Powerful evidence for Design?

[Gaber]

…
Intelligent Design explains the origin of everything with the factor on which all rational beings rely implicitly to reach their conclusions…

If this is true, then why are so many on here so radically unconvinced? Is no one on here save you and your fellow designists capable of using reason? And if you say we use it imperfectly, or don’t use the right premises, then we are back to yours being an exercise in faith, where reason has no sway, undermining your idea of the applicability of reason. “design” explains nothing of origins in fact, only in hypothesis, and a poorly and incompletely constructed one at that.

 

[Holly3278]

I personally think that there sheer and utter complexity of our universe is evidence for a design made by a Designer, known as God. However, I have been told before that this is not a good argument for the existence of God. I am not certain as to why but still, I trust in the wisdom of those who are far more wise than I.

 

[reggieM]

The paper your referenced was not dealing with abiogenesis, but with evolution. If you wish to discuss the probabilities of abiogenesis, then it would be better to refer to a paper dealing with abiogenesis.

While not a paper, I think this is a source you respect:

At the moment, … we have no idea how probable life is, [and] it’s virtually impossible to assign any meaningful probabilities to any of the steps to life except the first two…
talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

Robert Shapiro is more optimistic. He thinks …

Probability calculations could be made, but I prefer a variation on a much-used analogy. Picture a gorilla (very long arms are needed) at an immense keyboard connected to a word processor. The keyboard contains not only the symbols used in English and European languages but also a huge excess drawn from every other known language and all of the symbol sets stored in a typical computer. The chances for the spontaneous assembly of a replicator in the pool I described above can be compared to those of the gorilla composing, in English, a coherent recipe for the preparation of chili con carne. With similar considerations in mind Gerald F. Joyce of the Scripps Research Institute and Leslie Orgel of the Salk Institute concluded that** the spontaneous appearance of RNA chains on the lifeless Earth “would have been a near miracle.”** I would extend this conclusion to all of the proposed RNA substitutes that I mentioned above.

(Robert Shapiro, “A Simpler Origin for Life,” Scientific American, February 12, 2007)

Further than that, it depends how close a “near miracle” is to a miracle, but a miracle in the scientific view is usually something that is impossible for nature to produce.

In other words, abiogenesis from the RNA World is “nearly impossible” and we have “no idea” about how probable any other scientific claim on the origin of life is either.

 

[reggieM]

We have direct, conclusive evidence that intelligence can modify DNA for new cellular function.
We have no evidence that undirected natural processes can do the same.

Correction – we have direct evidence that intelligence can create complex, specified, functional information.

 

[rossum]

Could you explain that further?

The ID hypothesis assumes the existence of an Intelligent Designer, just as evolution assumes the existence of life. Since the Intelligent Designer is itself intelligent, then the Intelligent Designer itself cannot be the origin of intelligence. Either the Intelligent Designer is intelligently designed or not. If the Designer is itself intelligently designed, then we have an obvious infinite regress when we try to explain the origin of intelligence. Hence, if we are to avoid the infinite regress, we have to have an Unintelligent Designer at some point in the chain. Hence we can see that at some point there must be an intelligence that is not intelligently designed.

We have direct, conclusive evidence that intelligence can modify DNA for new cellular function.

Agreed.

We have no evidence that undirected natural processes can do the same.

False. Antibiotic resistance adds the new cellular function, “able to survive in the presence of X antibiotic.” The Luria–Delbrück experiment shows that such resistance arises through undirected natural processes. Lenski’s E. coli experiment added the new cellular function, “able to digest citrate”, and lists the mutations that gave rise to the new function. All those mutations were either neutral of beneficial and so in accordance with evolutionary theory.

So, the ID proposal that some intelligence was involved in the origin of the first life form is the most reasonable explanation.

So, you are saying that the Intelligent Designer was not a life form? How can we have intelligence without life? Was the Designer some form of non-living alien supercomputer perhaps? If the Designer is alive, then the Designer cannot be the explanation for the origin of life, obviously.

rossum

 

[rossum]

From the Buddhist perspective, the mind cannot be reduced to matter/natural laws alone. It is part of the spiritual cosmos - and thus cannot be comprehended by science.

