Intelligent Design is a Fact- Evolution is a Theory!

[YmirGF]

in·tel·li·gent de·sign

1. the theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity.

cre·a·tion·ism

1. e belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.

If you are honest, as you purport to be, you should have no difficulty understanding that this usage of so-called "intelligent design" is highly disingenuous. Wouldn't it be better to coin a new term rather than attempt to hijack a widely discredited term?

 

[sayak83]

If the first life was intelligently designed it could be front loaded to evolve only in certain ways which explains why we don't find many links in the fossil records.

It could mean evolution is not random mutations but a designed process and that throws all evolution theories except front loaded on their ***.

Missing link is not a scientific term. Given the preponderance of ancient life forms that have been found as fossils that are clearly transitional between the major classes of animals and plants today, arguing against evolution is not even tenable.
Experiments with unicellular or multicellular organisms have so far provided no evidence of any directionality in evolution. If such evidence comes up, the theory of how genetic variations occur will be adjusted accordingly. Its highly unlikely at this point as stochastic models does such a great job of replicating how mutations actually occur in genes. The observed fact that most mutations are neutral or harmful also tells the researchers that mutations have no inbuilt directionality. All directionality comes from the subsequent selection process among the variant descendants.

Since there exists many unicellular life forms that are very very simple and from which more complex life is clearly descendant from (from both fossil evidence and genetic and protein tree analysis), we know that life has increased its structural and functional complexity many folds over the eons, and evolution is the perfect process that can do this job.

 

[Dante Writer]

Missing link is not a scientific term. Given the preponderance of ancient life forms that have been found as fossils that are clearly transitional between the major classes of animals and plants today, arguing against evolution is not even tenable.
Experiments with unicellular or multicellular organisms have so far provided no evidence of any directionality in evolution. If such evidence comes up, the theory of how genetic variations occur will be adjusted accordingly. Its highly unlikely at this point as stochastic models does such a great job of replicating how mutations actually occur in genes. The observed fact that most mutations are neutral or harmful also tells the researchers that mutations have no inbuilt directionality. All directionality comes from the subsequent selection process among the variant descendants.

Since there exists many unicellular life forms that are very very simple and from which more complex life is clearly descendant from (from both fossil evidence and genetic and protein tree analysis), we know that life has increased its structural and functional complexity many folds over the eons, and evolution is the perfect process that can do this job.

" Given the preponderance of ancient life forms that have been found as fossils that are clearly transitional between the major classes of animals and plants today."

No- there is not a preponderance of evidence and they can only be assumed to be transitional forms and not from one species to another. There have been 5 massive extinctions that we know of that wiped out the majority of organisms on the planet. So claiming one fossil is an ancestor of another that was wiped out in an earlier extinction just doesn't work. You can't say a bird that looked like a lizard that was wiped out in an extinction is somehow the ancestor of modern birds.

"the theory of how genetic variations occur will be adjusted accordingly."

How convenient! Can't find the answer just change your theory to make it work.

"and evolution is the perfect process that can do this job."

That applies to natural selection within a species and has holes you can drive a train through for evolving one species from another.

I know you really really want to believe what you are saying but I suggest you go read the many evolutionist that still can not fill in the gaps in any reasonable way.

 

[Dante Writer]

If you are honest, as you purport to be, you should have no difficulty understanding that this usage of so-called "intelligent design" is highly disingenuous. Wouldn't it be better to coin a new term rather than attempt to hijack a widely discredited term?

"highly disingenuous."

No it is very genuine and that is just your opinion.

You can call it genetic engineering if that makes you feel better but still fits the same definition.

See those sheep in my avatar?

They are genetically engineered by some Intelligent Designers in a lab.

 

[sayak83]

" Given the preponderance of ancient life forms that have been found as fossils that are clearly transitional between the major classes of animals and plants today."

No- there is not a preponderance of evidence and they can only be assumed to be transitional forms and not from one species to another. There have been 5 massive extinctions that we know of that wiped out the majority of organisms on the planet. So claiming one fossil is an ancestor of another that was wiped out in an earlier extinction just doesn't work. You can't say a bird that looked like a lizard that was wiped out in an extinction is somehow the ancestor of modern birds.

"the theory of how genetic variations occur will be adjusted accordingly."

How convenient! Can't find the answer just change your theory to make it work.

