Does DNA prove intelligent design?

[Jose Fly]

well they are wrong in the sense that both claim to show or demonstrate the "whole story"

Can you provide a specific example of a scientific body, organization, etc. claiming to have demonstrated "the whole story"?

 

[Mr Cheese]

Can you provide a specific example of a scientific body, organization, etc. claiming to have demonstrated "the whole story"?

Asserting its limitations and not even acknowldging anything beyond it are hardly the same

While I agree for some this is the truth.....
For others, there simply is nothing beyond science.

:foot:

that covers it I think?

 

[LuisDantas]

that covers it I think?

Does it now?

 

[painted wolf]

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

Sadly... this has been seen to be the opposite of what happens. Genuine scientists who adopt ID inevitably stop or greatly slow in their work as scientists. It's a shame really.

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 work that way. All explanations for how the world works need to be supported by experiment and observation.
In biology a 'theory' is not a guess, it is supported with experimental evidence and observation... it is supported by a large body of evidence.
In science no one suggests a theory and then says "we don't know yet how it works".

Refer to above

Anti-scientific thinking.

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.

There is a very old saying in science... Publish or Perish.
No publishing in science journals and you have nothing to stand on... you do not exist scientifically.

Also, the scientific industry would likely not employ an open ID believer as it is deeply against scientific 'religion'.

Poppycock.... you are hired based on your ability to do the work. Nothing more.
Science is not a religion... and there is nothing stopping scientists from being persons of faith.
I am a scientist with faith, Keith Miller and Francis Collins for example.

Nothing has stopped Keith Miller and Francis Collins from reaching the top of the scientific world. Collins for example was head of the Human Genome Project and now appointed to the head of the NIH.

ID is not science. It has nothing to do with faith, but with methodology.

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

Asserting its limitations and not even acknowldging anything beyond it are hardly the same

While I agree for some this is the truth
For others, there simply is nothing beyond science.

:foot:

If so, it's not science, it's their philosophical position. It doesn't make the science wrong, it makes them (if they are) wrong. btw, I'm pretty sure I'm one of them.

 

[Autodidact]

that covers it I think?

You mean no, you can't?

 

[Jose Fly]

that covers it I think?

You're a scientific body or organization? You speak for all of science?

No? Then not good enough

 

[Mr Cheese]

You're a scientific body or organization? You speak for all of science?

No? Then not good enough

:flirt: nope I'm online, like you

I'm special like that...

we see thigns as we are
Not as they are....


It is my firm belief it is dangerous to hold a firm belief

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It is my firm belief it is dangerous to hold a firm belief

It is my firm belief the irony is lost on you.

 

[Mr Cheese]

It is my firm belief the irony is lost on you.

nah its like the blind man and the elephant...

 

[Jose Fly]

Mr. Cheese,

You're not making any sense. You claimed science says it has "the whole story", but when asked where science does that you respond by quoting yourself and then agreeing that you're not a scientific body or institution.

Can you provide a specific example of a scientific body or organization claiming to have "the whole story"? If you cannot, your assertion that it does is meaningless.

 

[Mr Cheese]

Mr. Cheese,

You're not making any sense. You claimed science says it has "the whole story", but when asked where science does that you respond by quoting yourself and then agreeing that you're not a scientific body or institution.

Can you provide a specific example of a scientific body or organization claiming to have "the whole story"? If you cannot, your assertion that it does is meaningless.

Ok I guess I was wrong...
and there are exceptions....

What I meant more is that there are those that simply admit nothing beyond science.
I know that is not everyone...however it is the vast majority of "science" people online anyway...and many in the actual field of science

but no not all.

:sad4: I was wong.... boo hoo
I fall on my sword and look like mickey mouse after 15 pints of beer

 

[fantome profane]

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.

So they have updated the list have they? I wonder if they have removed the names of those scientists who asked to have their names removed. That is something you could check on yourself if you wanted to test the integrity of the people who compiled this list.