From the Buddhist perspective, what Western philosophy describes as “mind” does not strictly exist. The Buddhist analysis of a person is very different from the standard Western analysis, having developed in a very different philosophical tradition, with very different objectives. Strictly, a human is analysed into five constituent parts: form, feeling, perceptions, impulses and consciousness. None of the five correspond exactly to the Western idea of “mind”. Loosely speaking, the last four correspond to “the non-material part of a human being”.

From the Buddhist perspective, therefore, science cannot fully explain human origins.

From a Buddhist perspective, human origins do not differ from animal origins, angels’ origins, devils’ origins or gods’ origins. It is a mistake to assume that the standard ideas of Western philosophy also apply to Buddhist philosophy. A god can be reborn as a human; a human can be reborn as a god. There is a much smaller difference between the two than there is in Western/Abrahamic philosophy.

1. Chance and natural laws can only work in a material universe (and on matter)

Not in Buddhism. The natural laws of karma apply in both the material and spiritual worlds for example.

1. Since human beings possess a non-material component (mind), something other than natural processes (evolution) is required to explain their origin.

The same applies to animals. Animals can be reborn as humans and humans can be reborn as animals.

1. Mind/intelligence is something other than natural laws and matter.

No. Mind, speaking loosely, is one of the (name removed by moderator)uts into natural laws, such as karma.

Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with an evil mind then suffering will follow you,
as the wheel follows the draught ox.

Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with a pure mind then happiness will follow you,
as a shadow that never leaves.

Dhammapada 1:1-2

1. Therefore, a reasonable explanation for the origin of the spiritual nature of human beings is mind or intelligence.

No. Buddhism is very wary of reifying anything along the lines of “spiritual nature” or soul:

“All the elements of reality are soulless.”
When one realises this by wisdom,
then one does not heed ill.
This is the Path of Purity.

Dhammapada 20:7

Buddhism is very different from the Abrahamic religions, and Western Philosophy has been greatly influenced by the Abrahamic religions. There are a lot of implicit assumptions, on both sides, that do not carry across.

rossum

 

[rossum]

I personally think that there sheer and utter complexity of our universe is evidence for a design made by a Designer, known as God. However, I have been told before that this is not a good argument for the existence of God. I am not certain as to why but still, I trust in the wisdom of those who are far more wise than I.

Is the Designer more complex or less complex than the object designed? If the Designer is more complex, then the same argument can be applied to the Designer and so on ad infinitum.

If the Designer is less complex then the designed, then there is no reason, in principle, why simple processes cannot give rise to complex results.

rossum

 

[Gaber]

…
In other words, abiogenesis from the RNA World is “nearly impossible” and we have “no idea” about how probable any other scientific claim on the origin of life is either.

Yes, I kind of thought it was really improbable as well. But then I got to thinking, however well I do that, and now see it this way:

There is a blessed lot of COHN on the planet. And AGCT each are not all that complex, compared to some [things](Complex organic matter discovered throughout the Universe) that occur naturally as well.

So given the vast gazillions of COHNs bumping around through an incomprehensible, by human lifetime standards, time frame, these four compounds, not all that dissimilar, coming into existence is not all that improbable. I mean, they did. Yes? After all, here we are, darned if we ain’t. Nearly all chemical compounds being to some degree reactive, is it not likely then that these four eventually found each other. And found each other. And found each other. And made eventually more and more complex chains of themselves. If you ask me, far from being chancy, it looks inevitable. Especially in light of the second illustration linked to above. What are the chances of that?

So what I’m saying is that the chances of life forms (which I drastically differentiate from Life) are not dependent on specific RNA or DNA chains, but on the occurrence of their components and their necessary properties. Yes?

 

[rossum]

While not a paper, I think this is a source you respect:

At the moment, … we have no idea how probable life is, [and] it’s virtually impossible to assign any meaningful probabilities to any of the steps to life except the first two…
talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

Correct. Hence we cannot say, “Life is too improbable to have happened by chance”, nor can we say, “Life must have happened by chance.” All we can say is, “Life has happened at least once.”

