A simple case for intelligent design

[Valjean]

Intelligent design is a arrogant explanation to justify an unwarranted explanation to put humans above all other life. .

I don't see it as an "explanation" at all. It doesn't explain anything, it's just an assertion of agency. Presumably it just proposes magic by an invisible, undetectable agent.

 

[Valjean]

There is indeed a mark of intelligence left in our genetic code as evident by how the numeric and semantic message of 037 appears in our genetic code. Each codon relates to 3 other particular codons having the same particular type of initial nucleobase and sequential nucleobase subsequently then followed by a different ending nucleobase. Half of these 4 set of codon groups ( whole family codons ) each code for the same particular amino acid. The other half of those 4 set of codon groups ( split codons ) don't code for the same amino acid. So then, in the case of whole family codons, there are 37 amino acid peptide chain nucleons for each relevant nucleobase determinant of how a particular amino acid gets coded. Start codons express 0 at the beginning of 37 Hence, the meaningful numeric and semantic message of 037 gets unambiguously and factually conveyed to us descendants of our cosmic ancestor(s) with our genetic code invented by a superior intelligence beyond that of anybody presently bound to Earth.

“There is no plausible chemical logic to couple directly the triplets and the amino acids. In other words, the principles of chemistry where not the sought essence of the genetic code”

“The zero is the supreme abstraction of arithmetic. Its use by any alphabet, including the genetic code, can be an indicator of artificiality.”

"The place-value decimal system represented through digital symmetry of the numbers divisible by prime number (PN 037). This arithmetical syntactic feature is an innate attribute of the genetic code. The PN 037 notation with a leading zero emphasizes zero's equal participation in the digital symmetry. Numbers written by identical digits are devised by PN 037*3=111 and 1+1+1=3 and appear regularly [from the figure: 037*6 =222 and 2+2+2=6, 037*9=333 and 3+3+3 =9, 037*4=444 and 4+4+4=12, 037*15=555 and 5+5+5=15, 037*18=666 and 6+6+6=18, 037*21=777 and 7+7+7 =21. 037*24 =888 and 8+8+8=24, 037*27=999 and 9+9+9=27.)"

"There is a complete set of information symbols utilizing the decimal syntax 111, 222, 333, 444, 555, 666, 777, 888, 999 in the genetic code. Each of these symbols consists uniformly of a carrier (balanced nucleons) and a meaning (the decimal syntax)."

Reference: The "Wow! signal" of the terrestrial genetic code. Vladimir l. shCherbak and Maxim A. Makukov. Redirectinghttps://www.scribd.com/document/35302916...netic-Code

This informational and artificial characteristic of the WOW signal of the terrestrial genetic code demonstrates intelligent design.

This intelligent signal transmitted via genetic code that has been documented and confirmed by scientists researching the WOW signal of the terrestrial genetic code is prima facie evidence for an intelligent designer.

The authors who discovered this mark of intelligence embedded in our genetic code show that "the terrestrial code displays a thorough precision-type orderliness matching the criteria to be considered an informational signal. Simple arrangements of the code reveal an ensemble of arithmetical and ideographical patterns of the same symbolic language. Accurate and systematic, these underlying patterns appear as a product of precision logic and nontrivial computing rather than of stochastic processes (the null hypothesis that they are due to chance coupled with presumable evolutionary pathways is rejected with P-value < 10–13). The patterns are profound to the extent that the code mapping itself is uniquely deduced from their algebraic representation. The signal displays readily recognizable hallmarks of artificiality, among which are the symbol of zero, the privileged decimal syntax and semantical symmetries. Besides, extraction of the signal involves logically straightforward but abstract operations, making the patterns essentially irreducible to any natural origin. Plausible ways of embedding the signal into the code and possible interpretation of its content are discussed. Overall, while the code is nearly optimized biologically, its limited capacity is used extremely efficiently to pass non-biological information."