"and evolution is the perfect process that can do this job."

That applies to natural selection within a species and has holes you can drive a train through for evolving one species from another.

I know you really really want to believe what you are saying but I suggest you go read the many evolutionist that still can not fill in the gaps in any reasonable way.

1) Science always alter their theory if new evidence comes in. In physics from example Newtonian gravity gave way to Einstein's General Relativity when new evidence about constancy of speed of light came to light. Since all scientific theories are updated when new evidence show their limitations, I do not see what you find objectionable about this in evolution.

2) There is a preponderance of transitional forms. There is no reason to expect entire classes of extinct animals that bridge the distinctions between the different animals orders living today unless evolutionary theory is true. In fact given the fossil record I cannot even conceptualize a coherent design hypothesis at all.

So I give you a task. Help me conceptualize your design hypothesis. What is the hypothesis and how is it supposed to work? Over the last 600 million years billions of plant and animal species have lived and died on this earth, with a few mass extinctions wiping a lot of them out which is followed by a slow recovery to full diversity. Now tell me what your design hypothesis is and present me with a picture of how it works among the teeming animal and plant life of the forests and ocean of earth, ancient and new.

Don't tell me a designer did it. Tell me what he did, when, what technique and frequency and how would it appear to me if I was watching it happen during different periods of these ancient seas and forests. Present a theory. Because at this moment I cannot even conceptualize your thinking.

3) I am extremely well read in evolution. I have enough competence to read and understand master's level work in evolutionary theory at least. I am also a practicing scientist with specialization in organic chemistry and hence am competent to understand much of the physico-chemical processes that occur in cells and in biology. Thank you.

4) Since I am a Hindu (with a secular worldview) and will stay within Hinduism regardless of my views about presence or absence of Gods, I have no theological or cultural pressure for or against supporting or rejecting a naturalistic/designer hypothesis for life. I reject ID because it proposes no credible theory that can be tested for verification and falsification and has nothing constructive to contribute to the understanding of biology, one of the most important growth areas in science.

5)In contrast, the evolutionary paradigm does not only have astounding explanatory power (it can tell you what pattern to expect and you find that pattern) but has proved very very useful as a technology in biotechnology, engineering and medicine. In order of importance to technology and science it is the 4th or 5th most important discovery (after Newtonian mechanics, germ theory of disease, quantum mechanics, information theory and placed before thermodynamics and theory of relativity).

 

[leibowde84]

Thought that might get your attention so before you rush to post your arguments read:

We have been designing organism for a long time through cross breeding and inbreeding species like dogs, horses, cats and any domesticated animals. It is is intelligent design not natural selection and is intended to produce an organism with specific traits.

We can now clone animals with no natural selection involved in the process to create a living organism.

We create genetically modified animals and plants in labs all the time and that food you eat today is probably a result of intelligent design that happened in a lab.

Intelligent design is not creationism. Intelligent design does not require a God or even a genius and has nothing to do with magic or super natural powers.

Intelligent design is the application of science to create living organism or modify genes and DNA to produce changes in organisms.

Intelligent Design is a Fact!

Now that we have established that ID is a fact we can start looking at how that may be the mechanism that started life on this planet.

Personally, I have no faith in spontaneous generation or abiogenesis that says life can form from inorganic materials and without that faith the Theories of Evolution fall apart.

ADDED: we have a few trolls that do not want us to discuss Intelligent Design so they tried to hijack the discussion. Just ignore them please.

You must admit that you are using the literal interpretation of the term, not it's meaning as a theological term.

 

[YmirGF]

"highly disingenuous."

No it is very genuine and that is just your opinion.

You can call it genetic engineering if that makes you feel better but still fits the same definition.

See those sheep in my avatar?

They are genetically engineered by some Intelligent Designers in a lab.

So, you don't see any problem with hijacking a discredited term? Seriously?

 

[Sapiens]

So, you don't see any problem with hijacking a discredited term? Seriously?

The term is discredited, my advice to DW is, "if the shoe fits, wear it."

 

[YmirGF]

The term is discredited, my advice to DW is, "if the shoe fits, wear it."

Maybe I'm just being unreasonable but how smart is it to try to build a credible case using a term that has been widely discredited?

 

[Sapiens]

Maybe I'm just being unreasonable but how smart is it to try to build a credible case using a term that has been widely discredited?

