Does DNA prove intelligent design?

[PureX]

I'm not a biologist, but I have talked about the matter at some length with some. I also have attempted to obtain some knowledge myself.

From what I gather, while DNA might at first appear to have been purposefully designed, that is very much a superficial appearance; the flaws and dangers of the mechanics of life are IMNSHO much too real and evident to support claims of ID (which, incidentally, seem to be nearly non-existent among educated biologists).

It probably helps that I have some background in mathematics and statistics, and therefore have a fairly easy time understanding how a self-replicating molecule (such as DNA) may and will improve itself after several generations, without that being either evidence of intelligent design nor grounds to expect eventual perfection.

See, for instance, recessive genes. I can't help but wonder how or why an intelligent designer would choose to make reproduction and even life itself so inherently risky. Then there is the grim reality of how life forms so often must fight each other in order to thrive. And body parts that definitely don't seem to have been much intelligently designed at all, such as knees and the appendix.

So no, I don't think the nature of the DNA is in any way indicative of intelligent design, although I suppose it is hard for some people to accept that.

All this aside. One can't help but wonder at where these characteristics themselves come from.

Were the universe truly random, there would be no laws or limits to create any specific structures or characteristics at all, intelligent or otherwise. We are citing chance, here, as our counter evidence against "intelligent design", yet it seems obvious to me that chance is simply a part of the way the "design" works. Regardless of whether DNA was an inevitable outcome of universal design, and regardless of whether or not we deem to label the phenomena of DNA "intelligent" or not, the fact is that existence is "designed" by it's own inherent limitations. And we have no explanation whatever as to where these limitations come from, or why they exist. Yet they do exist, and because they exist our universe is structured as it is, and has a character and nature that is specifically this, and is specifically not anything else ... could not be anything else.

It's not our genetic DNA that has me contemplating universal design, it's the "DNA" of existence: those inherent limitations that dictate what energy can and can't become, that really has me stumped.

Where did THOSE come from? And why do they exist if not to bring order out of chaos?

 

[Jose Fly]

Were the universe truly random, there would be no laws or limits to create any specific structures or characteristics at all, intelligent or otherwise.

Why not? Remember, "laws" are merely descriptive, not proscriptive.

We are citing chance, here, as our counter evidence against "intelligent design"

No, the counter to ID creationism is simply that its assertions are demonstrably false.

Regardless of whether DNA was an inevitable outcome of universal design, and regardless of whether or not we deem to label the phenomena of DNA "intelligent" or not, the fact is that existence is "designed" by it's own inherent limitations.

If DNA (or any other complex organic molecular structures) arose without any divine/intelligent intervention, direction, guidance, or other manipulation at all, we would have to say it was "process designed", i.e. that it was "designed" by the inherent properties of its constituent elements. But it seems odd to me to do that at all. Why add another needless descriptive to something that's already described?

And we have no explanation whatever as to where these limitations come from, or why they exist. Yet they do exist, and because they exist our universe is structured as it is, and has a character and nature that is specifically this, and is specifically not anything else ... could not be anything else.

If the universe "could not be anything else", it would run counter to the notion of "design". We would say the universe is the way it is simplyl because "it couldn't be anything else".

it's the "DNA" of existence: those inherent limitations that dictate what energy can and can't become, that really has me stumped. Where did THOSE come from? And why do they exist if not to bring order out of chaos?

Your questions assume: 1) they "came from" somewhere; and 2) they are purposeful and intentive. You're assuming that which you're trying to prove.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Jose - excellent refutation of these common misconceptions/fallacies. Frubals.

 

[Alceste]

Well, isn't it the case that most people have to borrow from scientists who reinforce their presuppositions, apart from those who have actually carried out the research. It appears that certain people on here have a strong bias against anyone who doesn't agree with their theories, and I'm not talking about christians!

That's actually not the case. Most of us don't bother having "presuppositions" to begin with. We just follow the thread of whatever fascinating discovery captures our attention. A non-supernatural world view is based on the principle of reserving judgment until the evidence is in. A scientist who happens to believe there may be "an intelligence" is not empirical, repeatable, testable, demonstrable evidence of an intelligence, so it doesn't impact our ideas about the natural world at all - only evidence does, or can. So a few scientists have mused that a supernatural intelligence makes the whole thing more explicable, for them. So? Who cares? What does that have to do with science?

