A simple case for intelligent design

[Audie]

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.

You might want to keep in mind that trying to
poison the well is not an honourable way to start a
conversation.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

3 the pattern is independent from the forces of nature

This disqualifies all life right here. Nature on our planet contains such an abundance of life that it can hardly be concluded that life is "independent from the forces of nature". It is by nature that we procreate - by nature that our "pattern" is replicated and grows. How can it be said otherwise?

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”

You are 100% sure of this? May I ask how you know? This is akin to the atheist who claims to know for certain that God does not exist. I am the type of atheist who admits I cannot know for certain that God does not exist, I just simply don't believe in Him and find no good reasons to do so. Why are you the type of theist who claims to know for certain that the material and energy that supports life cannot come together via nothing but the forces of nature given perfected/specific circumstances? I don't know that this is or is not possible. How do you?

 

[blü 2]

The theory of ID is based on 2 premises

A couple of further observations about ID.

The concept of irreducible complexity is really an argument from ignorance. There is no actual way of showing that a biological complexity is 'irreducible' in any final sense. The best that could be said would be that Biological Phenomenon X is inexplicable on what we presently know. (There are no such extant examples anyway, as I mentioned.)

Inexplicability wouldn't leave any doors open to the idea of a divine Intelligent Designer. Inexplicability doesn't imply the supernatural at all, and an appeal to a supernatural being is indistinguishable from an appeal to magic, since there's no falsifiable hypothesis as to what the designer is or how it exists or how it might effect its desired design changes anyway. (And why on earth would it bother to give microbes a flagellum from outside of evolution?)

By magic I mean the ability to alter reality independently of the rules of physics, especially by wishing, so it includes the idea of miracles. But unless we're told HOW magic is performed, HOW to do miracles, nothing has been explained. Our understanding of the phenomenon in hand is advanced not even by a micron.

So whichever way we look at it, ID has earnt its Not a winner badge.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

OF COURSE! We can expect little more from them (sigh).

 

[blü 2]

OF COURSE! We can expect little more from them (sigh).

From those little designer beings? I thought you'd be expecting a great deal from them, like giving us immunity to cancer, or even better, a curb on our own stupidity. But as you'll have noticed, the really useful stuff is beyond them. It's a DIY world.

 

[Etritonakin]

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.

I do believe physical life required creativity, but the arrangement of amino acids may be the wrong place to look for it. That seems to suggest the atoms themselves formed naturally, and were then arranged into life as an afterthought.

Atoms do self-arrange based on their equivalent of the densities of liquids in your analogy (atomic weight/number of electrons, etc.) -but only under the right conditions.

Apparently, there is evidence to suggest complex biomolecules are being formed all over the place in space.

It may be necessary to consider the universe as a whole -compare it to pre-universe conditions -and whether the universe itself could have self-arranged into the singularity from pre-singularity stuff -which then extracted into essentially an automated life and environment factory.
That which now exists is logically the same stuff in a different arrangement, so we may have all the evidence we need.

In other words, the basic design and work may have taken place in a pre-physical-universe environment -atoms, etc., being the letters forming words written on pre-universe paper.
It is also true that any work of a designer of such capability also happening now might be very difficult to distinguish from natural processes (simply willing one celestial body to smash into another, as a simple example).

At some point, however, self-awareness, intelligence and creativity necessarily self-arranged.
Even an eternal, overall creator could not be responsible for that which made possible its own basic existence. In other words, original self-awareness, intelligence and creativity necessarily occurs naturally at some point -increasingly allowing for self-determination and the otherwise-unnatural, but can also be reproduced by decision.

We know absolutely that we are capable of creating otherwise-impossible arrangements and processes (there is absolutely no possibility of a '71 Ford truck flying through space or appearing on earth as a result of natural processes, for example) on our level -and we could also set in motion an otherwise-impossible automated process which might seem completely natural to another in our absence -unless enough is known about the most basic nature of all things. There is no reason to believe this is not true on any level -even an all-inclusive level.

A designer is capable of reproducing natural processes which may not readily indicate its activity, but a designer is most evident when it produces something purposeful to itself or another -something only a self could use and produce which is self-apparently so -and tells something of the nature of the designer or another for whom it is intended.
The universe is very much indicative of such -chock full of it -but that is not likely to satisfy many -at least not at this point.

 

[leroy]

What do you mean by "complex"? If you are going to claim that the eye is "complex" then you are demonstrably wrong.

with complex I simly mean specified complexity.