But the other significant point that you glossed over is that this is a list of people who think that scientific evidence for evolution should be closely examined. Now I am no scientist, but I am a well informed layperson and I believe that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Nothing in science is certain, but the theory of evolution is as well proven as any theory in science. I am also fully convinced that scientifically speaking I.D. is complete utter nonsense. And I would have no problem signing this statement. Obviously the evidence could be carefully examined, and yes we should always take a skeptical attitude. Now if someone like me who has nothing but contempt for I.D. can agree with this statement, then the list means nothing!

but I still want to make the point that I have read a lot on this subject

What books have you read on the subject?

Now if you watched the video, you may remember one point where a scientist on this list recommend a book: Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution by Kenneth Miller. It is a fantastic book, dealing with both the science and the philosophical issues, and most importantly it does not confuse the two. I cannot recommend this book enough. Anyone who has any interest in this issue absolutely must read this book.

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

I.D. is not a scientific concept. Yes, there are some scientists who believe in I.D., but as autodidact points out that is not enough to make it a scientific concept. I.D. is not testable, it is not falsifiable, and it is simply not subject to empirical evidence.

There are in fact many scientists who believe in “God”. But this does not make “God” a scientific concept, and the vast majority of scientists who believe in “God” understand that it is not a scientific concept. Now you have to understand that just because something is not a scientific concept does not make it a bad idea, nor does it make it false. But the problem with I.D. is that it is not only a unscientific idea, it is an unscientific idea trying to masquerade as science, it is pseudo-science. That is why you get such an strong reaction from those who value science.

Many scientists believe in “God” and still assert that I.D. is absolute nonsense. Ken Miller believes in “God”, the person who made that youtube video you watched is also someone who believe in “God”. This issue is not about believers vs. atheists, it is about good science vs. nonsense.

 

[Jose Fly]

Ok I guess I was wrong

Fair 'nuff. We've all been there.

What I meant more is that there are those that simply admit nothing beyond science.
I know that is not everyone...however it is the vast majority of "science" people online anyway...and many in the actual field of science

Certainly such folks exist. Majority of "science people online"? I dunno...kinda hard to establish that. I could just as easily opine that the majority of "religious people online" are severely lacking in critical thinking skills.

 

[PureX]

You're not quite getting this, so I'll say it again. In order to contemplate the possibility of intent, you need to believe it's at least plausible there is some higher intelligence that could be doing the intending.

You will have to have an open mind to contemplate any possible condition besides the one you've already labeled as "true". Refusing to do so is called being biased. Yet unless we let go of these biases, we cannot learn anything new.

If you don't think it's plausible that there is a supernatural intelligence out there intending things, there is no path by which you could logically or reasonably arrive at the conclusion that patterns are evidence of "intent".

If you don't think it's plausible that a tree falling where no one can hear it could make a noise, then there will be no way for you to ever learn otherwise. Nevertheless, it is plausible that falling trees make noise regardless of being heard, and that some unknown entity that we might label "god" could have created the universe with a specific intent.

It's not called "bias" not to think a higher intelligence is plausible, it's called "atheism". Believing a higher intelligence is plausible is called "theism", and theism requires faith. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with faith. In fact, it may even be necessary. I'm not one of those "logic is superior to faith" people, but I do think it's important to acknowledge the difference between the two.

Both are biased if they cannot consider that the other may be the more true.

If that's what you think, then you don't understand physics. Like many creationists, it seems you've gotten hung up on the second law of thermodynamics and forgotten that the earth enjoys a constant input of massive amounts of energy.

I'm not a creationist, and this is not a physics discussion. It's a philosophical discussion.

Once again, order does not imply purpose. No matter how much you repeat it, it will never become true. If I drop a handful of sand on the ground and it happens to land in a perfect circle, this is no more purposeful than if it lands willy nilly.

You can drop all the sand you want, but it will never land in a perfect circle, because the conditions are not there for that to happen. Without preconditions to order events, they will occur randomly. Randomness is the default outcome of randomness. Structure and purpose are the result of order and intent.

Think of it like this: the purpose of all life forms is to live, yet they all die eventually. So they must somehow replicate themselves. Therefor, it is built into their design that they have some form of reproduction. That part of their design, then, has an "intent".

It is logical that we contemplate intent when we see purposeful design. It is logical to say that it is the intent of our reproductive systems, as expressed through their purpose, function, and design, to help us replicate ourselves so that we can continue to live after we die.