Referencing comments from scientists discussing the possibility of an intelligence and presenting this as "evidence" of an intelligence is a propaganda tactic and logical fallacy called "appeal to authority". Not everything a scientist does or says is "science" by default.

 

[Alceste]

All this aside. One can't help but wonder at where these characteristics themselves come from.

Were the universe truly random, there would be no laws or limits to create any specific structures or characteristics at all, intelligent or otherwise. We are citing chance, here, as our counter evidence against "intelligent design", yet it seems obvious to me that chance is simply a part of the way the "design" works. Regardless of whether DNA was an inevitable outcome of universal design, and regardless of whether or not we deem to label the phenomena of DNA "intelligent" or not, the fact is that existence is "designed" by it's own inherent limitations. And we have no explanation whatever as to where these limitations come from, or why they exist. Yet they do exist, and because they exist our universe is structured as it is, and has a character and nature that is specifically this, and is specifically not anything else ... could not be anything else.

It's not our genetic DNA that has me contemplating universal design, it's the "DNA" of existence: those inherent limitations that dictate what energy can and can't become, that really has me stumped.

Where did THOSE come from? And why do they exist if not to bring order out of chaos?

Book recommendation interlude:

 

[painted wolf]

DNA is not a proof of "intelligent design"...

Unless, one thinks the designer is an idiot.

wa:do

 

[Magic Man]

I also believe that the more we discover, the more this will be proven, that’s if the media will allow it!

I do so love these conspiracy theories. Why would the media in a country that is more than 80% Christian want to suppress discoveries that might help support Christianity?

Obviously it's true that there is some uncertainty in the scientific community over the TOE when one goes to the ‘Scientific Dissent from Darwinism’ website. Download the list of those scientists who have signed the list which states:

" We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
Dissent from Darwin

Download the list of scientists who have signed this here:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vie...ownload&id=660

Another link for you to try to discredit guys.

I don't feel like taking the time to look at that. I guarantee it's:

1) a bunch of "scientists" who either have no qualifications, or have qualifications but have decided to let their willful ignorance in regards to their religion get in their way, and are well-known for such silliness.

2) A bunch of scientists who have seen the flaws in Darwin's original version of the theory, but accept the current theory of evolution that has weeded out those flaws.

Either way, it's useless.

 

[painted wolf]

Plus you can counter those silly lists with this one.. Project Steve.

Project Steve | NCSE

and the clergy letter project.
http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/rel_evol_sun.htm

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

So, just to be clear, is this right:

You know almost nothing about science and how it operates, but nevertheless believe that it will one day provide evidence of God, despite the fact that it would violate the very nature of science to find evidence either in favor of or against the existence of God? Is that right?

DNA is not a language. "Language" is a metaphor that helps us understand how DNA works. DNA is a molecule.

DNA is actually extremely strong evidence for the common ancestry of all organisms.

To boil your argument down, is it something like, "We don't know how DNA could work, so God must have made it?" If so, several big problems:
1. The fact that we don't know how something works is NOT evidence that God made it. Do you see why, or do I have to explain it?
2. In fact, we do know how it works. We also know how it developed.

 

[Perfect Circle]

Book recommendation interlude:

At Home in the Universe

I think I might read that... Thanks!

 

[Dunemeister]

IMHO, DNA is just one of many things that demonstrate the wisdom of the creator. But that's a philosophical reflection, not a scientific one.

 

[Autodidact]

Well, isn't it the case that most people have to borrow from scientists who reinforce their presuppositions, apart from those who have actually carried out the research. It appears that certain people on here have a strong bias against anyone who doesn't agree with their theories, and I'm not talking about christians!

I don't know what most people do, but people with integrity accept the consensus of scientific research, not cherry pick it for obscure idealogues who happen to say something like what we want to hear.

All I am asking is if it is possible that DNA is a good indicator of intelligent design, I am not alone in thinking this, many far more educated than I have come to this conclusion and this is what I am trying to show.

No, it isn't. To see why, you have to understand that such a question would be outside the scope of science.

 

[Autodidact]

No, I'm not even sure such a poll has been done. Still, my point isn't about taking sides or an unshakeable point of view. I was trying to suggest that the design of life could be conceived as intelligent, could that be a possibility using the evidence we have so far or not?

It's not an evidentiary claim. It's a theological claim.

