to me like a pretty good description of where I.D. is currently coming from.

1. Incoherent. If the order and regularity of nature diminishes so much that life begins to become extinct it will demonstrate that the universe is not designed to sustain life.

It could just as easily demonstrate that the Designer is not exactly the loving God we have defined Him to be, and has gotten bored with another little science project.

1. Redundant. If scientific discoveries and calculations show life and evolution occurred entirely as the result of natural selection and random mutations it will show Design is an unnecessary hypothesis.

I don’t believe it necessarily proves that, but it won’t matter anyhow so there’s no point in providing a reason.

1. Improbable. If science establishes that there is more failure than success in nature it will demonstrate that Chance is a far more probable explanation than Design.

This is an excellent point. At least, I like it. May I have your permission to use it, and if yes, shall I attribute it to you?

What is the evidence against Design?

I know of none, and hope that there is none, because I believe in an engineered universe.

However, it is difficult to get a conviction in a court of law without showing motivation for the alleged crime. Perps commonly go free if their defense attorney is clever enough to make the question, “Why would my client possibly have done such a thing? What could he have possibly gained?” stick in whatever passes for mind in judge or jurors.

I’m beating this horse because no one has shot it yet.

 

[tonyrey]

Is chemistry a complete explanation of intelligence?
No, but it is part of the explanation of the material part of intelligence. Design alone is not a complete explanation.

You are making an arbitrary separation of physical from non-physical intelligence. If you cannot explain how they co-exist, where the borderlines are or what distinguishes them your hypothesis is vacuous.

Science is based on belief in the value of truth and rationality. To reject the value of truth is to reject the value of science. Is that your idea of being scientific?
Science does not deal with “truth”, it deals with “the best answer we have to hand”.

Truth is a description which corresponds to the facts. The “best answer” is the description we think corresponds to the facts most exactly. Do you think science does not presuppose rationality?

*It could be if the Designer were evil but the inestimable value of life makes it an untenable hypothesis.
*Why evil? The designer may just have a different idea of what constitutes beauty.

Evil is that which negates, interferes with, or frustrates the Purpose and Design of life, development, fulfilment and fulfilment. It is objective like goodness, truth and beauty. BTW With regard to beauty how do you explain the Golden Rule?

The designer seems not to value human life as you say, since bacteria and malaria parasites have both been proposed as examples of design. They kill millions of people thanks to the way they have been designed.

The intrinsic value of life is not affected by the fact that it is destroyed by secondary causes like random events.

“just less” seems to cover explanations with very little evidence - as in this instance.

Abiogenesis is the instance in question.

I have repeatedly pointed out that archaeology is a science of design and is scientific. The problem with ID is that it is unable to characterise its designer so it is unable to progress much beyond proposing its hypothesis.

The immense value and complexity of life and of the universe demonstrate that the Designer must be immensely good and wise - to say the least. You can test that explanation by attempting to design a superior universe and letting us have the detailed blueprint.

I believe in evolution by Design.
I have no quarrel with theistic evolution. The title of this thread is “Is Intelligent Design a plausible theory?”

The OP does not specify that Intelligent Design must be restricted to any particular version. I admire your honesty in stating that you have no quarrel with theistic evolution.

Where is the detailed physical explanation of how intelligence has evolved from that which lacks intelligence and purpose from that which lacks purpose?
Read all of the studies that have been done on animal intelligence.

Human intelligence is not animal intelligence. Where is the detailed physical explanation of how purpose has evolved from that which lacks purpose from that which lacks purpose?

You did notice that evolution involves “Natural Selection”? Selecting from the range of possibilities is precisely what natural selection does. If by design you mean “selecting from the range of possibilities” then we do not have any disagreement, since that is just another way of describing evolution.

Natural Selection is blind whereas Intelligent Selection is not. Which do you regard as superior and more powerful?

How do you explain mechanically the development of the power of abstract reasoning, belief in eternal values like compassion, self-consciousness, self-control, self-determination, moral responsibility and unselfish love for all creatures?
In scientific terms they are the results of large brains. We have never observed any abstract reasoning etc. apart from in animals with large brains. Do you have any scientific evidence of such things existing without a large brain being involved?

Do you as a Buddhist attribute the power of abstract reasoning, belief in eternal values like compassion, self-consciousness, self-control, self-determination, moral responsibility and unselfish love for all creatures solely to large brains? If not why not?
Do you believe everything can be explained mechanistically?

 

[rossum]

You are making an arbitrary separation of physical from non-physical intelligence.

