Does DNA prove intelligent design?

[Jose Fly]

Stranger,

Thanks!!

 

[PureX]

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

"Tomato/tomato", regardless, the limitations exist. And because they exist, so does everything else. In a random universe, by their very definition, these limits would not exist. Random means not ordered. But these limits create order. They ARE THEMSELVES a form of order.

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 that's just shifting the description of the "designer" from "intelligent" to "process". If the design was built into the process, as you suggest ... well, that begs the question ... by who/what, and to what purpose?

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 could still be designed. The possibility of alternatives has no bearing on whether or not something has been designed. But you missed my point.

The point is that it's not random, it's specific. And it's specifically this, not specifically that.

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.

Logic leaves me with no alternative but to face these questions. That's the point.

 

[Jose Fly]

"Tomato/tomato", regardless, the limitations exist. And because they exist, so does everything else. In a random universe, by their very definition, these limits would not exist. Random means not ordered. But these limits create order. They ARE THEMSELVES a form of order.

So what you're saying is "Since gravity and electroweak force are not random from one second to the next, the universe is designed"?

Perhaps the key question here is: How do you propose we differentiate between a universe that was "designed" and one that "just is"?

But that's just shifting the description of the "designer" from "intelligent" to "process". If the design was built into the process, as you suggest ... well, that begs the question ... by who/what, and to what purpose?

No, it shows that processes can by themselves, create "design". And barring any evidence that the processes were "designed", imposing such a concept is unnecessary.

It could still be designed. The possibility of alternatives has no bearing on whether or not something has been designed.

It all depends on what you mean by "designed". If it's simply code for "God made it", then there is no such thing as something that is incompatable or contrary to "designed". Gods--by their very definition--can do anything imaginable, including creating something one way but making it appear to have come about completely differently.

The point is that it's not random, it's specific. And it's specifically this, not specifically that.

But you just stated above that alternatives have nothing to do with "design", yet here you cite something being "not specifically that" to support your position. Which is it?

Logic leaves me with no alternative but to face these questions. That's the point.

Perhaps you need to step back from the questions and examine their underlying assumptions.

 

[PureX]

So what you're saying is "Since gravity and electroweak force are not random from one second to the next, the universe is designed"?

The designed one will have order, while the non-designed one will not. Keep in mind that I am in no way defining the design nor the designer. I am simply pointing out that by definition, an ordered universe is a designed universe. Our universe is ordered. It is "designed" by the order that results from these inherent limitations. This is not a "random" expression of existence.

Perhaps the key question here is: How do you propose we differentiate between a universe that was "designed" and one that "just is"?

Why do we have to? A designed universe and a random universe can both "just be". But the point I can't get around is that THIS ONE is not random. And being not random (but rather being specific) it implies, logically, that it has a purpose. It has both design and intent.

 

[Jose Fly]

The designed one will have order, while the non-designed one will not

Why? Why specifically can't a universe that isn't "designed" have order?

Keep in mind that I am in no way defining the design nor the designer

Doesn't that render any claims or assertions about "design or the designer" meaningless?

I am simply pointing out that by definition, an ordered universe is a designed universe. Our universe is ordered. It is "designed" by the order that results from these inherent limitations. This is not a "random" existence.

You do realize that in these discussions, "designed" is a loaded term with lots of baggage, right? If all you're saying is, "Our universe has order", then you're not really on to anything profound.

Why do we have to?

Anyone who asserts that it is "designed" has to.

And being not random (but rather being specific) it implies, logically, that it has a purpose. It has both design and intent.

Now you're bringing in theistic concepts, i.e. "purpose" and "intent". You're also contradicting yourself. First you say "a designed universe can just be", but then you immediately follow that up with "it's not random, so it has purpose and intent".

 

[PureX]

No, it shows that processes can by themselves, create "design". And barring any evidence that the processes were "designed", imposing such a concept is unnecessary.

But random activity is not a process because it has no limitation, and cannot result in any form of order. Random activity only begets more random activity in a random universe.

 

[PureX]

Why? Why specifically can't a universe that isn't "designed" have order?

Because by definition, to be designed is to have order, and to have order is to be designed.

Doesn't that render any claims or assertions about "design or the designer" meaningless?

I don't think I've made any.

You do realize that in these discussions, "designed" is a loaded term with lots of baggage, right? If all you're saying is, "Our universe has order", then you're not really on to anything profound.