That is one of the reasons for the search for extra-terrestrial life. It will give us a better handle on the chances of life happening.

Just because we do not know a number does not allow us to assume that the number must be extremely large, or extremely small. It is merely unknown. The answer could well be 42, it is just that we don’t yet know it.

rossum

 

[Gaber]

Correct. Hence we cannot say, “Life is too improbable to have happened by chance”, nor can we say, “Life must have happened by chance.” All we can say is, “Life has happened at least once.”

That is one of the reasons for the search for extra-terrestrial life. It will give us a better handle on the chances of life happening.

Just because we do not know a number does not allow us to assume that the number must be extremely large, or extremely small. It is merely unknown. The answer could well be 42, it is just that we don’t yet know it.

rossum

It IS 42! It is! I saw the documentary on that!!!

 

[reggieM]

The ID hypothesis assumes the existence of an Intelligent Designer, just as evolution assumes the existence of life.

Evolution assumes the existence of consistent natural laws – acting predicably over time.

Since the Intelligent Designer is itself intelligent, then the Intelligent Designer itself cannot be the origin of intelligence.

As mentioned, ID does not propose to explain the origin of the Designer. Evolution does not propose to explain the origin of natural laws. It is assumed that consistent, perduring natural laws exist (and were therefore consistent billions of years ago).

The natural laws cannot explain themselves. Their origin is not explained by evolutionary theory (and all science).

Either the Intelligent Designer is intelligently designed or not.

Sure – but that’s not a question that ID needs to explore. We observe aspects of nature that give evidence of having been designed by intelligence – since intelligence is the only known source of such things.

If the Designer is itself intelligently designed, then we have an obvious infinite regress when we try to explain the origin of intelligence.

Yes – exactly. That ends up being a non-explanation for the origin of intelligence.

Hence, if we are to avoid the infinite regress, we have to have an Unintelligent Designer at some point in the chain. Hence we can see that at some point there must be an intelligence that is not intelligently designed.

Tracing back events that can only be caused by Intelligence requires that every cause in the chain possesses that quality. So, an unintelligent cause cannot be an explanation for that which requires an intelligent design.

That which possesses the fullness of all intelligence, however, is a reasonable explanation for all of the intelligence that emerges from it. That which possesses all the fullness of being is a reasonable explanation for all of the “gradually actualized” being that follows. That which possesses all the power of causality (and thus was “uncaused” itself) is a reasonable explanation for all the events in the causal chain that follows.

False. Antibiotic resistance adds the new cellular function, “able to survive in the presence of X antibiotic.” The Luria–Delbrück experiment shows that such resistance arises through undirected natural processes. Lenski’s E. coli experiment added the new cellular function, “able to digest citrate”, and lists the mutations that gave rise to the new function. All those mutations were either neutral of beneficial and so in accordance with evolutionary theory.

Yes, good point. I posted a correction later. Intelligence can build information without relying on pre-existing structures.

So, you are saying that the Intelligent Designer was not a life form? How can we have intelligence without life?

The Intelligent Designer was not the first life form on earth. I could have said, “the first biological life form” because we were talking about abiogenesis. We can have intelligence without biological life.
In the Buddhist world view, the mind is not reducible to biological life. It is a transcendent, spiritual entity.

Was the Designer some form of non-living alien supercomputer perhaps?

It could be – but you’d need another discipline beyond ID to explain or prove that.

If the Designer is alive, then the Designer cannot be the explanation for the origin of life, obviously.

It’s an interesting idea. Usually, “the origin of life” means “the origin of biological life on earth”. In that case, you’re right – if the proposed Designer is “a biological life form on earth” – then that kind of Designer cannot explain the origin of biological life on earth.

We can infer that there is a Designer that possesses intelligence and power that is not reducible to matter and natural laws.

 

[reggieM]

Nearly all chemical compounds being to some degree reactive, is it not likely then that these four eventually found each other.

It is not likely that this could have happened.

So what I’m saying is that the chances of life forms (which I drastically differentiate from Life) are not dependent on specific RNA or DNA chains, but on the occurrence of their components and their necessary properties. Yes?