Likewise, we live in an ordered universe. This order has become it's design, and it's current structure is the result of that design. It is logical, then, to ask oneself what is the apparent purpose or function of this designed structure: i.e., what is it's intent?

Also, FYI, the universe is not very well-ordered. It behaves much more like sand spilt willy nilly than it does sand spilt in a perfect circle anyway. So even if order DID imply purpose, the universe itself still would not imply purpose, because it isn't very well-ordered. In an ordered universe, there would be no "junk" DNA.

Unless, perhaps chance is part of the order.

 

[Mr Cheese]

I could just as easily opine that the majority of "religious people online" are severely lacking in critical thinking skills.

They probably are:tribal:

annneeeeeeeeeeeeeee way....

 

[Alceste]

You will have to have an open mind to contemplate any possible condition besides the one you've already labeled as "true". Refusing to do so is called being biased. Yet unless we let go of these biases, we cannot learn anything new.

I am very open minded to any idea for which you can provide empirical evidence.

Does Intelligent Design fall into that category?

If you don't think it's plausible that a tree falling where no one can hear it could make a noise, then there will be no way for you to ever learn otherwise. Nevertheless, it is plausible that falling trees make noise regardless of being heard, and that some unknown entity that we might label "god" could have created the universe with a specific intent.

There is empirical evidence that trees make noise in the forest regardless of whether anyone is there to hear. We can observe the behavior of sound waves, measure and map them, note how different environmental circumstances change the quality of sound, and predict with great accuracy exactly what kind of sound it would make and even how far the sound would carry in a fog, given the momentum and composition of the tree and the composition of the ground on which it fell.

Where is your empirical evidence of God?

Both are biased if they cannot consider that the other may be the more true.

I don't see you considering that it may be more true that design does not imply intent. Do you believe "bias" and "opinion" are interchangeable words? I don't. It is possible to arrive at an opinion after the objective consideration of many different points of view. I do it every day. I sympathize - even empathize - with theists in their struggle to find meaning and purpose in the universe, but I'm not a theist. I don't believe in a supernatural intelligence. So musing about the purpose of the universe is outside the scope of my interests. My interests are entirely focussed on what can be empirically discovered about the natural world. Trust me, there is more than enough empirical data out there to keep a person occupied for life.

And when I feel like turning inward and exploring the deeper nature of existence, there is more than enough there to keep me fascinated too, and no contemplation of the purpose of the universe enters into it. Why? Because I'm not a theist.

You seem to find it difficult to accept that belief in God (along with the desire for purpose, meaning, order and the whole theistic rigmarole) is simply not in the nature of some people. I don't have to say "No way! Get that God belief away from me!" and slam the door - God-belief is simply not in my nature. Where your God-belief goes, I have something else. I'm not sure how better to get that across to you, but I'm sure you wouldn't say redheads are close-minded about being blond, or that tall people are close-minded about shortness. It just is.

I'm not a creationist, and this is not a physics discussion. It's a philosophical discussion.

You can drop all the sand you want, but it will never land in a perfect circle, because the conditions are not there for that to happen.

Spoken like a man who has never slowly poured a handful of sand onto a flat surface.

My point was that to say "order implies intent" suggests that the more ordered something appears to be, the greater the intent associated with it must be. So a symmetrical rock possesses more of this mysterious quality of "purpose" you are talking about than an asymmetrical one, and a round pile of sand more "purpose" than a willy nilly one, and a dolphin possesses more "purpose" than a flounder.

Without preconditions to order events, they will occur randomly. Randomness is the default outcome of randomness. Structure and purpose are the result of order and intent.

Structure and order are the result of a continuous input of energy, randomness is the result of the second law of thermodynamics. Either neither randomness nor order imply purpose and intent, or both do.

It is logical that we contemplate intent when we see purposeful design. It is logical to say that it is the intent of our reproductive systems, as expressed through their purpose, function, and design, to help us replicate ourselves so that we can continue to live after we die.

That's only "logical" for someone who defines "intent" as something that can occur independent of a consciousness that can do the intending. I'm not one of those people, so for me that's illogical. I don't accept the first premise, so nothing that comes after is logical.