Not arbitrary; we have agreed that there are physical and non-physical parts to intelligence. Abiogensis and evolution only attempt to explain the origin of the physical part, and chemistry is a large part of abiogenesis.

Truth is a description which corresponds to the facts. The “best answer” is the description we think corresponds to the facts most exactly.

Agreed. But we must bear in mind that what we think of as the best answer may change over time as more things are discovered about the world. All of science is, and must be, provisional. Is ID prepared to agree that its proposal of design is provisional and may be falsified by new discoveries in future?

Evil is that which negates, interferes with, or frustrates the Purpose and Design of life, development, fulfilment and fulfilment.

So anti-malarial drugs are evil because they interfere with or frustrate the porpose of the malaria parasite in killing humans?

BTW With regard to beauty how do you explain the Golden Rule?

I always thought that the Golden Rule was to do with morality, not beauty. Are you thinking of the Golden Ratio?

The intrinsic value of life is not affected by the fact that it is destroyed by secondary causes like random events.

According to ID malaria is not a random event, it was deliberately designed by the designer. The designer wanted to kill millions of humans with the malaria parasite; if not then why was the parasite designed to do just that. Is the designer incompotent?

Human intelligence is not animal intelligence.

I disagree. In both biological and Buddhist terms humans are a species of animal. We can see much of human intelligence present in some animals, albeit at a simpler lavel. Chimps and gorillas have been taught languages.

Where is the detailed physical explanation of how purpose has evolved from that which lacks purpose from that which lacks purpose?

Where did the designer get his/her/its/their purpose from? If purpose requires an origin then what is your explanation?

Natural Selection is blind whereas Intelligent Selection is not. Which do you regard as superior and more powerful?

Intelligent selection is more powerful, and could do the same things quicker than natural selection - witness human breeding of animals in artificial selection. However, that does not show that natural selection could not have done it given the time. Natural selection is not as efficient but it can still get there in the end.

Do you as a Buddhist attribute the power of abstract reasoning, belief in eternal values like compassion, self-consciousness, self-control, self-determination, moral responsibility and unselfish love for all creatures solely to large brains? If not why not?

No, because you used the word “eternal”. In Buddhism one of the fundamental things to understand is that change is ubiquitous, nothing is eternal, everything is impermanent:“Impermanent are all compound things.”
When one realises this by wisdom,
then one does not heed ill.
This is the Path of Purity.

Dhammapada 20:5

Do you believe everything can be explained mechanistically?

No. However that does not mean that I do not believe that the origin of life on earth and the origin of species cannot be explained mechanistically. Mechanistic explanations for material things I do not have a problem with. Our bodies are material things and so can be explained mechanistically.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

I agreed that it was not “God of the Gaps”… but only because it’s ignorance.

Your objection to Design is based primarily on the assumption that science can in principle explain everything. And that assumption is based on the assumption that only physical things exist. Both assumptions require justification in view of the fact that all our data stems from what is occurring in our minds. We infer that physical things exist from what we perceive and what we perceive is interpreted by our mind but we have direct knowledge only of our minds. That is the fundamental reality.

In just a few hundred years, people have been able to breed new plants (plantains, corn, etc) and many species of dogs and race horses.

Why not human beings from apes?

Natural selection uses the same exact filters… except instead of humans holding the filters it is competition and the environment.

In other words you believe natural selection is more powerful than intelligent selection. Would you rely on natural causes to make your most important decisions for you? Feed all your information into a computer, establish the criteria and wait for the results?

DNA is complex, but it has billions of years to build and build on itself.

So you believe that given enough time random events can produce everything that exists? The success of science hardly supports that the hypothesis that chance is more powerful than intelligence.

And it’s a mess if you look at it. genes are turned off and duplicated all over the place… causing things like cancer and genetic diseases here and there, but that’s how it evolves! Very inefficiently… but hey, it’s not designed.

Inefficiency in an unimaginably vast and immense process is bound to occur. It is absurd to expect perfection in a finite physical system. Chance plays a large role in the unfolding of events but it is within the framework of order and Design. If you dispute that please provide a detailed blueprint of a superior system.

The atmosphere and moon protect us quite a bit, and the odds of an astroid hit that whips out all life is pretty slim… do you not know how small of a target the Earth really is?

If one catastrophe wiped out 95% of the population why are you so sure the odds are in favour of survival?

We are not the same as other creatures… but we are like them. Want to see dolphins doing something you can’t do and playing with their creation

?

What does the fact that dolphins can do something we can’t do demonstrate?