Reference: The "Wow! signal" of the terrestrial genetic code. Vladimir l. shCherbak and Maxim A. Makukov. Redirectinghttps://www.scribd.com/document/35302916...netic-Code

Exactly who/what left its/their mark in our genetic coding might not ever get determined by anybody presently bound to Earth. The search for our cosmic relatives and cosmic common ancestor likely then needs to be done with advanced space exploration. I'd like to urge you then to please advise our Senate, Congress and President to expand our tax-payer funded resources for advance space exploration

This is all apophenic nonsense, IMHO.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Well, I even provided an example, there is nothing in the laws of nature that “forces” ink to produce letters and words. This is what I mean with “independent”

For example if you have a series of different liquids with different density, the laws of nature would “force” the liquids to organize themselves, based on their density, (heavy liquids would go to the bottom, light liquids will go to the top)……or to put it this way; the laws of nature “try” to put the heavy substances I the bottom and the light ones at the top.

In the case of ice crystals, there is a natural principle that forces water to form hexagonal patterns.

In these cases the pattern is not “independent” the laws of nature impose this pattern. The laws of nature “try” to produce these patterns

In the case of amino acids, there is no known natural principle that would “force” them to organice in such a way that they would produce self replicating proteins. The laws of nature dot seem to “try” to organize amino acids in to self replicating agents.

You would need to look further into molecular chemistry . You will discover it doesn't quite work that way. Particularly when it comes to binding and unbinding of atoms. A great example would be the development of the fetus viewed from a molecular lens.

 

[Bear Wild]

I don't see it as an "explanation" at all. It doesn't explain anything, it's just an assertion of agency. Presumably it just proposes magic by an invisible, undetectable agent.

You are right it is not an true explanation of what really happens. It is used by many to justify why the believe they are superior to other forms of life.

 

[blü 2]

1 Intelligent design is detectable: there are objective ways to detect design, this is uncontroversial ... If we go to another planet and find something that looks like pyramids there would be an objective way to determine if they where design or not.

There might be such a way or there might not. It would depend on the example. For example, if we imagine a strange planet with the equivalent of fertile soil, how could you tell whether the fertile soil was deliberately enhanced or just natural?

2 if we apply those objective methods to living things, we would infer design:​

Not if we knew the first thing about evolution, we wouldn't.

The objective method that Dembski and others propose is “specified complexity” something is specified and complex if:
1 it has many parts (or units)…. For example a book has many letters
2 they are organized in a pattern…..for example the letters are organized in such a way in which they produce meaningful words and sentences
3 the pattern is independent from the forces of nature: …. For example there is no a law (or principle) in nature that forces “ink” and “paper” to produce meaningful letters words and sentences.​

Dembski had the chance to make this argument in open court at the Dover trial. However, on learning that he'd face cross-examination, he ran for the hills and was never seen again, trial-wise. Behe, who at least had the courage of his convictions, was cross-examined. I quote from the Dover judgment:

Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. [...] Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex.​

First, with regard to the bacterial flagellum, Dr. Miller pointed to peer-reviewed studies that identified a possible precursor to the bacterial flagellum, a subsystem that was fully functional [...]​

Second, with regard to the blood-clotting cascade, Dr. Miller demonstrated that the alleged irreducible complexity of the blood-clotting cascade has been disproven by peer-reviewed studies dating back to 1969, which show that dolphins’ and whales’ blood clots despite missing a part of the cascade, a study that was confirmed by molecular testing in 1998.

The immune system is the third system to which Professor Behe has applied [Page 78] the definition of irreducible complexity. [...] Dr. Miller presented peer-reviewed studies refuting Professor Behe’s claim that the immune system was irreducibly complex. Between 1996 and 2002, various studies confirmed each element of the evolutionary hypothesis explaining the origin of the immune system.​

So as far as I'm aware the number of credible examples of irreducible complexity on the table at the moment remains zero. If you disagree, please set it out here, together with reports from reputable scientists who have commented on it.

In my experience those who deny ID don’t really present an argument, and usually they don’t spot their point of disagreement, they simply troll and call ID “creationism with another name” instead of providing an actual argument.

Then you can't have read the Dover judgment, and I assume you'd like to, so >here it is<. (And you can read the transcripts of the evidence given at the trial >here<.)