Likewise, we live in an ordered universe. This order has become it's design, and it's current structure is the result of that design. It is logical, then, to ask oneself what is the apparent purpose or function of this designed structure: i.e., what is it's intent?
Unless, perhaps chance is part of the order.

It is not logical for someone who is not a theist to ask herself what the purpose of the designed universe is, because she doesn't start out with a firm and inflexible conviction (like yours) that the universe is designed and has a purpose.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"You can drop all the sand you want, but it will never land in a perfect circle, because the conditions are not there for that to happen."

If you believe that would you care to arrange a game of poker? I would be happy to play a few hands with someone who does not believe the improbable happens. (bwt, if you agree to play - do bring a large stake, you'll need it.)

A basic principal of statistics. If you do something long enough or enough times the most unlikely of outcomes becomes inevitable.

 

[sandor606]

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?

Here is key scientific evidence (with quotes and sources) that supports intelligent design:

1. The "just-so" values of the Constants of Physics - the gravitational constant, the speed of light, the quantum of action, the mass of the proton, the mass of the electron, the charge of the electron, and the Boltzman constant.
"It is the particular values actually possessed by the constants that make our Universe what it is." (p.211)
"...the fundamental constants determine the scale of various macroscopic phenomena, inluding the properties of solid matter; the distinction between rocks, asteroids, planets, and stars; the conditions on habitable planets; the length of the day and year; and the size and athletic ability of human beings."(p. 323)
(W.H. Mcrea, M.J.Rees (eds.) "The Constants of Physics," The Royal Society of London, 1983.)

2. The Aperiodic and Specified nature of the 'genetic code'. The code uses four letters to form the amino acids required to produce proteins, and to do its job, like all languages, it has a grammar, syntax, and semantics. A language can only be the result of design.
"To specify for 20 amino acids in a DNA sequence, the current system based on 4 nucleotides, consisting of 64 codons made up of 3 nucleotides each, with a considerable degree of redundancy, is just about the most elegant design possible." (p.165) (italics mine)
(Michael J. Denton, "Nature's Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe," New York: The Free Press, 1998)

3. The Observer as participant in the making of reality by the act of observation: Heisenberg's uncertainty principle of quantum physics means that the properties of objects are latent and not real until they are observed. Using the classic example, if a tree falls in a forest there will be no sound unless some creature hears it, i.e., someone with ears that translate the sound 'waves' produced by the tree hitting the ground into actual sound, just as nothing is seen until light waves are translated into vision by means of an eye.


`

 

[Magic Man]

Here is key scientific evidence (with quotes and sources) that supports intelligent design:

1. The "just-so" values of the Constants of Physics - the gravitational constant, the speed of light, the quantum of action, the mass of the proton, the mass of the electron, the charge of the electron, and the Boltzman constant.
"It is the particular values actually possessed by the constants that make our Universe what it is." (p.211)
"...the fundamental constants determine the scale of various macroscopic phenomena, inluding the properties of solid matter; the distinction between rocks, asteroids, planets, and stars; the conditions on habitable planets; the length of the day and year; and the size and athletic ability of human beings."(p. 323)
(W.H. Mcrea, M.J.Rees (eds.) "The Constants of Physics," The Royal Society of London, 1983.)

2. The Aperiodic and Specified nature of the 'genetic code'. The code uses four letters to form the amino acids required to produce proteins, and to do its job, like all languages, it has a grammar, syntax, and semantics. A language can only be the result of design.
"To specify for 20 amino acids in a DNA sequence, the current system based on 4 nucleotides, consisting of 64 codons made up of 3 nucleotides each, with a considerable degree of redundancy, is just about the most elegant design possible." (p.165) (italics mine)
(Michael J. Denton, "Nature's Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe," New York: The Free Press, 1998)

3. The Observer as participant in the making of reality by the act of observation: Heisenberg's uncertainty principle of quantum physics means that the properties of objects are latent and not real until they are observed. Using the classic example, if a tree falls in a forest there will be no sound unless some creature hears it, i.e., someone with ears that translate the sound 'waves' produced by the tree hitting the ground into actual sound, just as nothing is seen until light waves are translated into vision by means of an eye.


`

Um...How does that support intelligent design?