I won’t go into detail on your prediction list.

In that case your objections lack substance.

1. We are on our way already. We can target specific parts of the brain for certain things, can almost grow organs with stem cells, etc

1. So you agree that Design is falsifiable?

1. No life has less suffering.

So you would prefer not to exist?

1. Life won’t just start to go extinct, that defies logic.

So the process of extinction could not be gradual as the result of a gradual increase of disorder?

1. is impossible because it requires perfect analysis.

Science does not require certainty but a very high degree of probability.
,

1. imagine every species of animal that ever existed. Less than 1% of that exists today. Massive failure, would you not agree?

You are assuming that the test of success is the survival of the majority of the species that have ever lived. It is more reasonable to believe every species has its own value and has played a part in the development of the magnificent wealth of species on this planet today. If that constitutes massive failure then you must agree with Schopenhauer that it would have been better if life had never emerged on this earth.

How about #6? Wouldn’t that falsify Design?

The evidence against design is that we have witnessed evolution in a lab.

The evolution of human beings?

We have categorized animals in a way that looks like evolution in every way, shape and form.

You are arguing against Creationists. I believe in evolution… by Design.

 

[tonyrey]

You are making an arbitrary separation of physical from non-physical intelligence.
Not arbitrary; we have agreed that there are physical and non-physical parts to intelligence.

It is arbitrary if you separate them without being able to distinguish one from the other.

Abiogensis and evolution only attempt to explain the origin of the physical part, and chemistry is a large part of abiogenesis.

Then how are the physical and non-physical related? By chance?

Truth is a description which corresponds to the facts. The “best answer” is the description we think corresponds to the facts most exactly.
Agreed. But we must bear in mind that what we think of as the best answer may change over time as more things are discovered about the world. All of science is, and must be, provisional. Is ID prepared to agree that its proposal of design is provisional and may be falsified by new discoveries in future?

I have already pointed out how Design is scientifically falsifiable.

Evil is that which negates, interferes with, or frustrates the Purpose and Design of life, development, fulfilment and fulfilment.
So anti-malarial drugs are evil because they interfere with or frustrate the purpose of the malaria parasite in killing humans?

They are not evil because the malaria parasite interferes with and frustrates the purposes of human beings. There is a hierarchy of purposes in nature. Why do you identify the purpose of the malaria parasite with the purpose of Design? You might as well identify the purpose of an evil person with the purpose of the Designer!

With regard to beauty how do you explain the Golden Rule?
I always thought that the Golden Rule was to do with morality, not beauty. Are you thinking of the Golden Ratio?

The Golden Rule is a term often used in aesthetics, e.g. the book with that title by Susan Lustig. How do you explain it? Subjectively?

The intrinsic value of life is not affected by the fact that it is destroyed by secondary causes like random events.
According to ID malaria is not a random event, it was deliberately designed by the designer.

Nonsense. I have pointed out that there is a large element of chance in evolution, e.g. random mutations.

Human intelligence is not animal intelligence.
In both biological and Buddhist terms humans are a species of animal.

If the biological and Buddhist views of humans as a species of animal are identical then Buddhism is redundant.

We can see much of human intelligence present in some animals, albeit at a simpler level. Chimps and gorillas have been taught languages.

Languages without syntax.

Where is the detailed physical explanation of how purpose has evolved from that which lacks purpose from that which lacks purpose?
Where did the designer get his/her/its/their purpose from? If purpose requires an origin then what is your explanation?

Purpose is implicit in the concept of Intelligence. It is not implicit in inanimate matter from which you believe intelligence has evolved.

Natural Selection is blind whereas Intelligent Selection is not. Which do you regard as superior and more powerful?
Intelligent selection is more powerful, and could do the same things quicker than natural selection - witness human breeding of animals in artificial selection.

Thank you for agreeing that intelligent selection is more powerful than natural selection. That is the foundation of the Design explanation.

However, that does not show that natural selection could not have done it given the time. Natural selection is not as efficient but it can still get there in the end.

That is an assumption that needs justification. There was not an infinite amount of time available. Geological time should not be equated with biological time. Moreover the time needed for abiogenesis has to be added to the time needed for the development of intelligent beings.

*Do you as a Buddhist attribute the power of abstract reasoning, belief in eternal values like compassion, self-consciousness, self-control, self-determination, moral responsibility and unselfish love for all creatures solely to large brains? *If not why not?No, because you used the word “eternal”. In Buddhism one of the fundamental things to understand is that change is ubiquitous, nothing is eternal, everything is impermanent.