What is profound is what that order implies. It implies purpose. And that implies intent.

Now you're bringing in theistic concepts, i.e. "purpose" and "intent". You're also contradicting yourself. First you say "a designed universe can just be", but then you immediately follow that up with "it's not random, so it has purpose and intent".

None of these contradict "just being".

 

[Alceste]

Because by definition, to be designed is to have order, and to have order is to be designed.

Hi, PureX. Your use of the concept of a "random universe" is a red herring. Modern physicists and biologists don't claim that the universe and the life in it came to be by "chance" or "accident" in a "random" fashion. That is a straw man argument elbowed into the discussion by creationists. It's a huge misrepresentation of what evolution actually means. There is one assumption you need to examine.

Secondly, where do you draw the line at patterns that require the interference of a "designer" and patterns that don't? For example, does the fact that many substances can be solids, liquids or gases depending on temperature and pressure necessitate a higher intelligence deciding to make them this way, or is it possible that the transition from solid to gas is simply an inherent property of the substance itself, dependent on nothing but pressure and temperature? If you think it's possible that a "designer" doesn't need to plan the pattern of every individual snowflake from here to Cassiopeia - if it's possible that low temperature and the inherent properties of water molecules are a sufficient explanation - then the hypothesis of a designer can be discarded with no net loss to our understanding of the process of freezing.

The third assumption you might examine is whether a designed thing must be a thing with purpose. As an artist, I can assure you this is not the case. Sometimes I just stack up piles of salt and sugar packets on restaurant tables to kill time. Sometimes I write songs and forget them without ever sharing them with anyone.

You can't lay out a red herring, questionable cause and a hasty generalization and then say you've presented a logical argument. I sympathize with your desire to believe there is a purpose to the universe, but perhaps it would be more honest to call this desire something other than logic. Like faith, for example.

 

[knockknock]

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.
[FONT=&quot]List of Scientists Rejecting Evolution- Do they really?[/FONT]

I have watched the video and admire the time the man has taken to debunk these signatories, though his research isn't complete. However, since the video was made, when there were only around a hundred names on the list, it has grown significantly and continues to do so. Further, I put it to you that those busy scientists who are in the field of biology have doubtless received a torrent of mail regarding their skeptism and possibly even 'bad feeling' from the industry in which they work. It would take a brave man to step out of the box and I suspect there are many who either don't know about the list or are fearful to add their name to it.

Regarding the thread I started, I am aware that certain ones are chomping at the bit to play word games with me and challenge my limited scientific knowledge and I do understand that my opening statement may call for me to back the question up scientifically, though I suppose I was talking about the subject philosophically but as I have made clear I do not have a scientific background so will have to concede to you - but I still want to make the point that I have read a lot on this subject and can see that there are paradoxes and differing opinions and that the origins of life are still only left to conjecture, nothing is certain AND THAT WILL NOT CHANGE IN THE NEAR FUTURE NO MATTER HOW MUCH CLEVER DEBATING YOU DO, I REPEAT – NOTHING IS CERTAIN ToE is NOT fact from beginning to end. There is a wealth of ‘good’ science and we have learned an extraordinary amount about life organisms but we don’t know it all no matter how much we pretend we do and we shouldn’t be press ganged into believing it has all been solved. There is still room for intelligent design however much you hate that and the connotations it has.

What I can see all around the internet is a massive attack on those who don’t fully subscribe to ToE with what seems to be as just as much vehemence, aggression and disrespect as the religious fanatic has shown to the atheist. In other words, many of the ToE advocates appear to be no better than the religious fanatic that they so despise and a middle ground is called for before it gets out of control. You know, perhaps there is room for a creator AND science, after all, what better way can a person get closer to his God than by discovering some of the sheer wonder of the universe not to mention give those hard working scientists a massive pat on the back and why is it so hard for a scientist to believe that there is a higher intelligence than man, because that’s what it all boils down to in the end. They want to be masters of their own universe and don’t want to give that up.

I have to say I am astounded at some of the casual attitudes some here take to the complex organization of DNA, perhaps they should take another look rather than I!

 

[tumbleweed41]

OK, lets say for the moment that the complexity of DNA DOES prove ID.........

Who or what is the designer?

 

[knockknock]

OK, lets say for the moment that the complexity of DNA DOES prove ID.........

Who or what is the designer?