Not very, but not my problem ... if the shoe fits ...

 

[Windwalker]

What's wrong with saying evolution itself is the intelligent designer? Doesn't it ultimately figure out a way to make things survive through its process? We are here. We were in fact created through whatever way made it happened. The fact we function and survive shows an intelligence to it, because an unintelligent design would not function, and would not survive. Isn't all the rest of these arguments just simply finding languages and assumed perspectives to talk about the simply obvious? A scientific language about this talking about the processes of evolution versus a mythological language about this talking about a type of deity molding dirt and spittle into shapes and forms, is still pointing to created forms that somehow are both real and came to be, and which function intelligently towards the goal of survival in one or many ways, shapes, or forms.

Arguing that a man in the sky can't have done this, or to argue back that evolution doesn't "think" like this guy in the sky who looks like us would, is missing the 600 pound gorilla in the room. I'd say whatever created this "intelligent design" this "functional design", has that as part of itself. The pedals of a flower unfold from within a system which allows it to be. The system itself creates a functional form. The intelligent forms emerge from itself, through whatever processes bring them into being.

There are many ways to talk about all of this without having to mistake our languages as the reality of it itself. Arguing that it happened exactly the way we map it out in our preferred way of thinking and language is the flip side of the exact same coin, overlooking the simply obvious as we strain to make our thoughts about ourselves truth outside ourselves. We are that intelligence. We are 14.5 billion years of evolution existing in these bodies. We are creations of God. We are all of this. We are.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Which is not how it is addressed in everyday conversation, especially if you are encompassing religious theologies with it. As @Sapiens pointed out already, you are arguing semantics (quite poorly, I might add).


Never claimed anything regarding the topic, thank you!


....

So, what about pork, @Revoltingest, Carolina Style BBQ? @Sapiens looks like a traditional hickory smoked kinda guy!

Please tell me more about Carolina style BBQ.

 

[SkepticThinker]

"So it's just a word game."

No it the difference between factual and verified science and non factual religiosity and theories of evolution.

"But I don't call it "Intelligent Design" because that would be misleading."

Probably would be in your case but like I said it does not require a God or a genius.

"The origin of life isn't part of evolution."

Right- let's just ignore how no life forms could not start through evolution and focus on other stuff.

"As for the holes, it's more interesting to not know everything."

One of those holes is where did that life originate so it could evolve. Without that your theory falls apart.

Are you saying we can't talk about about gravity unless we know where it comes from (i.e. Who or what created it?)
Or germ theory, if we don't know where the germs originally came from?

 

[SkepticThinker]

"designed by a higher pre-existing intelligence."

No- that is Creationism and to lump the two together is an immature trick to avoid the fact that Evolution does not address the origin of life.

Why should evolution address the origin of life? Is it supposed to address everything?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Here is what DW posted back two days ago:

DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.

Here's it is in context:

DAWIKINS Well, it could come about in the following way: it could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto, perhaps, this planet. Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of our chemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer, and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. But that higher intelligence would itself have had to have come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable, process. It couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That's the point.

The bolded section that was not quoted shows that Dawkins, while acknowledging the rather remote possibility found the suggestion rather unlikely.

The sin of quote mining was carefully explained to DW and he was shown how it was a pernicious form lying ... yet here it is, two days later, and he is, unrepentant, committing exactly the same offence again.

I posted this, as well:

"Another example. Toward the end of his interview with me, Stein asked whether I could think of any circumstances whatsoever under which intelligent design might have occurred. It's the kind of challenge I relish, and I set myself the task of imagining the most plausible scenario I could. I wanted to give ID its best shot, however poor that best shot might be. I must have been feeling magnanimous that day, because I was aware that the leading advocates of Intelligent Design are very fond of protesting that they are not talking about God as the designer, but about some unnamed and unspecified intelligence, which might even be an alien from another planet. Indeed, this is the only way they differentiate themselves from fundamentalist creationists, and they do it only when they need to, in order to weasel their way around church/state separation laws. So, bending over backwards to accommodate the IDiots ("oh NOOOOO, of course we aren't talking about God, this is SCIENCE") and bending over backwards to make the best case I could for intelligent design, I constructed a science fiction scenario. Like Michael Ruse (as I surmise) I still hadn't rumbled Stein, and I was charitable enough to think he was an honestly stupid man, sincerely seeking enlightenment from a scientist. I patiently explained to him that life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar -- semi tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent 'crane' (to quote Dan Dennett). My point here was that design can never be an ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity. Even if life on Earth was seeded by intelligent designers on another planet, and even if the alien life form was itself seeded four billion years earlier, the regress must ultimately be terminated (and we have only some 13 billion years to play with because of the finite age of the universe). Organized complexity cannot just spontaneously happen. That, for goodness sake, is the creationists' whole point, when they bang on about eyes and bacterial flagella! Evolution by natural selection is the only known process whereby organized complexity can ultimately come into being. Organized complexity -- and that includes everything capable of designing anything intelligently -- comes LATE into the universe. It cannot exist at the beginning, as I have explained again and again in my writings.