One thing that emerged clearly was that Behe's notions of irreducible complexity failed to take exaptation into account. Exaptation was involved in rebutting each of his purported examples. It occurs when body parts that have evolved to carry out a particular function further evolve to perform a different function. A common example is the use of former jaw-bones in the ear: as >Wikipedia< puts it:

Over the course of the evolution of mammals, one bone from the lower and one from the upper jaw (the articular and quadrate bones) lost their purpose in the jaw joint and were put to new use in the middle ear, connecting to the existing stapes bone and forming a chain of three bones, the ossicles, which transmit sounds more efficiently and allow more acute hearing. In mammals, these three bones are known as the malleus, incus, and stapes (hammer, anvil, and stirrup respectively).
​

Behe had known about the exaptation problem by 2002, but had not adjusted his ideas to account for it by the Dover trial 2005. He still hasn't, and now it's 2018.

 

[Claire A Komacek]

People tend to complicate things, but the concept of inteligetn design (as proposed by Behe, Demski and many others) is very simple and easy to understand.

The theory of ID is based on 2 premises

1 Intelligent design is detectable: there are objective ways to detect design, this is uncontroversial; for example forensic scientists, archeologists, fire experts, detectives, cryptographers, and many other professionals detect design all the time. For example If we go to another planet and find something that looks like pyramids there would be an objective way to determine if they where design or not. And one could (in principle) conclude that these pyramids where intelligently design even if nobody knows who the designer, or where did it come from, or “who created the designer” the answer to those question could simply be “I don’t know”

2 if we apply those objective methods to living things, we would infer design: If we look at living things at apply the same methods that we already know that are reliable, to detect design, we would infer that life was designed by an intelligent designer (even if we might not know who the designer is, or were did he come from)


The objective method that Dembski and others propose is “specified complexity” something is specified and complex if:

1 it has many parts (or units)…. For example a book has many letters

2 they are organized in a pattern…..for example the letters are organized in such a way in which they produce meaningful words and sentences

3 the pattern is independent from the forces of nature: …. For example there is no a law (or principle) in nature that forces “ink” and “paper” to produce meaningful letters words and sentences.

Something requires all (1,2 and 3) in order to call it “specified complexity”


The argument is that life is specified and complex

even the simplest life forms would require many amino acids (1) organized in a very specific order and pattern (2) and nothing in nature forces the amino acids to organize themselves in such a way that they would produce functional self replicating “things”


*For simplicity lets define life as: something organic that can reproduce.


In my experience those who deny ID don’t really present an argument, and usually they don’t spot their point of disagreement, they simply troll and call ID “creationism with another name” instead of providing an actual argument.

Makes me think of light/energy being conscious. Sun creates a solar system out of gas.....It would be the being to organize it all into stuff...

 

[Hockeycowboy]

1 Intelligent design is detectable: there are objective ways to detect design, this is uncontroversial; for example forensic scientists, archeologists, fire experts, detectives, cryptographers, and many other professionals detect design all the time. For example If we go to another planet and find something that looks like pyramids there would be an objective way to determine if they where design or not. And one could (in principle) conclude that these pyramids where intelligently design even if nobody knows who the designer, or where did it come from, or “who created the designer” the answer to those question could simply be “I don’t know”

Another good example is “S.E.T.I.”; looking for patterns of information. If they find them, would they assume these patterns arise by non-intelligent means? Of course not.

 

[louie]

People tend to complicate things, but the concept of inteligetn design (as proposed by Behe, Demski and many others) is very simple and easy to understand.

The theory of ID is based on 2 premises

1 Intelligent design is detectable: there are objective ways to detect design, this is uncontroversial; for example forensic scientists, archeologists, fire experts, detectives, cryptographers, and many other professionals detect design all the time. For example If we go to another planet and find something that looks like pyramids there would be an objective way to determine if they where design or not. And one could (in principle) conclude that these pyramids where intelligently design even if nobody knows who the designer, or where did it come from, or “who created the designer” the answer to those question could simply be “I don’t know”

2 if we apply those objective methods to living things, we would infer design: If we look at living things at apply the same methods that we already know that are reliable, to detect design, we would infer that life was designed by an intelligent designer (even if we might not know who the designer is, or were did he come from)


The objective method that Dembski and others propose is “specified complexity” something is specified and complex if:

1 it has many parts (or units)…. For example a book has many letters

2 they are organized in a pattern…..for example the letters are organized in such a way in which they produce meaningful words and sentences

3 the pattern is independent from the forces of nature: …. For example there is no a law (or principle) in nature that forces “ink” and “paper” to produce meaningful letters words and sentences.