Do you believe the truth of Buddhism is eternal?

*Do you believe everything can be explained mechanistically?*No. However that does not mean that I do not believe that the origin of life on earth and the origin of species cannot be explained mechanistically. Mechanistic explanations for material things I do not have a problem with. Our bodies are material things and so can be explained mechanistically.

Then how are the mind and body related? Doesn’t the mind control the body in any way? What makes physical organisms act purposefully?

 

[liquidpele]

Your objection to Design is based primarily on the assumption that science can in principle explain everything. And that assumption is based on the assumption that only physical things exist. Both assumptions require justification in view of the fact that all our data stems from what is occurring in our minds. We infer that physical things exist from what we perceive and what we perceive is interpreted by our mind but we have direct knowledge only of our minds. That is the fundamental reality.

Why not human beings from apes?
In other words you believe natural selection is more powerful than intelligent selection. Would you rely on natural causes to make your most important decisions for you? Feed all your information into a computer, establish the criteria and wait for the results?

So you believe that given enough time random events can produce everything that exists? The success of science hardly supports that the hypothesis that chance is more powerful than intelligence.
Inefficiency in an unimaginably vast and immense process is bound to occur. It is absurd to expect perfection in a finite physical system. Chance plays a large role in the unfolding of events but it is within the framework of order and Design. If you dispute that please provide a detailed blueprint of a superior system.

If one catastrophe wiped out 95% of the population why are you so sure the odds are in favour of survival?

?

What does the fact that dolphins can do something we can’t do demonstrate?
In that case your objections lack substance.

1. So you agree that Design is falsifiable?

So you would prefer not to exist?

So the process of extinction could not be gradual as the result of a gradual increase of disorder?

Science does not require certainty but a very high degree of probability.
,
You are assuming that the test of success is the survival of the majority of the species that have ever lived. It is more reasonable to believe every species has its own value and has played a part in the development of the magnificent wealth of species on this planet today. If that constitutes massive failure then you must agree with Schopenhauer that it would have been better if life had never emerged on this earth.

How about #6? Wouldn’t that falsify Design?

The evolution of human beings?

You are arguing against Creationists. I believe in evolution… by Design.

Wrong. Science will likely never explain everything. My problem with ID is that it attempts to try and explain everything by just saying “well, it must be designed”. Science accepts “I don’t know” as an answer, ID claims to know things it can’t possibly know and without any evidence.

Why not human beings from apes? Well… yes. We are classified as primates. Natural selection is NOT more powerful than designed selection. However, it doesn’t mean natural selection doesn’t exist, doesn’t work, or isn’t responsible for what humans have not done. The evidence so far speaks for evolution without a designer.

You’re back on the “random events” kick. It’s not random the way that you’re thinking about it. I won’t explain it for the 3rd time as rossum and I have both explained it ad nauseum. You talk about it being impossible to have perfection in such a system… and that chance plays a major role. YES! Exactly! Everything in this universe is messy and inefficient. Why, just this morning I couldn’t find my car keys…

A catastrophe would have to melt the entire surface of the earth to wipe out life, and even then it might not get the job done. There are bacteria living on thermal vents at the bottom of the ocean at extreme depths. There are viruses and small organisms everywhere, fungi that doesn’t need the sun. Basically, the wealth of life is so diverse that it would be exceedingly difficult to wipe out everything without quite literally destroying the Earth itself (or at least the entire surface). If you’d like to see what that would look like, it was simulated by I think the Japanese here: youtube.com/watch?v=LlF8APEkh-E

My dolphin example is one of millions that show animals aren’t stupid, they play, have social lives, talk to each other, etc. We are not that far above them.

I never said I prefer not to exist, but it’s hardly my call. How did you even come to that conclusion? It is what it is. You claimed a system of less violence would falsify it, well, no life means no violence. No life forming is a possibility.

Science requires evidence. The evidence requires high probability of being correct.

Why would massive failure mean life should just not have tried? That’s ridiculous. Massive failure is a response to the environment, things don’t just decide to die off, but it happens. Polar bears are drowning because of global warming, penguins are dying because of people over fishing, it’s still happening today - humans are causing the latest massive extinction.

I don’t see a #6 on your “falsify” list. Do you mean the evolution of human beings? I mean, just look at this. Ok, seriously, here you go:

anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/#
pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=310683

But the evolution of humans doesn’t falsify or support a designer… it just means we are evolving… which like you said is part of ID too.

Again, there are mountains of evidence for evolution, and none for evolution being caused by a designer.