This 'Ultimate 747' argument, as I called it in The God Delusion, may or may not persuade you. That is not my concern here. My concern here is that my science fiction thought experiment -- however implausible -- was designed to illustrate intelligent design's closest approach to being plausible. I was most emphaticaly NOT saying that I believed the thought experiment. Quite the contrary. I do not believe it (and I don't think Francis Crick believed it either). I was bending over backwards to make the best case I could for a form of intelligent design. And my clear implication was that the best case I could make was a very implausible case indeed. In other words, I was using the thought experiment as a way of demonstrating strong opposition to all theories of intelligent design.

Well, you will have guessed how Mathis/Stein handled this. I won't get the exact words right (we were forbidden to bring in recording devices on pain of a $250,000 fine, chillingly announced by some unnamed Gauleiter before the film began), but Stein said something like this. "What? Richard Dawkins BELIEVES IN INTELLIGENT DESIGN." "Richard Dawkins BELIEVES IN ALIENS FROM OUTER SPACE." I can't remember whether this was the moment in the film where we were regaled with another Lord Privy Seal cut to an old science fiction movie with some kind of android figure – that may have been used in the service of trying to ridicule Francis Crick (again, dutiful titters from the partisan audience)."
https://web.archive.org/web/2008040.../article,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yup ... sounds to me like Dawkins was modifying his initial comment with the view that while it was "possible" the fact it "would itself have had to have come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable, process. It couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That's the point." Invokes the recursivity issue and yes, that makes, "the suggestion rather unlikely."

If you don't mind waiting a few weeks, I'd be glad to inquire as to which of our interpretations matches his intended opinion and which is a base canard.

I think anyone who's ever read any Dawkins or heard him speak, already knows the answer to that.

 

[Revoltingest]

You must admit that you are using the literal interpretation of the term, not it's meaning as a theological term.

So, you don't see any problem with hijacking a discredited term? Seriously?

I wonder why so many posters select the word, "faith", instead of "confidence".
The former is typically used in the religious sense here on RF, so it connotes belief in things unverifiable.
But when used to describe scientific & mathematical knowledge, it misleads.
So why purposely select "faith", when "confidence" is more accurate?

 

[Quetzal]

Hey guys, I'm back-

 

[McBell]

You and Sapiens should join a club. Call it the we hate Dawkin's club. For all the people that can't accept reality.

I already belong to the "expose the lies repeated by desperate liars" club.
I would suggest you get yourself out of the "desperate liars" club.

 

[Acim]

No mention of a bible, Deity or God and the designer could be alien or human just like us or some unknown entity.

But also no mention of the identity of the intelligent entity, so no mention of human nor alien. By the sheer magnitude of what (or who) is in question, it would seem to be a powerful entity. If confronted with our (human) intellect and all of our pressing questions, I wonder how such an entity would hold up? Even the non sentient entity that we ascribe 'natural process' for animating the universe, leading to earth, life on earth and eventually consciousness on earth appears to have no cares, nor qualms with the 'fact' that life in the universe is now self aware (of life in the universe). Our religious ideas appear (from a certain perspective) to matter, not even a little bit in scheme of the universe. But are powerful enough, to us, to wage world wars over. Likewise, our scientific understandings, in the scheme of things, seem to matter not even a little bit. But are 'smart' enough to produce bombs and weapons of mass destruction that our religious zealots may one day (or already are) keenly interested in. Of course, both of these endeavors do much more than this, but why speak to the great positives of both when these two have the hubris to debate the 'natural' process for the entire universe, much less the planet?