Something requires all (1,2 and 3) in order to call it “specified complexity”


The argument is that life is specified and complex

even the simplest life forms would require many amino acids (1) organized in a very specific order and pattern (2) and nothing in nature forces the amino acids to organize themselves in such a way that they would produce functional self replicating “things”


*For simplicity lets define life as: something organic that can reproduce.


In my experience those who deny ID don’t really present an argument, and usually they don’t spot their point of disagreement, they simply troll and call ID “creationism with another name” instead of providing an actual argument.

 

[louie]

At our level one and one is two. Our little human brains cannot
comprehend large numbers. When we know the ultra deep field
is thirteen billion light years distant, we cannot really comprehend this/these numbers.
An electron may be made up of trillions and trillions of somethings. The something being the basic building block that has properties that we can't imagine or comprehend.
Why can't we accept that everything has existed forever?
If it has, no troublesome god to do some kind of creation is needed. We can deal with the way things really are.

 

[Altfish]

People tend to complicate things, but the concept of inteligetn design (as proposed by Behe, Demski and many others) is very simple and easy to understand.

The theory of ID is based on 2 premises

1 Intelligent design is detectable: there are objective ways to detect design, this is uncontroversial; for example forensic scientists, archeologists, fire experts, detectives, cryptographers, and many other professionals detect design all the time. For example If we go to another planet and find something that looks like pyramids there would be an objective way to determine if they where design or not. And one could (in principle) conclude that these pyramids where intelligently design even if nobody knows who the designer, or where did it come from, or “who created the designer” the answer to those question could simply be “I don’t know”

2 if we apply those objective methods to living things, we would infer design: If we look at living things at apply the same methods that we already know that are reliable, to detect design, we would infer that life was designed by an intelligent designer (even if we might not know who the designer is, or were did he come from)


The objective method that Dembski and others propose is “specified complexity” something is specified and complex if:

1 it has many parts (or units)…. For example a book has many letters

2 they are organized in a pattern…..for example the letters are organized in such a way in which they produce meaningful words and sentences

3 the pattern is independent from the forces of nature: …. For example there is no a law (or principle) in nature that forces “ink” and “paper” to produce meaningful letters words and sentences.

Something requires all (1,2 and 3) in order to call it “specified complexity”


The argument is that life is specified and complex

even the simplest life forms would require many amino acids (1) organized in a very specific order and pattern (2) and nothing in nature forces the amino acids to organize themselves in such a way that they would produce functional self replicating “things”


*For simplicity lets define life as: something organic that can reproduce.


In my experience those who deny ID don’t really present an argument, and usually they don’t spot their point of disagreement, they simply troll and call ID “creationism with another name” instead of providing an actual argument.

Firstly, let's be clear about this....

ID is NOT a theory; at best it is an untested hypothesis and that is being very generous.

 

[Skwim]

Usually most see it as creationism.

As the Dover trial showed, it most certainly IS creationism.

.

 

[Skwim]

Well, I even provided an example, there is nothing in the laws of nature that “forces” ink to produce letters and words. This is what I mean with “independent”

For example if you have a series of different liquids with different density, the laws of nature would “force” the liquids to organize themselves, based on their density, (heavy liquids would go to the bottom, light liquids will go to the top)……or to put it this way; the laws of nature “try” to put the heavy substances I the bottom and the light ones at the top.

In the case of ice crystals, there is a natural principle that forces water to form hexagonal patterns.

In these cases the pattern is not “independent” the laws of nature impose this pattern. The laws of nature “try” to produce these patterns

In the case of amino acids, there is no known natural principle that would “force” them to organice in such a way that they would produce self replicating proteins. The laws of nature dot seem to “try” to organize amino acids in to self replicating agents.

I notice you haven't mentioned "intelligent" once, which is the core of your design argument. How about staying on track.

Aren't the rules that no debate is allowed in a discussion area?