 

[Autodidact]

knockknock: Do you understand the basics of how DNA works? If not, would you like to learn? This might help answer your question.

 

[Autodidact]

Theism does address this but this is not the thread for it.



Yes, I do find it difficult to accept, and I do understand that there are many with far superior brain power than I who will tell me ID is a figment of my imagination but it still doesn't convince me. I know that those in the scientific field who have come down on the side of ID are few and far between but they do exist and when one considers that TOE is taught as fact throughout the western education system and the mass media, then the odds that there are going to be fewer people who don't agree with TOE is understandable, pretty much like those who didn't agree with ID back in the christian dominated past. The roles have just reversed is all.

No, the IDers are the same type as those who have always opposed ToE, and still on the same wrong side. They're anti-science throwbacks. The fact that an idea is rejected is not evidence that it is correct. The ID proponents are lacking one crucial thing that science requires before accepting a theory: evidence. They don't have any. Further, it is impossible to get any, because their entire idea is non-scientific. To see "evidence" of it, you have to change the definition of evidence and the nature of science itself. That is, because they lose under the current rules, they want to change the rules themselves. Which would mean destroying science to do it.

 

[fantome profane]

Obviously it's true that there is some uncertainty in the scientific community over the TOE when one goes to the ‘Scientific Dissent from Darwinism’ website. Download the list of those scientists who have signed the list which states:

" We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
Dissent from Darwin

Download the list of scientists who have signed this here:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

Another link for you to try to discredit guys.

A very intelligent gentleman who goes by the name DonExodus has already done this debunking work for us. Take a look a this video. You have to admire the time and effort he put into this.
List of Scientists Rejecting Evolution- Do they really?


Let me ask you this knockknock, do you agree that careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged? Have you carefully examined the evidence yourself? What can we do here to encourage you to carefully examine the evidence? I would certainly like to encourage you to do so.

 

[Autodidact]

There's an interesting article in the Journal addressing the two sides of the argument some may be interested in. I've included a quote from my side of the argument as food for thought:

"THOMPSON: More and more scientists are now coming to the conclusion that Darwin's theory has so many gaps in it it cannot really be an effective and vital theory. We have theorists, mathematicians who are experts in the theory of probabilities that say, "Assuming that the Earth is four billion years old, for human life to have evolved by chance is still beyond probabilities. It could not have happened."

I don't know who Thompson is, but this statement is a lie. There are virtually no Biologists who reject ToE, which has nothing to do with chance.

What I've heard is that there are a lot of scientists who believe in intelligent design. But they keep their head down because of the tremendous persecution that they suffer in the scientific community if they supported a person like William Dembski or Michael Behe."

You, or Thompson, has heard wrong.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/journaleditorialreport/052705/qa3.html

 

[Dunemeister]

It's not an evidentiary claim. It's a theological claim.

These are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

 

[Autodidact]

Obviously it's true that there is some uncertainty in the scientific community over the TOE when one goes to the ‘Scientific Dissent from Darwinism’ website. Download the list of those scientists who have signed the list which states:

" We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
Dissent from Darwin

Download the list of scientists who have signed this here:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

Another link for you to try to discredit guys.

Nope. ToE is one of the most broadly accepted and strongly evidence theories in all of modern science. As for the DI's "list", there is a technical term for this type of claim and it is "lie." Look more carefully. First, it isn't a list of scientists, let alone biologists. Read the names. There are engineers and mathematicians and all kinds of odd things on there. I thik there are a tiny number of Biologists, which of course is the only category that matters. Second, they don't dissent from seomthing called "Darwinism" whatever that may be. They just assert that evidence should be carefully examined. Of course evidence should be carefully examined. Heck, I'd sign that. Any scientist would, if they didn't suspect that DI would turn around and use it for evidence that I didn't accept ToE, which of course is something entirely different.

Meanwhile, are you familiar with Project Steve?

Frankly, knockknock, if you want to pursue a theological concept of design, go for it. You may find it productive. But run away from DI, as they are stocked with liars and charlatans of the worst kind.

 

[Jose Fly]

IMHO, DNA is just one of many things that demonstrate the wisdom of the creator. But that's a philosophical reflection, not a scientific one.

How so? As I asked another poster, what specifically are you looking at with DNA that makes you conclude, "Wow. That right there demonstrates the wisdom of the creator"?