You’re already on record as saying that life did not emerge by accident. However, you’ve done nothing to support that assertion.

You might consider giving an explanation on what you think the difference between “life” and “life forms” is and how you arrived at that conclusion.

 

[reggieM]

From the Buddhist perspective, what Western philosophy describes as “mind” does not strictly exist. The Buddhist analysis of a person is very different from the standard Western analysis, having developed in a very different philosophical tradition, with very different objectives. Strictly, a human is analysed into five constituent parts: form, feeling, perceptions, impulses and consciousness. None of the five correspond exactly to the Western idea of “mind”. Loosely speaking, the last four correspond to “the non-material part of a human being”.

For the sake of consistency, we’re using Western philosophical constructs since those are the foundation for Western science. Terms like nature, material and mind are essential for understanding science from a Western perspective.

From a Buddhist perspective, human origins do not differ from animal origins, angels’ origins, devils’ origins or gods’ origins. It is a mistake to assume that the standard ideas of Western philosophy also apply to Buddhist philosophy.

Given that, then scientific categories, analytics and explanations must necessarily be different in the Buddhist view than in the Western view. One would not be able to correctly discuss Western science using Buddhist philosophical categories.

For example …

Not in Buddhism. The natural laws of karma apply in both the material and spiritual worlds for example.

Western science would not consider karma to be a “natural law”. Additionally, if Buddhist philosophy is correct, then Western science has been blind to the effect of karma on the material world. It would be an error to assume (as Western materialism/evolution does) that fixed natural laws alone (karma not being one of them) explain the origin and development of life on earth.

The same applies to animals. Animals can be reborn as humans and humans can be reborn as animals.

On what basis do you believe this to be true?

No. Mind, speaking loosely, is one of the (name removed by moderator)uts into natural laws, such as karma.

Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with an evil mind then suffering will follow you,
as the wheel follows the draught ox.
​

Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with a pure mind then happiness will follow you,
as a shadow that never leaves.

If mind preceeds all conditions, then mind transcends natural laws. If mind is an (name removed by moderator)ut to the laws, and there are things that are “mind made”, then mind is an explanation for some things that are made.

In this case, the text warns against evil and supports purity – appealing to the freedom of the person to choose one or the other. So those qualities are also not reducible to matter.​

 

[rossum]

For the sake of consistency, we’re using Western philosophical constructs since those are the foundation for Western science.

Which is why I have generally stayed out of the more philosophical parts of the discussions in this thread. When I was asked specifically about the Buddhist attitude, I answered.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Evolution assumes the existence of consistent natural laws – acting predicably over time.

As does ID. Otherwise what the Designer did on Monday would be undone on Tuesday. It is also observed that we do actually have such consistent natural laws.

As mentioned, ID does not propose to explain the origin of the Designer. Evolution does not propose to explain the origin of natural laws. It is assumed that consistent, perduring natural laws exist (and were therefore consistent billions of years ago).

Here I disagree. Where possible, consistency is measured and not assumed. Scientists assume far less than certain ID or YEC websites will tell you. For example, the constancy of the speed of light has been confirmed for 10 billion years into the past, and has been further probably confirmed, to a slightly lower degree of accuracy, for two billion years further, back to 12 billion years ago.

That which possesses the fullness of all intelligence, however, is a reasonable explanation for all of the intelligence that emerges from it.

Which was precisely my point. If you start with an Intelligent Designer then you have not explained the origin of intelligence, merely assumed it.

The Intelligent Designer was not the first life form on earth.

So, the space aliens were floating 30 cm above the Earth when they dropped those first replicating cells into that warm pond?

rossum

 

[reggieM]

As does ID. Otherwise what the Designer did on Monday would be undone on Tuesday. It is also observed that we do actually have such consistent natural laws.

You have already explained that karma is a natural law and that the mind has (name removed by moderator)ut on the natural laws. Where is the scientific explanation that supports these ideas and where has it been observed that karma operates in a consistent manner (and has always done so)?

