Observations promoting Intelligence behind life & support systems

[Jose Fly]

Well, would say conversation between the two of you has ended.

Yep, that's what typically happens with him. He's very adept at running away.

I am framing it as an atheistic issue because the new atheists are virtually always sarcastic and condescending.

Still not making sense.

You will disagree. We disagree. finito.

I hear the same thing from flat earthers.

 

[gnostic]

1) These are just some obstacles to evolutionary mechanisms. But these evidences support an Intelligence behind them. Antony Flew finally recognized this.

The purposeful nature of these examples, indeed of all systems, imply design.




More evidence will be posted.

In my 1st reply to you, hockeycowboy , I spoke of Behe’s lack of evidence and data in his Irreducible Complexity and his book Darwin’s Black Box.

Now I want to focus on the “mechanisms” of Intelligent Design that you and Behe talked about.

I have highlighted what stated about mechanisms that you disagree with about Evolution.


Any useful and competent scientist should provide explanation to the “mechanisms” of what they are investigating in their scientific theory, with the accompanying data and evidences to back it up.

But with Intelligent Design and Irreducible Complexity, there are no such evidence to support the mechanisms of ID & IC, BECAUSE BOTH ID & IC HAVE NO MECHANISMS.

Behe and other ID creationists, especially those who are members of the Discovery Institute (eg Phillip E Johnson, Stephen C Meyer, Antony Flew, Dean H Kenyon (co-author to Of Panda And People, 1989), etc) have provided no mechanisms to Intelligent Design.

Their absurd logic, that genes and cells of organisms are “too complex” so it must be “design”, and the “Design” would imply the existence of “Designer”, isn’t mechanism.

And to claim Designer being responsible for the Design, then the claimants must supply evidence and data to support the existence of this Designer.

So not only does ID & IC have no evidence and no data, they don’t have the mechanisms to argue against the 5 mechanisms of Evolution.

Behe was quoted at the Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District case (2005) about the so-called mechanisms of Intelligent Design, Rothschild quoted Behe saying:

"Intelligent design theory focuses exclusively on the proposed mechanismof how complex biological structures arose."

Here is the fuller transcript, which showed Behe doing some backpedaling about his original claim about Intelligent Design’s so-called mechanisms:

Q Thank you. Now, can we go back to page 11 of the report and highlight again the underscored text.

So this is back to the claim that you say intelligent design makes, "Intelligent design theory focuses exclusively on the proposed mechanismof how complex biological structures arose."

Please describe the mechanism that intelligent design proposes for how complex biological structures arose.

A Well, the word "mechanism" can be used in many ways. In this I was -- and when I was referring to intelligent design, I meant that we can perceive that in the process by which a complex biological structure arose, we can infer that intelligence was involved in it's origin.

Much like if I might refer back to the Big Bang theory, the Big Bang theory proposes no mechanism for how the universe arose, but nonetheless it infers that, whatever the mechanism, it came by some sort of explosive process.

So there are many other questions that these theories leave unaddressed, but they do posit some aspect of the cause which is very useful to have and which is supported by the data.

Q So intelligent design is about cause?

A I'm sorry, could you say that again?

Q I just want to get it clear here, intelligent design is about cause?

A Well, cause is a broad word, and when you re trying to explain how something came about, you can say it came about for a variety of reasons. But intelligent design is one reason or one aspect or one cause to explain how the purposeful arrangement of parts that we see did come about.

Q Back to my original question. What is the mechanism that intelligent design proposes?

A And I wonder, could -- am I permitted to know what I replied to your question the first time?

Q I don't think I got a reply, so I'm asking you, you ve made this claim here, "Intelligent design theory focuses exclusively on the proposed mechanism of how complex biological structures arose." And I want to know what is the mechanism that intelligent design proposes for how complex biological structures arose?

A Again, it does not propose a mechanism in the sense of a step-by-step description of how those structures arose. But it can infer that in the mechanism, in the process by which these structures arose, an intelligent cause was involved.

Q But it does not propose an actual mechanism?

A Again, the word "mechanism" -- the word "mechanism" can be used broadly, but no, I would not say that there was a mechanism. I would say we have an aspect of the history of the structure.

Q So when you wrote in your report that "Intelligent design theory focuses exclusively on the proposed mechanism," you actually meant to say intelligent design says nothing about the mechanism of how complex biological structures arose.