This is a debate area. A subsection of "Religious Debates."

well at the end of the day these are all labels, but usually creationists assert that their own personal interpretation of the bible is true, and then they try to fit the facts to accommodate into that truth.
Intelligent design, simply asserts that life requires an intelligent designer.

No it doesn't "simply" make such an assertion. It goes to great lengths trying to show that there's intelligence behind the design of the universe.

The bible is irrelevant for ID,

No. IDers simply refrain from alluding to the Bible. It's part of their strategy.

Just take a look at the Discovery Institute's (the inventors of ID) Wedge Strategy

"The Wedge Strategy is a creationist political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Institute, the hub of the pseudoscientific intelligent design movement. The strategy was put forth in a Discovery Institute manifesto known as the Wedge Document. Its goal is to change American culture by shaping public policy to reflect politically conservative fundamentalist evangelical Protestant values. The wedge metaphor is attributed to Phillip E. Johnson and depicts a metal wedge splitting a log.

Intelligent design is the religious belief that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not a naturalistic process such as natural selection. Implicit in the intelligent design doctrine is a redefining of science and how it is conducted (see theistic science). Wedge strategy proponents are opposed to materialism,naturalism, and evolution and have made the removal of each from how science is conducted and taught an explicit goal. The strategy was originally brought to the public's attention when the Wedge Document was leaked on the Web. The Wedge strategy forms the governing basis of a wide range of Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns."
Source: Wikipedia​

 

[sayak83]

Well, I even provided an example, there is nothing in the laws of nature that “forces” ink to produce letters and words. This is what I mean with “independent”

For example if you have a series of different liquids with different density, the laws of nature would “force” the liquids to organize themselves, based on their density, (heavy liquids would go to the bottom, light liquids will go to the top)……or to put it this way; the laws of nature “try” to put the heavy substances I the bottom and the light ones at the top.

In the case of ice crystals, there is a natural principle that forces water to form hexagonal patterns.

In these cases the pattern is not “independent” the laws of nature impose this pattern. The laws of nature “try” to produce these patterns

In the case of amino acids, there is no known natural principle that would “force” them to organice in such a way that they would produce self replicating proteins. The laws of nature dot seem to “try” to organize amino acids in to self replicating agents.

There are plenty of well known natural principles that try to organize amino acids in a macro-molecular sequence. They are not taught in high school, but they are there. Here is a good introduction,
The Chemistry of Polymers

The law that allows the formation of large molecule chains from small molecules is called the Minimization of Gibbs Free Energy Principle. This principle forces the self assembly of macromolecules from small fragments. Also see the link below,
Main research field: Polymer self-assembly
Molecular self-assembly is a process in which molecules (or parts of molecules) spontaneously form ordered aggregates without guidance or management from an outside source. There are two types of molecular self-assembly,intramolecular self-assembly and intermolecular self-assembly. Most often the term molecular self-assembly refers to intermolecular self-assembly, while the intramolecular analog is more commonly called folding. The notion of self-assembled polymers covers large polymerlike structures formed by reversible or non-reversible aggregation of (effective) monomers or smaller polymers. Self-assembling polymers tend to form under appropriate conditions all sorts of large aggregates such as spherical or cylindrical micelles which may in turn effectively behave as huge polymers.
Examples include liquid sulfur and selenium, giant surfactant micelles, supramolecular aggregates of dyes, dipolar colloids and protein filaments. EP differ from conventional "quenched" or "dead" polymers in that they can break and recombine.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

2 if we apply those objective methods to living things, we would infer design: If we look at living things at apply the same methods that we already know that are reliable, to detect design, we would infer that life was designed by an intelligent designer (even if we might not know who the designer is, or were did he come from)


The objective method that Dembski and others propose is “specified complexity” something is specified and complex if:

1 it has many parts (or units)…. For example a book has many letters

2 they are organized in a pattern…..for example the letters are organized in such a way in which they produce meaningful words and sentences

3 the pattern is independent from the forces of nature: …. For example there is no a law (or principle) in nature that forces “ink” and “paper” to produce meaningful letters words and sentences.

Something requires all (1,2 and 3) in order to call it “specified complexity”


The argument is that life is specified and complex

even the simplest life forms would require many amino acids (1) organized in a very specific order and pattern (2) and nothing in nature forces the amino acids to organize themselves in such a way that they would produce functional self replicating “things”


*For simplicity lets define life as: something organic that can reproduce.