Here I disagree. Where possible, consistency is measured and not assumed. Scientists assume far less than certain ID or YEC websites will tell you. For example, the constancy of the speed of light has been confirmed for 10 billion years into the past, and has been further probably confirmed, to a slightly lower degree of accuracy, for two billion years further, back to 12 billion years ago.

It’s important to recognize the assumptions that are built into your claims of accuracy though. First, it is not possible to directly measure what happened a billion years ago. So, there’s no way to confirm that what we perceive now is not illusory. We draw an inference but that is based on the idea that the universe did not pop into existence a minute ago (which cannot be proven), and that our minds are truly able to interpret data correctly.

If you start with an Intelligent Designer then you have not explained the origin of intelligence, merely assumed it.

The Design Argument does not start with a Designer. It infers a Designer from what is observed.

There are different philosophical arguments that explain the origin of intelligence.

So, the space aliens were floating 30 cm above the Earth when they dropped those first replicating cells into that warm pond?

You’re already on record in asserting the existence of angels and demons as well as the power of humans to be reborn as animals so I’d think you’d need some method to distinguish the effect of those beings from that of space aliens.

 

[reggieM]

Which is why I have generally stayed out of the more philosophical parts of the discussions in this thread. When I was asked specifically about the Buddhist attitude, I answered.

I don’t think you can stay out of the philosophical parts of the discussion.
You’re arguing about science – which, in this context, is a product of Western philosophy. So, the categories and definitions used by science are philosophical concepts.

On the other hand, as a Buddhist, you accept categories and definitions that do not align (and are opposed to) Western science – as you explained.

I think it would be better for you to explain why the Buddhist understanding of “the natural law of karma”, for example, is a more accurate, better measured, more consistent process in reality than what the Western scientific view proposes.

 

[tonyrey]

“Scientists haven’t discovered/demonstrated an explanation yet, therefore I’ll have irrational faith in a transcendental magic man?”

A crude description of theism that reveals an irrationally aggressive mentality.“Aggressive”? Really? I suspect the only reason you interpret my remarks as aggressive, in light of the nature of many of your own…

I believe in giving others a taste of their own bitter medicine…

…is due to the enculturated respect traditionally afforded religious faith.

• which entitles one to be sarcastic? In that case the theist is entitled to respond in the same tone:

“Scientists haven’t discovered/demonstrated an explanation yet, therefore I’ll have irrational faith in the subnatural sorcery of fortuitous permutations of particles.”

Philosophers, scientists and all rational beings - use intuition and personal experience but primarily the power of reason to reach all their conclusions. It is hardly an insignificant by-product of irrational processes…

You are the one claiming it is insignificant if it’s not a product of supernatural design.

Anyone who relies on irrational processes rather than making plans certainly finishes up by being an insignificant by-product. Cosmic justice!

Only materialists regard insight - on which intelligence is based - as a complex process because they are dominated by an atomistic interpretation of reality. The mind cannot be divided into bits and pieces like physical objects. It is an entity which functions like the director of an organisation or the conductor of an orchestra. No one asks “Which part of you reached that conclusion?” because “I reached that conclusion” is an adequate answer - provided that we give a reason (but the reason is not a part of us).

Materialists believe things are brute facts whereas theists believe persons are basic facts. That is the essential difference. What is more reasonable: to be a person or a collection of things? The fatal flaw of the analytic approach is its failure to see the wood for the trees…

What’s the difference between a brute fact and a basic fact?

The brute fact is irrational since it exists in an unintelligible, incoherent void whereas the basic fact is rational because it is part of an intelligible, coherent system.

Both are assumed, if your usage is anything to go by, apparently without recourse to explanation. And the difference between the naturalist and the supernaturalist view - as I’ve elucidated before - is that the former tends to regard the mind (in light of the present extent of study) as an emergent property of the brain, whilst the latter regards it (in light of religious dogma and philosophical idealism) as a fully developed independent entity that merely interacts with the body and the external world through means of the brain (though adherents of supernaturalism tend to remain stubbornly obscurantist as to any explanation of how this happens)

“emergent” is simply a cloak for ignorance based on the fallacy of post hoc propter hoc. Adherents of naturalism remain stubbornly obscurantist because they have no choice in the matter - in both senses of the phrase. Matter affords no scope for choice nor do its adherents have any! The mind is eliminated by minds whose dogmas stem from the assumption that omnipotent matter has the magical monopoly of determining the nature of every phenomenon - including the minds of materialists…

I’ve also discussed in a previous post (actually on another thread) why the supposition that a naturalist view of the mind is “reductionist” is patently erroneous. To offer a crude analogy, that is like claiming that your computer would operate without multiple transistors to process and store information; or like claiming a recipe would taste just the same without the proper balance of ingredients.