A No, I certainly didn't mean to say that. I meant to say what I said in response to that last question, that while we don't know a step-by-step description of how something arose, nonetheless we can infer some very important facts about what was involved in the process, namely, that intelligence was involved in the process.

And let me go back one more time to the Big Bang theory. Again, we don't have a mechanism for the Big Bang, but we can infer some important events about what happened, and that was that it happened in some explosive manner, it happened a distinct time ago and so on.

So additionally, I might say, that it also focuses on other proposed mechanisms that purport to explain the purposeful arrangement of parts. And so I think it is quite accurate to say that that's exactly where intelligent design focuses.

Q So it actually -- it focuses on other proposed mechanisms, by that you mean natural selection, don't you?

A No, just a natural selection, complexity theory and so on. But certainly the most widely accepted, and then the one that you would have to convince most people -- or explain to most people is not well supported is the one which is the currently accepted explanation of natural selection.

Q Okay. And so in terms of mechanism, it's just a criticism of Darwinian evolution's mechanism and not a positive description of the mechanism?

A No, I disagree. I say that while, again, while it does not give you a step-by-step description of how such things occurred, it does tell you something very important about the cause or the way in which these structures arose, and that was through the actions of an intelligent cause.

Q So, Professor Behe, why don't we go to your deposition and see how you answered the questions then, okay?

A Okay.

Q Could you look at page 179 of your deposition.

A Yes.

Q I asked you, "What is the proposed mechanism of how complex biological structures arose according to intelligent design theory?"

A Yes.

Q And you answered, "Intelligent design does not propose a mechanism, it simply tries to support the conclusion that intelligent activity was involved in producing the structures."

A Yes. And that language, I think, is completely consistent with what I was trying to say here today, that it does not tell you step by step how something was proposed -- or how something was produced, but nonetheless it says something very very important about the origin of the structure, and that is that intelligent activity was involved in producing it.

Q And then further down the page at line 24 I asked you, "In terms of the mechanism, it's just a criticism of Darwinian evolution's mechanism and not a positive description of a mechanism." And what did you answer, Professor Behe?

A I said "that's correct." But again, I think this is completely consistent with what I just said. Again, it does not propose a step-by-step description, but it -- but it proposes or it accounts for some very important features of what was involved in it's origin, and that is intelligent activity.

Source: Kitzmiller v. Dover: Day 11, PM: Michael Behe (continued) Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District Trial Transcript: Day 11 (October 18), PM Session, Part 2​

As you see from the court transcript, the Intelligent Design has proposed no mechanisms to offer. It only argue against the Evolution’s mechanisms, but ID has no mechanisms of its own.

Sorry, I have to cut my post in half...

 

[gnostic]

Here is part 2:

Then from there Rothschild questioned Behe about the mechanism of Natural Selection:

Q. Okay. But you're not disputing that the theory of evolution says, at some point we had a subset of proteins, then we had eventually all the proteins that make up whatever system we're discussing?

A. That sounds okay.

Q. Good. In slow design, same thing. At some point, we had a subset of the proteins, and eventually, we got to the whole thing?

A. That's right. The crucial question -- the only question is the mechanism.

Q. Okay. So in the case of evolution, there is a mechanism that's been proposed, natural selection?

A. Yes.

Q. And you've agreed that natural selection certainly is a phenomena that operates in the natural world?

A. That is correct.

Q. Including at the biochemical level?

A. That's right.

Q. Then we've got slow design, and there we have no mechanism at all, no description of a mechanism?

A. We have no description of a mechanism. We do infer design though from the purposeful arrangement of parts.

Source: Kitzmiller v. Dover: Day 12, AM: Michael Behe (continued) Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District Trial Transcript: Day 12 (October 19), AM Session, Part 2​

Noticed the last question and answer, which I have highlighted in bold?

Intelligent Design has “no mechanism”, “no description of the mechanism”, but as Behe stated, he would “infer” that it is “designed” with purpose, which would imply cause (thus Designer).

For a biochemist, Behe is incompetent, when he has no mechanisms, no evidence and no data, and that he has to backpedal repeatedly or make excuses for his incompetence, he isn’t much of a scientist.

Seriously, hockeycowboy. What hypothesis or scientific theory have no mechanism?