Well that's a different subject open to debate though a riveting one. Just leaving room for a designer opens up a whole new world of possibilitites. It could be a God, Gods or aliens. Who knows at this point. No one knows anything for certain which ever way you look at it and while its good to offer points of view I don't believe anyone should force their views down someones throat but it's good to consider the options. Of course I have my own personal views based on my perceptions but they are in no way written in stone - if you'll forgive the pun

 

[PureX]

Hi, PureX. Your use of the concept of a "random universe" is a red herring. Modern physicists and biologists don't claim that the universe and the life in it came to be by "chance" or "accident" in a "random" fashion.

They don't claim it because it's not so. And I agree with them, that the universe is not random. It is the various "atheists" among us that keep arguing that existence is random and meaningless. I was trying to point out that it is not. And if it is not, then I must confront the next set of questions ... where does it's order come from, and what is the purpose of that order? I am not offering proof that existence is the result of intelligent design. I am offering a logical chain of thought that leads us to consider it as a possibility, however.

Secondly, where do you draw the line at patterns that require the interference of a "designer" and patterns that don't?

Patterns can only occur by design. Keep in mind that when I refer to design I am not necessarily referring to an intentional design. I am referring to a set of preconditions from which the patterns you refer to have developed. However, the fact that a design (set of preconditions) exists, and when followed these do create a patter/order for existence, does logically lead us to the question of possible "intent".

For example, does the fact that many substances can be solids, liquids or gases depending on temperature and pressure necessitate a higher intelligence deciding to make them this way, or is it possible that the transition from solid to gas is simply an inherent property of the substance itself, dependent on nothing but pressure and temperature?

That these substances have "inherent properties" is already evidence of "design". I have not characterized this design as "intelligent", however, I will claim that it leads us to consider intent. And that's all I am claiming so far.

The third assumption you might examine is whether a designed thing must be a thing with purpose. As an artist, I can assure you this is not the case. Sometimes I just stack up piles of salt and sugar packets on restaurant tables to kill time. Sometimes I write songs and forget them without ever sharing them with anyone.

These activities of yours did have a purpose: to "kill time" and to express free thought (as in doodling on paper), you were just not consciously aware of these motives at the time.

I sympathize with your desire to believe there is a purpose to the universe, but perhaps it would be more honest to call this desire something other than logic. Like faith, for example.

I have no particular desire to find purpose in existing beyond the value of the experience itself, that I am aware of. Yet logically I cannot escape the chain of evidence that leads me to contemplate such a purpose, and the possible source of that purpose.

At the moment, we are not discussing my faith. Only my reasoning. Which so far no one has shown me to be in error.

 

[painted wolf]

The problem with ID is that it will never be scientific.

At it's heart is the untestable notion of a designer... and beyond that the designer is invoked whenever the "ID scientist" runs into a question that they can not personally answer.

Where did DNA come from? "I don't know, therefore no one else does... therefore rather than experiment and study it... it was 'intelligently designed' by something."

This is not a logical or scientific way of thinking.

It's only made all the more painfully obvious by the fact that ID pushers never actually publish any science on the issue... just pop books and propaganda.

wa:do

 

[Alceste]

They don't claim it because it's not so. And I agree with them, that the universe is not random. It is the various "atheists" among us that keep arguing that existence is random and meaningless.

Who? Do you mean in the context of "random mutations" being an evolutionary factor? Or are there really "atheists" (rather than "nihilists") saying "existence is random and meaningless"?

Patterns can only occur by design. Keep in mind that when I refer to design I am not necessarily referring to an intentional design. I am referring to a set of preconditions from which the patterns you refer to have developed. However, the fact that a design (set of preconditions) exists, and when followed these do create a patter/order for existence, does logically lead us to the question of possible "intent".

Only if you are a theist. People who don't have a supernatural world view, where a higher intelligence is busily ordering the universe, don't see "intent" when it snows, or when the lake freezes over, or when water evaporates. We are satisfied with "an inherent reaction to temperature" for an explanation. If being led to the question of possible intent requires belief in God as a first premise, you would need to provide evidence of the existence of God to convince anyone else it's a logical argument. On the other hand, you're using this argument as your evidence, so you've tripped on Descartes "proof": God exists because God wouldn't give me a mind that would falsely believe God exists.

I have no particular desire to find purpose in existing beyond the value of the experience itself, that I am aware of. Yet logically I cannot escape the chain of evidence that leads me to contemplate such a purpose, and the possible source of that purpose.