We are grateful for superb examples of a designed machine and a planned meal! “information” and “the proper balance” are indeed rational rather than accidental.

No-one - except supernaturalists trying to denigrate science - seriously thinks that minds can be “reduced” to the components that interact to give rise to them. A less crude analogy might be that of music - it is utterly dependent upon sound waves and the matter through which they must travel, but no-one supposes that a Beethoven symphony is “reducible” to its individual component parts, not even the musicians in the orchestra while they’re practising their separate lines of the score.

An orchestra without a conductor is yet another splendid analogy! Cacophony is the outcome of a chaotic combination of disconnected chords - which is a splendid description of music composed by animals emanating from fortuitous mutations of matter (an event that has of course not occurred because it is a false description of reality).

Beethoven’s belief and trust in God sustained him when he was afflicted with deafness and tempted to commit suicide - which a sceptic would have done. His faith inspired him to compose the Missa Solemnis, a beautiful masterpiece no materialist has ever emulated, let alone surpassed, demonstrating once again the soul-destroying effects of worshipping the mud beneath our feet as the supreme cause, beginning and end of everything on this planet.

 

[rossum]

You have already explained that karma is a natural law and that the mind has (name removed by moderator)ut on the natural laws. Where is the scientific explanation that supports these ideas and where has it been observed that karma operates in a consistent manner (and has always done so)?

How much of the Tripitaka have you read? Christians see the Bible as authoritative in spiritual matters. Buddhists see the Tripitaka as authoritative in spiritual matters. If you wish to make a scientific investigation into karma, then follow the instructions in Chapter 13 of the Visuddhimagga to allow you to recall your previous lives.

It’s important to recognize the assumptions that are built into your claims of accuracy though. First, it is not possible to directly measure what happened a billion years ago. So, there’s no way to confirm that what we perceive now is not illusory. We draw an inference but that is based on the idea that the universe did not pop into existence a minute ago (which cannot be proven), and that our minds are truly able to interpret data correctly.

You are correct, Last Thursdayism is not disprovable. However that is just as much a problem for ID, OEC, YEC or any other belief that has a universe more than seven days old. Remember that science does not do “proof”, it deals with evidence. If the universe acts exactly as if it is 13.5 billion years old, then that is good enough for science to make progress. Science does assume a general consistency, so what works today also works tomorrow. Where possible that consistency is measured, and allowances made for when the apparently static isn’t. For example, astronomers using long baseline interferometry have to allow for continental drift if their baseline crosses a moving plate boundary. The great success of science is enough to show us that, in general, the assumption of a consistent universe works.

It is perfectly possible to directly measure events from billions of years ago. Since photons do not decay, then we can directly observe 12 billion year old photons, arriving from very distant parts of the universe. Those photons tell us about the state of the universe that long ago. Some things have changed, while other things have not. In particular, the Fine-Structure Constant has not changed. Since one of the elements of that constant is c, the speed of light, the constancy of the FSC tells us that the speed of light is also unchanged. See: Search for Time Variation of the Fine Structure Constant.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

Science does assume a general consistency, so what works today also works tomorrow. Where possible that consistency is measured, and allowances made for when the apparently static isn’t. For example, astronomers using long baseline interferometry have to allow for continental drift if their baseline crosses a moving plate boundary. The great success of science is enough to show us that, in general, the assumption of a consistent universe works.

An assumption based on the belief that the universe is an orderly, intelligible and purposeful system created by God. The Design argument justifies the principle of induction by predicting that physical constants will continue to hold good.