A concept without mechanism and without evidence and data, is merely just unsubstantiated conjecture. And a “Design” implies “Designer” isn’t a mechanism, it just make-believe hearsay.

 

[gnostic]

When a person, such as a scientist, want to present a hypothesis for consideration of being accepted as “scientific theory”, then it must present the its case for his hypothesis and focused on his model.

They should present ID as a concept and show the strengths of the positive evidence and data that support ID’s mechanism.

But Intelligent Design creationists don’t do that.

They try to argue against Evolution, trying to disprove it, without evidence. That’s not science.

Where the evidence for ID? There are none. Attacking Evolution, don’t verify and validate Intelligent Design.

All it showed how ignorant, how dishonest and how desperate ID creationists are.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yep, that's what typically happens with him. He's very adept at running away.


Still not making sense.


I hear the same thing from flat earthers.

My guess is that in a few weeks, when he feels like this has all been forgotten, he will create a new post with the same material as if nothing had ever been said about it.

Meet the new post. Same as the old post.

 

[YoursTrue]

So you don't believe in an all-knowing god? BTW, you didn't address my question about 99% of species going extinct...

Do you think that it's possible God can choose what he wants to foresee?

 

[YoursTrue]

Still waiting for you to write something to refute. NOTHING you posted comes even close to being evidence for an intelligent designer. IF you actually think that it IS then point out HOW.

For the sake of discussion and possibilities just in concept, whether you believe in God or not, just suppose for a moment for the same of reasoning, if there is a God, could he have decided to make/create organisms with similar genetic structure? Just wondering your reasoning on the matter, or whether you will consider that as a possibility, even if you don't believe it happened that way.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

For the sake of discussion and possibilities just in concept, whether you believe in God or not, just suppose for a moment for the same of reasoning, if there is a God, could he have decided to make/create organisms with similar genetic structure? Just wondering your reasoning on the matter, or whether you will consider that as a possibility, even if you don't believe it happened that way.

Sure. Does anyone have evidence for this? No.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

For the sake of discussion and possibilities just in concept, whether you believe in God or not, just suppose for a moment for the same of reasoning, if there is a God, could he have decided to make/create organisms with similar genetic structure? Just wondering your reasoning on the matter, or whether you will consider that as a possibility, even if you don't believe it happened that way.

What do you make of it. God created organisms to appear as if they were related genetically. Then He wrote a story of creation and made it look like two different stories that were merged together. In His book he made sure to include a commandment about not bearing false witness.

How would you interpret all of that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

For the sake of discussion and possibilities just in concept, whether you believe in God or not, just suppose for a moment for the same of reasoning, if there is a God, could he have decided to make/create organisms with similar genetic structure? Just wondering your reasoning on the matter, or whether you will consider that as a possibility, even if you don't believe it happened that way.

So God would have gone so far as to try to mislead people? Isn't that a form of lying?

I have pointed out to creationists that they are claiming that their God is a liar, but this is the first time I have seen one actively propose it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So God would have gone so far as to try to mislead people? Isn't that a form of lying?

I have pointed out to creationists that they are claiming that their God is a liar, but this is the first time I have seen one actively propose it.

The geological column. The pattern of fossils. Homology of genes and morphology. If a person subscribes to direct design and creation, then they cannot fault others for being confused, since all this would have to have been purposefully arranged to fool everyone.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The geological column. The pattern of fossils. Homology of genes and morphology. If a person subscribes to direct design and creation, then they cannot fault others for being confused, since all this would have to have been purposefully arranged to fool everyone.

I know. It goes far past genetics. The examples are endless that tell us that a literal interpretation of the Bible is in error. Where did he go? I gave him a simple assignment but it may have been to much for him.

 

[QuestioningMind]

For the sake of discussion and possibilities just in concept, whether you believe in God or not, just suppose for a moment for the same of reasoning, if there is a God, could he have decided to make/create organisms with similar genetic structure? Just wondering your reasoning on the matter, or whether you will consider that as a possibility, even if you don't believe it happened that way.

Sorry, but the fact that you can imagine a scenario in which it's POSSIBLE that some creator being MIGHT have CONCEIVABLY decided to make organisms with similar genetic structures does NOT constitute evidence of anything... other than the fact that you have a fertile imagination.

 

[tas8831]

Do you think that it's possible God can choose what he wants to foresee?

