Does DNA prove intelligent design?

[knockknock]

Does DNA prove intelligent design?

Ok, I’m starting again and clearly asking a question whilst avoiding coming across as rhetoric or baiting. I have a problem with the general current scientific view that life structures are not intelligent. I openly admit that I believe we had an intelligent creator and I also believe that the more we discover, the more this will be proven, that’s if the media will allow it!

I am of the view that DNA is a good example of intelligent design. DNA molecules contain an actual language, like a software program greater than any man has been able to create. I do not have a scientific education and so I borrow from those who have studied on my behalf. according to molecular biologist Michael Denton, ‘Each cell with genetic information, from bacteria to man, consists of artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction . . . [and a] capacity not equaled in any of our most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours" (Denton, p. 329).

Also, at a symposium sponsored by the Institute for Metascientific Research, Antony Flew, British professor who for decades was one of the world's leading philosophers of atheism, said he has come to believe in God based on developments in DNA research. Flew, author of the book, Darwinian Evolution, declared, "What I think the DNA material has done is show that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements together. The enormous complexity by which the results were achieved look to me like the work of intelligence."

“Mr. Flew's conclusion is consistent with the actual beliefs of most modern scientific pioneers, from Albert Einstein to quantum physicists like Max Planck and Werner Heisenberg. In their view, the intelligence of the universe - its laws - points to an intelligence that has no limitation - "a superior mind," as Einstein put it.”

 

[darkendless]

How does this point to intelligent design sir? Lack of understanding into the phenomenon of DNA coding does not indicate a designer. It simply means we have not reached an agreemement as to how this phenomenon works. Intelligent design is science for religious people who want to appear as though they have an idea of how we got to where we are, without conforming to biblical stories.

The wise me you quote (Einstein, Plank and Heisenberg who all have made significant contributions to science) were stuck in the era of Christianity. I think if they had have said anything else, they would have been condemned by the closed minded sheep around them.

Scientific progression has been hindered by Christianity for 500 years at least, it appears to continue when men of science give up free thought in favour of religion.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Scientific progression has been hindered by Christianity for 500 years at least, it appears to continue when men of science give up free thought in favour of religion.

Which men of science are do you find doing so?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I do not have a scientific education and so I borrow from those who have studied on my behalf.

No, you have carefully borrowed from those who reinforce your presuppositions, nothing more, and by doing so you do yourself a disservice.

 

[darkendless]

Which men of science are do you find doing so?

- Early theories of Pangaea were rejected because they did not fit within a biblical time scale (1700's)

- Christian fanatic groups like the Discovery Institute, raises millions of dollars each year, to challenge Darwin’s theory of evolution and to prevent it from being taught in public schools. This is once Darwin's theories actually gained support.

- Look above, and at every other thread on intelligent design to see men of science blaspheming even now against the work of Darwin. It is my belief that they're being lazy and looking for a quick answer, rather than synthesizing the most appropriate answer that adresses all issues.

I think i'm understanding your post correctly, if not please rephrase for the tired layman and i will try to adress you correctly.

When religion interferes with academic studies, especially in the field of science, it prevents alternative explanations from gaining respectable ground.

 

[knockknock]

No, you have carefully borrowed from those who reinforce your presuppositions, nothing more, and by doing so you do yourself a disservice.

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!

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.

 

[darkendless]

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!

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.

The theories you're talking about have been formulated with the accumulation of 400 years + of sound science. Many people here with poor knowledge of science fail to recognise that people don't just come up with a theory and then post it for the world to see. They theorise and then compare, corroborate and seek feedback from other scientists.
Ernst Rutherford, the man who revolutionized the model of the atom (in his day at least) was always contacting his peers. Its more than common among scientists.

When you say many, are you aware of percentages of how many scientists accept ID as valid?

 

[knockknock]

When you say many, are you aware of percentages of how many scientists accept ID as valid?

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?

 

[Smoke]

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.

Are you asking, or are you trying to show?

With the exception of Anthony Flew, who is not a scientist, I think you'd be hard pressed to show that any of the esteemed gentlemen you quote believed in anything remotely resembling what Creationists disingenuously refer to as Intelligent Design.

 

[Smoke]

I was trying to suggest that the design of life could be conceived as intelligent

It could be, and has been.

could that be a possibility using the evidence we have so far or not?

It could be a possibility, but not based on the evidence we have.

 

[LuisDantas]

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?

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.

 

[darkendless]

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?

Intelligent in relation to what?

 

[PureX]

I don't believe that DNA in itself proves intelligent design. I don't believe that anything proves it. I do, however, believe that the fact that existence has limitations, and those limits create structure and order, stand as strong evidence of some form of purposeful design.

 

[knockknock]

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.

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

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.

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.

 

[knockknock]

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."

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."

The Journal Editorial Report . Evolution vs. Intelligent Design | PBS

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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.

It is symptomatic (and ignorant) that you so casually counterpose intelligent design with the theory of evolution - Antony Flew would be ashamed of such sloppiness. Speaking of which:

Perhaps the weakest argument in the entire book concerns the supposed impossibility of life emerging from inanimate matter. Flew quotes Philosopher John Haldane asserting that inanimate matter has absolutely no capacity to self-replicate. This is blatantly false. In 1975, two scientists managed to isolate an RNA replicase which spontaneously assembled RNA chains capable of self-replication and evolution. Stanley Miller reported that he was able to synthesize RNA nucleotides under plausible conditions simulating the early earth. Discover Magazine reports that, "[scientists] introduced random mutations into the hairpin RNA, shortened it from its normal length of 58 bases, and even cut it into pieces--all in an effort to produce RNA enzymes that were as dodgy and imperfect as early Earth's first enzymes likely were. These pseudoprimitive RNA enzymes do nothing at room temperature. But freeze them and they become active, joining other RNA molecules at a slow but measurable rate." These short, primitive enzymes could be formed by chance. Ice concentrates these molecules and "encourages" them to join together. Furthermore, we know that RNA ribozymes can perform a variety of functions, such as Peptide Formation. Researchers have even managed to evolve an RNA ribozyme into DNA. Further research has shown that some ribozymes can act as both messenger and transfer RNA. It would seem almost naive to assume that no naturalistic account of the origin of life will ever be found. However, I am not an expert in this field and will end my discussion of the subject here. [source]

In fact, we are awash in countless examples of unintended consequences or, if you prefer, unintelligent design.

 

[Smoke]

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."

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."

The Journal Editorial Report . Evolution vs. Intelligent Design | PBS

"Richard Thompson is the president of the Thomas More Law Center and head of the Christian legal defense group representing Dover's school board."​

 

[darkendless]

"Richard Thompson is the president of the Thomas More Law Center and head of the Christian legal defense group representing Dover's school board."​

who would have guessed.

 

[knockknock]

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.

 

[Jose Fly]

knockknock,

The problem here is, you're not making any sort of case for "DNA = design" other than what boils down to, "These guys say so". You've cited Denton, who you probably don't realize actually reversed his position and now advocates for evolutionary theory (see his book "Nature's Destiny"). You also cite Anthony Flew, who is not a scientist but a philosopher. You then cite the "Dissent from Darwin" list, which is misleading and dishonest. The statement "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life" is a strawman of evolutionary theory, which includes more mechanisms than just RM and NS. Also, most of the names on the list are not folks who work in the biological sciences. You can CLICK HERE to read more about it.

Perhaps you should actually make a case for your position....something more than "Here are some people who agree with me". Maybe a good place to start would be for you to explain why you think DNA = design. What specifically about DNA makes you conclude, "Huh...that was designed"?