In my experience those who deny ID don’t really present an argument, and usually they don’t spot their point of disagreement, they simply troll and call ID “creationism with another name” instead of providing an actual argument.

Okay. Let's assume living things are intelligently designed. This means the designer must themselves be specifically complex enough to design living things intelligently. Meaning, the designer themselves were intelligently designed. And whoever designed the designer must themselves be intelligently designed. At what point should we stop and say we've gone back far enough? Because the conclusion to your logic is an infinite regression of progressively more complex designers.

 

[exchemist]

People tend to complicate things, but the concept of inteligetn design (as proposed by Behe, Demski and many others) is very simple and easy to understand.

The theory of ID is based on 2 premises

1 Intelligent design is detectable: there are objective ways to detect design, this is uncontroversial; for example forensic scientists, archeologists, fire experts, detectives, cryptographers, and many other professionals detect design all the time. For example If we go to another planet and find something that looks like pyramids there would be an objective way to determine if they where design or not. And one could (in principle) conclude that these pyramids where intelligently design even if nobody knows who the designer, or where did it come from, or “who created the designer” the answer to those question could simply be “I don’t know”

2 if we apply those objective methods to living things, we would infer design: If we look at living things at apply the same methods that we already know that are reliable, to detect design, we would infer that life was designed by an intelligent designer (even if we might not know who the designer is, or were did he come from)


The objective method that Dembski and others propose is “specified complexity” something is specified and complex if:

1 it has many parts (or units)…. For example a book has many letters

2 they are organized in a pattern…..for example the letters are organized in such a way in which they produce meaningful words and sentences

3 the pattern is independent from the forces of nature: …. For example there is no a law (or principle) in nature that forces “ink” and “paper” to produce meaningful letters words and sentences.

Something requires all (1,2 and 3) in order to call it “specified complexity”


The argument is that life is specified and complex

even the simplest life forms would require many amino acids (1) organized in a very specific order and pattern (2) and nothing in nature forces the amino acids to organize themselves in such a way that they would produce functional self replicating “things”


*For simplicity lets define life as: something organic that can reproduce.


In my experience those who deny ID don’t really present an argument, and usually they don’t spot their point of disagreement, they simply troll and call ID “creationism with another name” instead of providing an actual argument.

ID is not science and never can be.

1) There can never be agreed criteria to detect design in nature, as we can only judge "design" by reference to human design. The analogy with forensics, archaeology etc, all of which are concerned with human artifacts, is disingenuous and bogus.

2) The basic principle of ID is anti-science, because it proposes that we should stop searching for natural explanations and simply agree that something has no natural explanation. ID is thus a science stopper.

3) In all the years ID has been going, it has done no science at all. All it has done is employ arguments, to claim that such-and-such has no natural explanation and therefore must, supposedly, be designed. It is a 100% negative process, that has contributed zero to scientific understanding.

4) There is ample documentary evidence that the ID movement is a political movement started by a lawyer and aimed at shoehorning God into US science teaching, for the purpose of social engineering by the US Religious Right. It has never had any science credentials.

All these points were made very clearly in the Kitzmiller trial in 2005. ID is a waste of time. The sole reason for anybody to support it is to bamboozle stupid American politicians into damaging the school science curriculum. As such it is a thoroughly contemptible enterprise.

And its followers are either knaves or fools.

 

[ChristineM]

People tend to complicate things, but the concept of inteligetn design (as proposed by Behe, Demski and many others) is very simple and easy to understand.

The theory of ID is based on 2 premises

1 Intelligent design is detectable: there are objective ways to detect design, this is uncontroversial; for example forensic scientists, archeologists, fire experts, detectives, cryptographers, and many other professionals detect design all the time. For example If we go to another planet and find something that looks like pyramids there would be an objective way to determine if they where design or not. And one could (in principle) conclude that these pyramids where intelligently design even if nobody knows who the designer, or where did it come from, or “who created the designer” the answer to those question could simply be “I don’t know”

2 if we apply those objective methods to living things, we would infer design: If we look at living things at apply the same methods that we already know that are reliable, to detect design, we would infer that life was designed by an intelligent designer (even if we might not know who the designer is, or were did he come from)


The objective method that Dembski and others propose is “specified complexity” something is specified and complex if:

1 it has many parts (or units)…. For example a book has many letters

2 they are organized in a pattern…..for example the letters are organized in such a way in which they produce meaningful words and sentences

3 the pattern is independent from the forces of nature: …. For example there is no a law (or principle) in nature that forces “ink” and “paper” to produce meaningful letters words and sentences.