When ancient pre-technological peoples make up their deities, they can imbue them with whatever magical powers they wish.

 

[YoursTrue]

When ancient pre-technological peoples make up their deities, they can imbue them with whatever magical powers they wish.

So you're not considering the possibility that God can determine which detailed outcomes he chooses to know. OK.

 

[YoursTrue]

Sorry, but the fact that you can imagine a scenario in which it's POSSIBLE that some creator being MIGHT have CONCEIVABLY decided to make organisms with similar genetic structures does NOT constitute evidence of anything... other than the fact that you have a fertile imagination.

Why? You exclude the possibility that God made earth and living matter from similar chemicals?

 

[YoursTrue]

So God would have gone so far as to try to mislead people? Isn't that a form of lying?

I have pointed out to creationists that they are claiming that their God is a liar, but this is the first time I have seen one actively propose it.

I think you are going a bit far to consistently tell me I'm lying. You don't even want to consider the possibility that God made living matter from similar chemicals, do you?

 

[YoursTrue]

When a person, such as a scientist, want to present a hypothesis for consideration of being accepted as “scientific theory”, then it must present the its case for his hypothesis and focused on his model.

They should present ID as a concept and show the strengths of the positive evidence and data that support ID’s mechanism.

But Intelligent Design creationists don’t do that.

They try to argue against Evolution, trying to disprove it, without evidence. That’s not science.

Where the evidence for ID? There are none. Attacking Evolution, don’t verify and validate Intelligent Design.

All it showed how ignorant, how dishonest and how desperate ID creationists are.

No one knows how God did it. One can examine the creation, can examine cadavers and skulls and living matter, but no one but God knows how it really happened, and by that I mean put it all together. No one. Not one scientist.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

1.) I think you are aware of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia, aren't you? The court found that ID was not science and "irreducibly complex systems" had been shown not to be.

Please...Your link only mentioned irreducible complexity twice.

There’s an interesting statement written by Judge Jones in his decision:

“After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science.”

Jones was more interested in upholding the Law (as he should be). He was misled into thinking that ID is religious, and he wanted to keep religion separate from the state.
(Even the anti-religious Dawkins once promoted ID...he specifically stated that aliens could have seeded life on Earth! That is ID.)


The point is, though....what may actually be truth, was not the important issue to the court.


Not to certain factions in science, either, apparently.

2.) Do you only have a problem with evolutionary biology or with science in general?

No, just evolutionary biology. And only certain aspects of that. I also question dating methods, as they rely on the axiom, “the present is the key to the past.” It isn’t.

3.) Do you think that there is a conspiracy in science that secretly prevents non-mainstream papers from being published?

Certainly, it’s already been documented.

Google Richard Sternberg.

Here’s a link....
Smithsonian "discriminated" against scientist

I'm a bit vary. Usually I'm inclined to correct all misinformed and misinforming YEC but Hockeycowboy is a JW and JWs seem to enjoy a protected status here.

We are not YEC's.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please...Your link only mentioned irreducible complexity twice.

There’s an interesting statement written by Judge Jones in his decision:

“After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science.”

Jones was more interested in upholding the Law (as he should be). He was misled into thinking that ID is religious, and he wanted to keep religion separate from the state.
(Even the anti-religious Dawkins once promoted ID...he specifically stated that aliens could have seeded life on Earth! That is ID.)


The point is, though....what may actually be truth, was not the important issue to the court.


Not to certain factions in science, either, apparently.

100% wrong as usual. He was not misled about ID, it is a religious belief and it is not science. He is merely far wiser and more honest than you. He knew that he did not have the wherewithal to refute it. That was besides the point. The claim was that it was scientific and the trial proved that it was not.

No, just evolutionary biology. And only certain aspects of that. I also question dating methods, as they rely on the axiom, “the present is the key to the past.” It isn’t.

Oh, so you admit that the rest of Genesis is myth. You know the tower of Babel myth and the Noah's Ark myth. And that is just the beginning.

Certainly, it’s already been documented.

Google Richard Sternberg.

Here’s a link....
Smithsonian "discriminated" against scientist

You really should try to see if you can find valid sources. Lying biased sources do not help you. Of course honest sources show that there was no discrimination.

We are not YEC's.

Really? So once again no Noah's Ark myth. That is so nice to hear.