Does DNA prove intelligent design?

[painted wolf]

Books are not evidence...
I must have missed the peer reviewed paper... could you post that again?

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

If you have the audacity to state that I did not provide evidence and just made assertions after I posted the title of books and a peer-reviewed paper, the names of the authors, as well as excerpts from the publications then there is nothing else I wish to discuss with you so this is my last post to you.

I'm sorry, I seem to have missed the Biology books and peer-reviewed Biology papers. Could you post them again? Also those Biologists that accept ID as science--what were their names again? Thanks.

 

[Alceste]

I didn't see the peer-reviewed paper link either. I also didn't see any quotes from any of the books mentioned that could be construed as evidence of anything other than people having thoughts.

 

[sandor606]

And no, you're mistaken, the scientific method was not and could not be used to arrive at ID; its very subject matter is outside the scope of the scientific method. The true founder of modern ID,Phillip Johnson, admits as much when he gives as his goal changing the scientific method so that it is no longer based on methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism, an important part of the scientific method, by its very nature can never get you to ID.

Have you read The Wedge Document?

These scientists did not do the research and discover facts to prove ID; however, given the new facts, if they were to be intellectually honest they had to conclude that what they had discovered must have been designed. From quantum physics "the role of the observer); from cosmology "the constants of physics;" from molecular biology, "irreducible complexity" (Michael Behe); from developmental biology: Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (John A. Davison) from the above "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle" (John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler). The material is detailed and technical and, except for the conclusion, it could de assigned to students of philosophy of science at the senior or graduate level at any university.

No, I didn't. Who wrote it?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

These scientists did not do the research and discover facts to prove ID; ...

Perfect avatar ...

 

[sandor606]

I didn't see the peer-reviewed paper link either. I also didn't see any quotes from any of the books mentioned that could be construed as evidence of anything other than people having thoughts.

Obviously you did NOT read the books. Read the books then we talk. Bye.

 

[sandor606]

Perfect avatar ...

Yes. Perfect.

 

[painted wolf]

You said you listed a peer reviewed paper.... could you list it again, because I can't seem to find it.

I don't accept pop-sci as research... I, like all other professional scientists, want access to primary literature from an established accredited scientific journal.

I would be more than happy to consider any experimental evidence that can be provided via the primary source (science paper).

wa:do

 

[Alceste]

Obviously you did NOT read the books. Read the books then we talk. Bye.

I am talking about the peer reviewed scientific paper you say you posted. I can't find it. Please post it again, and I'll read it. Also, you keep saying you provided "proof". I am simply pointing out that this "proof" you provided was not contained in any of your posts, therefore you did not provide it.

You can't just prance around the internet demanding people purchase and read an obscure 706 page creationist book (full of math! ) in order to exchange ideas with you. If you can't present a clear, concise case in this format, together with supporting evidence that can be reviewed on the internet, you're in over your head.

 

[Autodidact]

These scientists did not do the research and discover facts to prove ID;

I'm so confused! I thought you said it was based on the scientific method, which all about doing research and discovering facts. How do you do science without research or facts?!?

however, given the new facts,

What new facts? Did they discover new facts, or didn't they?

if they were to be intellectually honest they had to conclude that what they had discovered must have been designed. From quantum physics "the role of the observer); from cosmology "the constants of physics;" from molecular biology, "irreducible complexity" (Michael Behe); from developmental biology: Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (John A. Davison) from the above "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle" (John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler). The material is detailed and technical and, except for the conclusion, it could de assigned to students of philosophy of science at the senior or graduate level at any university.

Yup. To students of philosophy of science. Not students of science. It's not science. It's philosophy.

No, I didn't. Who wrote it?

The Discover Institute. The Wedge Document. (aka The Smoking Gun)

Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies...in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy...Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions...Governing Goals

• To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
• To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.

They seek to destroy "scientific materialism" aka science.

 

[Magic Man]

These scientists did not do the research and discover facts to prove ID; however, given the new facts, if they were to be intellectually honest they had to conclude that what they had discovered must have been designed. From quantum physics "the role of the observer); from cosmology "the constants of physics;" from molecular biology, "irreducible complexity" (Michael Behe); from developmental biology: Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (John A. Davison) from the above "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle" (John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler). The material is detailed and technical and, except for the conclusion, it could de assigned to students of philosophy of science at the senior or graduate level at any university.

No, I didn't. Who wrote it?

It's a great tactic. "Read these books that back me up, or else you don't know what I'm talking about." However, that's not the way a debate goes. If you've read the stuff, you should be able to give us some brief summaries that support your points. We shouldn't have to read entire points just to back up your arguments. Besides, you're really just appealing to authority anyway. Also, irreducible complexity is a sham.

 

[Autodidact]

Aren't you the guy who said,

ID is science.

And said that you know what science is? You do know that philosophy of science is not science, right?

 

[Autodidact]

Obviously you did NOT read the books. Read the books then we talk. Bye.

Nope. It's your job to bring what you need to support your claims, not Alceste's. Now you've claimed that ID is science. Please support your statement with some scientific references, or retract it. Or lose any shred of credibility you might hope to have, your choice.

 

[sandor606]

You said you listed a peer reviewed paper.... could you list it again, because I can't seem to find it.

I don't accept pop-sci as research... I, like all other professional scientists, want access to primary literature from an established accredited scientific journal.

I would be more than happy to consider any experimental evidence that can be provided via the primary source (science paper).

wa:do

There is no experimental evidence of Darwinian evolution either yet it's scientific dogma. If you consider books that, except for the conclusion, could be textbooks in universities as pop-sci then I see no reason to continue this discussion.

 

[sandor606]

Nope. It's your job to bring what you need to support your claims, not Alceste's. Now you've claimed that ID is science. Please support your statement with some scientific references, or retract it. Or lose any shred of credibility you might hope to have, your choice.

I did that in my first post. Read it.

 

[painted wolf]

LoLz.... there is tons of experimental evidence... both in the lab and in natural setting experiments.
Experiments done with genetics, ecology, and yada yada....

This just barely scratches the surface... http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/73274-week-evolution.html

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

Now... your peer reviewed article?

I'm starting to think you made it up...

wa:do

 

[sandor606]

Aren't you the guy who said, And said that you know what science is? You do know that philosophy of science is not science, right?

Philosophy of science is the philosophy implied in the science. Modern science implies a designer.

 

[Magic Man]

OK, here's your first post. When challenged all you had to say was that some books backed you up. What you need to do is answer the challenges to these assertions yourself.

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.


`

For instance, #1. How do you think the anthropic principle supports intelligent design? All it says is that for the universe to be as it is, you can't change anything fundamental about it. Well, duh. That doesn't mean it was designed, it just means the current way of the universe is either inevitable due to properties of matter and energy, or it just happens to be the way it ended up. It's entirely possible that the laws of the universe could be different and there could still be a universe and life in it.

As for #3, basically that's just saying that we are the intelligent designers. If that's the track you want to take, I'm with you. We definitely do design our universe, in a manner of speaking. However, that's not what's meant by ID. What's meant by ID is that some intelligent being beyond our comprehension created the universe and us. With that in mind, your #3 makes no sense and is irrelevant.

 

[Magic Man]

Philosophy of science is the philosophy implied in the science. Modern science implies a designer.

In other words, you don't understand the difference between philosophy of science and science. In fact, you state here that you don't even understand what science is, if you think it implies a designer.