Something requires all (1,2 and 3) in order to call it “specified complexity”


The argument is that life is specified and complex

even the simplest life forms would require many amino acids (1) organized in a very specific order and pattern (2) and nothing in nature forces the amino acids to organize themselves in such a way that they would produce functional self replicating “things”


*For simplicity lets define life as: something organic that can reproduce.


In my experience those who deny ID don’t really present an argument, and usually they don’t spot their point of disagreement, they simply troll and call ID “creationism with another name” instead of providing an actual argument.

All very interesting, all you need to do is get over the facts that refute ID then produce a hypothesis of ID, show your evidence and get it peer reviewed then you would have a working theory.

Until then what you have is a multiply refuted belief system based on ignorance of reality.

 

[Regiomontanus]

This is a debate area. A subsection of "Religious Debates."

Oops, my bad. And I don't really care about this thread (I am not a proponent of ID but also think arguing about it on the internet is not going to change anyone's mind) but was chastised for this last week and so just wanted to be clear on the rules. But I clearly misread the category. Carry on .

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oops, my bad. And I don't really care about this thread (I am not a proponent of ID but also think arguing about it on the internet is not going to change anyone's mind) but was chastised for this last week and so just wanted to be clear on the rules. But I clearly misread the category. Carry on .

The DIR's are supposed to be debate free areas. Perhaps that was your error. I was guilty of that myself in the past.

 

[Regiomontanus]

The DIR's are supposed to be debate free areas. Perhaps that was your error. I was guilty of that myself in the past.

Hello. Yep, just under the title of the thread I read the word 'discussion'. But I see now, above that, the 'religious debates' categorization. I browse these threads quickly and obviously need to pay closer attention before opening my mouth, so to speak.

 

[Polymath257]

But is the concept of "independent" clear?

Not really, no.

Yes natural selection forces life to be adapted, but it doesn't force life to become complex......using just "natural selection " and no other guiding mechanism, why would simple bacteria-like creatures evolve in to complex animals?

Actually, when we do computer models of populations that have mutations and some sort of natural selection, the overall complexity *does* tend to rise. This type of feedback is *precisely* the type that leads to the development of complex systems.

There is a HUGE difference between pure randomness and random mutation with some sort of selection. When I first did some basic models of the latter, I was stunned by the small number of generations required to produce very complex systems. Mutation and natural selection is actually a *very* efficient way to find close-to-optimal solutions of a number of optimizartion problems, also.Look up 'genetic algorithms' sometime.

.

I have "problems" with both the idea that I amino acids became life, and the idea complex life came from simpler life by a proces of random genetic change and natural selection.

Well, not just amino acids. There are also sugars, nucleic acids, lipids of various sorts, etc. But life *is* a complex collection of chemical reactions. That is true *today*.

As for 'random genetic change', once again, the randomness isn't the driving force for complexity. It is the combination of random mutation and some sort of selection pressure. The combination is what allows for the fast development of high complexity levels as well as optimization in the local environment. Again, there are numerous computer and mathematical models that have explored a wide range of factors and show this combination to work in many cases.

Sure, ID is not a ",theory" in the same way gravity is a "theory".......the word theory has many definitions, you can't say that I am wrong just because I am not using your own personal favorite definition of theory

Well, it is not a *scientific theory* unless it makes testable predictions that stand up to concerted criticism and new observations.

The biggest issue with ID is that to determine the activity of an intelligence, we need to know what would happen *without* an intelligence. We then compare the two with the evidence. We *know* that complexity and optimization can happen without the involvement of an intelligence. At this point, there is no observation separating the simple application of known physical laws from the activity of an intelligence. Until there is, ID has nothing to go on.