At the moment, we are not discussing my faith. Only my reasoning. Which so far no one has shown me to be in error.

You haven't provided any evidence, and your first premise (that design in nature implies intent) requires faith. So we're discussing your faith, not your logic.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

It is the various "atheists" among us that keep arguing that existence is random and meaningless. I was trying to point out that it is not.

Maybe we are not talking about the same thing.

Omar’s lines

Into this Universe, and Why not knowing
Nor Whence, like Water willy-nilly flowing;
And out of it, as Wind along the Waste,
I know not Whither, willy-nilly blowing.


Do NOT suggest a random universe. What he is saying is that a particular individual organism is NOT the purpose of the universe; that no single person or creature, or cell even was purposely designed.

BUT

That leaves open the possibility that the system, the whole of creation – was and IS designed and designed for a purpose. But that “purpose” is vastly larger than we or the earth or even our galaxy. We are rather like atoms in a vast sea. We are useful - necessary even. But the fate of any ONE of us is no consequence whatever.

And fear not lest Existence closing your
Account, and mine, should know the like no more;
The Eternal Saki from that Bowl has pour'd
Millions of Bubbles like us, and will pour.

When You and I behind the Veil are past,
Oh, but the long, long while the World shall last,
Which of our Coming and Departure heeds
As the Sea's self should heed a pebble-cast.

 

[Autodidact]

I have watched the video and admire the time the man has taken to debunk these signatories, though his research isn't complete. However, since the video was made, when there were only around a hundred names on the list, it has grown significantly and continues to do so. Further, I put it to you that those busy scientists who are in the field of biology have doubtless received a torrent of mail regarding their skeptism and possibly even 'bad feeling' from the industry in which they work. It would take a brave man to step out of the box and I suspect there are many who either don't know about the list or are fearful to add their name to it.

I call this "heads I win; tails you lose" argumentation, aka no theoretical possibility of falsification.
knock: "There are hundreds of Biologists who oppose ToE. They're right on this list here."
us: "No, actually, there aren't."
knock: "Well I'm sure there would be..."

Regarding the thread I started, I am aware that certain ones are chomping at the bit to play word games with me and challenge my limited scientific knowledge and I do understand that my opening statement may call for me to back the question up scientifically, though I suppose I was talking about the subject philosophically but as I have made clear I do not have a scientific background so will have to concede to you - but I still want to make the point that I have read a lot on this subject and can see that there are paradoxes and differing opinions and that the origins of life are still only left to conjecture, nothing is certain AND THAT WILL NOT CHANGE IN THE NEAR FUTURE NO MATTER HOW MUCH CLEVER DEBATING YOU DO, I REPEAT – NOTHING IS CERTAIN ToE is NOT fact from beginning to end. There is a wealth of ‘good’ science and we have learned an extraordinary amount about life organisms but we don’t know it all no matter how much we pretend we do and we shouldn’t be press ganged into believing it has all been solved. There is still room for intelligent design however much you hate that and the connotations it has.

translation: Your arguments are right and mine wrong, but I'm going to keep believing what I want to anyway. I will probably also continue to assert my false beliefs on the internet.

What I can see all around the internet is a massive attack on those who don’t fully subscribe to ToE with what seems to be as just as much vehemence, aggression and disrespect as the religious fanatic has shown to the atheist. In other words, many of the ToE advocates appear to be no better than the religious fanatic that they so despise and a middle ground is called for before it gets out of control. You know, perhaps there is room for a creator AND science, after all, what better way can a person get closer to his God than by discovering some of the sheer wonder of the universe not to mention give those hard working scientists a massive pat on the back and why is it so hard for a scientist to believe that there is a higher intelligence than man, because that’s what it all boils down to in the end. They want to be masters of their own universe and don’t want to give that up.

Well, I do have this little hang up about the truth.

Give up the religious martyr post, knock. What's happening is, you were wrong, you lost the argument, and your little feelings are hurt. Sorry, that's the chance you take when you expose your errors to public scrutiny.

I have to say I am astounded at some of the casual attitudes some here take to the complex organization of DNA, perhaps they should take another look rather than I!

Perhaps you should learn the first thing about it, before you start formulating grandiose theories based on it. Did you know there are Ph.d geneticists in this forum who spend their lives studying DNA? And they agree that ID is a crock?