I already defined that term.

natral selection "tries" to produce organisms that would be adapted to their enviroment, but it doesnt try to produce complex organisms, agree? yes or no?....
.

Wrong again. There is a theory of gravity. It is called General Relativity. And you are conflating something that has been observed, such as gravity or evolution, with something that has not been observed, such as ID.

I am not conflating anything, I already told you that I didnt used the word "theory" in the same way it is used to describe relativity.

with theory in this context I simply meant hypothesis, which is a valid use of the term, and it is by far the most common use of this term.

[Where? You didn't. What reasonable test could falsify ID?

I told you, prove that life is not specified and complex or prove that specified complexity doesnt necesarly requirer a designer.

Perhaps life (self relplication) is not necesairly a complex system, maybe all you need is 4 or 5 natural ocurring aminoacids to produce a self replicating protein ........this is one of many possible scenarios that would falsify ID.


you belive that life had a natural origin....how can that statement be falsified?......ohhhhh thats right you dont anwer to direct questions.

 

[leroy]

I don't actually see how we could conclude any such thing. In the example of a pyramid on another planet, I imagine it's more than fair to say that there is a certain level of uncertainty to making any such claim that a pyramid on another planet is definitely designed. .

If we find something that looks like the pyramids in Egypt in an other planet, it woudld be more that obvious that they where designed.

 

[viole]

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.

We deny ID in the same way we deny the stork theory of baby delivery.

However, I am more open towards variants of the idea of a designer. For instance SD has some promising characteristics that seem closer to observation.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Subduction Zone]

with complex I simly mean specified complexity.

I already defined that term.

natral selection "tries" to produce organisms that would be adapted to their enviroment, but it doesnt try to produce complex organisms, agree? yes or no?....

"Specified complexity" is merely another undefined buzz term. And no, you did not define that. Also natural selection does not try to do anything. "Complexity" arises from life due to that. The well understood evolution of the eye is just one such example.

.




I am not conflating anything, I already told you that I didnt used the word "theory" in the same way it is used to describe relativity.

with theory in this context I simply meant hypothesis, which is a valid use of the term, and it is by far the most common use of this term.

Then you should avoid that term when discussing scientific matters. It would have been far more accurate to say the ID WAG.

I told you, prove that life is not specified and complex or prove that specified complexity doesnt necesarly requirer a designer.

Shifting the burden of proof is a tacit admission that you are wrong.

Perhaps life (self relplication) is not necesairly a complex system, maybe all you need is 4 or 5 natural ocurring aminoacids to produce a self replicating protein ........this is one of many possible scenarios that would falsify ID.

Now you are back to saying that ID only applies to abiogenesis. And this is not a reasonable test. You need to try again.

you belive that life had a natural origin....how can that statement be falsified?......ohhhhh thats right you dont anwer to direct questions.

I do have scientific evidence that supports that belief. You one the other hand appear to have nothing. I will go with having at least some evidence over no evidence at all.

And I do not answer improper questions. If you can ask proper questions I will answer them.

 

[leroy]

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.

The same would be true, if we find something like looks like a pyramid, or the sphinx, or like a computer in another planet, we would infer design, even if nobody knows where the design is, or where did it come from.

 

[leroy]

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.

Strawman, nobody is denying the fact that amino acids can create long chains, the claim is that in order to have life you need a very precise and unlikely pattern.

There are many natural mechanism that can create ink, one can even get big volumes of ink by natural mechanism, but in order to have a book with meaningful words and sentences, you need ink in a very specific pattern.

 

[Polymath257]

with complex I simly mean specified complexity.

I already defined that term.

natral selection "tries" to produce organisms that would be adapted to their enviroment, but it doesnt try to produce complex organisms, agree? yes or no?....

No. Natural selection doesn't 'try' to do either. it eliminates those organisms that aren't well enough adapted. And, over generations, that produces complexity. With each population adapting to take maximum advantage of resources, complexity of interaction is the natural and expected result.
.

I am not conflating anything, I already told you that I didnt used the word "theory" in the same way it is used to describe relativity.

with theory in this context I simply meant hypothesis, which is a valid use of the term, and it is by far the most common use of this term.

Not when doing science.

I told you, prove that life is not specified and complex or prove that specified complexity doesnt necesarly requirer a designer.