 

[knockknock]

The problem with ID is that it will never be scientific.

Why not? Perhaps ID is already believed by some scientists, it doesn't stop them doing there job

At it's heart is the untestable notion of a designer... and beyond that the designer is invoked whenever the "ID scientist" runs into a question that they can not personally answer.

What difference does it make as to what is used to explain something not yet understood, scientists are forced to use theory or probability etc, they could just as easily say we do not understand how the designer has made this yet.

Where did DNA come from? "I don't know, therefore no one else does... therefore rather than experiment and study it... it was 'intelligently designed' by something."

This is not a logical or scientific way of thinking.

Refer to above

It's only made all the more painfully obvious by the fact that ID pushers never actually publish any science on the issue... just pop books and propaganda.

Aah, but how do you know that an ID believer isn't presently performing excellent science, just because they are afraid to admit it doesn't mean it isn't in their mind. Also, the scientific industry would likely not employ an open ID believer as it is deeply against scientific 'religion'.

wa:do

.......................

 

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by painted wolf
The problem with ID is that it will never be scientific.

Why not? Perhaps ID is already believed by some scientists, it doesn't stop them doing there job

"Being believed by scientists" is not the same thing as "being scientific." If you are interested in science, you might want to start by learning what it is. If you're not, then I suggest you stop pontificating about it. Asserting opinions without bothering to learn anything about something is lazy and arrogant.

At it's heart is the untestable notion of a designer... and beyond that the designer is invoked whenever the "ID scientist" runs into a question that they can not personally answer.

What difference does it make as to what is used to explain something not yet understood, scientists are forced to use theory or probability etc, they could just as easily say we do not understand how the designer has made this yet.

Science doesn't throw up its hands and say, "We don't know or care." Science tries to find out.

Where did DNA come from? "I don't know, therefore no one else does... therefore rather than experiment and study it... it was 'intelligently designed' by something."

This is not a logical or scientific way of thinking.

Refer to above

To think scientificially would mean to try to find out.

It's only made all the more painfully obvious by the fact that ID pushers never actually publish any science on the issue... just pop books and propaganda.

Aah, but how do you know that an ID believer isn't presently performing excellent science, just because they are afraid to admit it doesn't mean it isn't in their mind. Also, the scientific industry would likely not employ an open ID believer as it is deeply against scientific 'religion'.

And for all you know I may secretly know all things and just not feel like telling you. How about if we stick to what we do know.
As I've said several times, you don't know anything about how science works. Science hails new discoveries. If someone uncovered new evidence (you know, that stuff that science is based on) that either undermined ToE, or supported ID, that person would receive acclaim, glory and a Nobel prize.

And would you like a lesson on how to use the quote tags? We don't use colors for that; we have quote tags.

 

[knockknock]

I call this "heads I win; tails you lose" argumentation, aka no theoretical possibility of falsification.
knock: "There are hundreds of Biologists who oppose ToE. They're right on this list here."
us: "No, actually, there aren't."
knock: "Well I'm sure there would be..."

translation: Your arguments are right and mine wrong, but I'm going to keep believing what I want to anyway. I will probably also continue to assert my false beliefs on the internet.

Not at all, I was stating that things are not as clear cut as people like you would have us believe.

Well, I do have this little hang up about the truth.

Give up the religious martyr post, knock. What's happening is, you were wrong, you lost the argument, and your little feelings are hurt. Sorry, that's the chance you take when you expose your errors to public scrutiny.

I wonder why you feel the need to get personal :sarcastic Very cheap

Perhaps you should learn the first thing about it, before you start formulating grandiose theories based on it. Did you know there are Ph.d geneticists in this forum who spend their lives studying DNA? And they agree that ID is a crock?

I said people with a casual attitude to DNA not Ph.d geneticists who certainly don't have a casual attitude, I hope. BTW I have no intention of getting into a slanging match with you so I won't answer anymore derogatory posts.

 

[Alceste]

Knockknock, what you are saying to us is: "I know nothing at all about biology, evolution, science, scientists, or scientific method but EVOLUTION IS WRONG." (The caps you used indicate yelling on the internet.) Then you get all upset and start hollering about a conspiracy because people who know more than you about biology, evolution, science and the scientific method gang up on you.

Have you ever considered the possibility that your approach might be provoking a particular reaction, and that maybe we're not all in cahoots with "scientists and the mass media" in some grand, complicated scheme to suppress the truth?