Perhaps life (self relplication) is not necesairly a complex system, maybe all you need is 4 or 5 natural ocurring aminoacids to produce a self replicating protein ........this is one of many possible scenarios that would falsify ID.

you belive that life had a natural origin....how can that statement be falsified?......ohhhhh thats right you dont anwer to direct questions.

Well, by looking at the chemistry of life today, seeing what sorts of reactions the relevant chemicals have outside of biological systems, considering the chemistry of the early Earth and what was available at the time, performing experiments to see what sorts of reactions happen without direct interaction by an outside intelligence, etc. In other words, exactly what scientists are doing.

if, for example, it was found that there is no pathway from the chemicals that were around on the early Earth and the simplest biological systems, that would falsify abiogenesis as we understand it today. But many of the supposed obstacles to such a pathway have evaporated when closer consideration was made.

 

[viole]

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”

Be careful with that. You are begging the question that you really have a free will and you are not subject to determinism and reversibility.

Unfortunately for your “theory”, we seem to live in a Universe subject to the conservation of information.

Therefore, if that is true, these letters I am writing do not add any novelty to the state of the Universe. They could have been inferred by a perfect knowledge of the state of the Universe millions years before my birth. I could have not possibly written anything else. Same with your ink.

I am afraid that this simple observation destroys your case completely. Assuming there was one to start with, of course,

Ciao

- viole

 

[Subduction Zone]

The same would be true, if we find something like looks like a pyramid, or the sphinx, or like a computer in another planet, we would infer design, even if nobody knows where the design is, or where did it come from.

And this observations are often false. Have you forgotten the images from Mars that were misinterpreted?

"Looks like" does not confirm intelligence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Strawman, nobody is denying the fact that amino acids can create long chains, the claim is that in order to have life you need a very precise and unlikely pattern.

There are many natural mechanism that can create ink, one can even get big volumes of ink by natural mechanism, but in order to have a book with meaningful words and sentences, you need ink in a very specific pattern.

Now you are making the error of assuming that there was only one pathway to life. There may have been multiple ways that life could have arisen. And it is a false analogy to start off with something that is known to be made and trying to use that to refute something that is not made.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I highly recommend you read The Blind Watchmaker. I'm currently reading it now. This book begins by describing the apparent design in living organisms, and the author actually states that the complexity found in living things is mind-blowing and often under-stated by creationists. He then goes on to solve the apparent "design" mystery piece by piece, explaining the power of natural selection to "create" apparent designs over long periods of time.

 

[leroy]

"Specified complexity" is merely another undefined buzz term.

Except for the fact that I already defined the term, if the definition of SC is not clear you can always ask me and I will try to clarify the concept for you.

And no, you did not define that. Also natural selection does not try to do anything. "Complexity" arises from life due to that. The well understood evolution of the eye is just one such example

.


Show that natural selection would tend to produce more complexity.

With complexity I mean specified complexity.

Shifting the burden of proof is a tacit admission that you are wrong.

I am not shifting the burden proof, I am answering to your question, I am just telling you how to falsify ID

Now you are back to saying that ID only applies to abiogenesis. And this is not a reasonable test. You need to try again.

I am not saying that ID only applies to abiogenesis, abiogenesis is just one of many other examples that I could have used.

I do have scientific evidence that supports that belief. You one the other hand appear to have nothing. I will go with having at least some evidence over no evidence at all.

And I do not answer improper questions. If you can ask proper questions I will answer them.

So what would falsify the assertion that life had a natural origin?

Teach us ID theorists a lesson and provide an example on how real science is falsifiable, and provide a real example of how the criteria of falsifiability works……

BTW you should be open to the supernatural, for example I can show that I have supernatural powers, I can predict the future with 100% accuracy, I can predict that you won’t answer to the question, and that you will find stupid excuses not to answer to the question.

 

[Polymath257]

If we find something that looks like the pyramids in Egypt in an other planet, it woudld be more that obvious that they where designed.

That depends. Are there crystal formations that naturally lead to pyramidal structures? Are there other phenomena there that lead to such?

 

[leroy]

Now you are making the error of assuming that there was only one pathway to life. There may have been multiple ways that life could have arisen. And it is a false analogy to start off with something that is known to be made and trying to use that to refute something that is not made.

I am not makng the assumption that there is only 1 pathway to life, but in any case the burden proof on you, you have to show that there are many different pathways.

The analogy of the book is still appropriate; there are many different combinations that would produce a book with meaningful words and sentences,