Scientific Evidence Supporting Intelligent Design

[nonbeliever_92]

Sorry, but that doesn't change God or refute evidence of His existence in the real world. It simply is the way that children debate when they cannot defend their position. But I forgive you because i know you're ignorant about the way the real world works.

I don't want to just assume, but are you a bible literalist, carico?

 

[sandor606]

They come up with any yet?

There's got to be something by now, right?

Here are two recent discoveries as food for discussion:

From cosmology - The constants of Nature
"The sizes of stars and planets, and even people, are neither random nor the result of any Drawinian selection process from a myriad possibilities. Those and other gross features of the Universe are the consequences of necessity; they are the manifestations of the possible equilibrium states between competing forces of attraction and repulsion. The intrinsic strenghts of these controlling forces of Nature are determined by a mysterious collection of pure numbers that we call the constants of Nature. (John D Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle," p.5 - italics in text)
"The remarkable fact is that the value of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life." (Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", p.125)

From genetics - the code
" ...there is a revolutionary new DNA world revealed by modern genetics...which provides the basis for a relatively detailed and plausible speculation as to how the whole pattern of evolution might have been written in the DNA script from the beginning. ... every living organism is specified in a precisely determined way by a set of instructions encoded in the sequence of bases in its DNA." (Michael Denton, "Nature's Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe," p.275 italics mine)

 

[camanintx]

Here are two new pieces of evidence as food for discussion:

From cosmology - The constants of Nature
"The sizes of stars and planets, and even people, are neither random nor the result of any Drawinian selection process from a myriad possibilities. Those and other gross features of the Universe are the consequences of necessity; they are the manifestations of the possible equilibrium states between competing forces of attraction and repulsion. The intrinsic strenghts of these controlling forces of Nature are determined by a mysterious collection of pure numbers that we call the constants of Nature. (John D Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle," p.5 - italics in text)
"The remarkable fact is that the value of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life." (Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", p.125)

If they are the consequences of necessity, why do you need a designer?

 

[painted wolf]

"The sizes of stars and planets, and even people, are neither random nor the result of any Drawinian selection process from a myriad possibilities.

Duh... Stars and planets don't have sex, don't undergo natural selection, don't compete...how could "Darwinian selection processes" have any influence on them?

From genetics - the code
" ...there is a revolutionary new DNA world revealed by modern genetics...which provides the basis for a relatively detailed and plausible speculation as to how the whole pattern of evolution might have been written in the DNA script from the beginning. ... every living organism is specified in a precisely determined way by a set of instructions encoded in the sequence of bases in its DNA." (Michael Denton, "Nature's Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe," p.275 italics mine)

Any evidence for this? Lateral gene transfer indicates that it's possible that there were several successful 'initial sets of instructions' that swapped with one another to form LUCA.
How can intelligent design account for lateral gene transfer and the natural organization of complex molecules like RNA?

What experiments have they done to demonstrate design over self organization?

wa:do

 

[Jose Fly]

So Sandor, you agree with Denton when he says in Nature's Destiny...

"the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes"

...or....

"Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world - that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies."

 

[linwood]

From cosmology - The constants of Nature
"The sizes of stars and planets, and even people, are neither random nor the result of any Drawinian selection process from a myriad possibilities. Those and other gross features of the Universe are the consequences of necessity; they are the manifestations of the possible equilibrium states between competing forces of attraction and repulsion. The intrinsic strenghts of these controlling forces of Nature are determined by a mysterious collection of pure numbers that we call the constants of Nature. (John D Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle," p.5 - italics in text)
"The remarkable fact is that the value of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life." (Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", p.125)

The Puddle and the Hole again....

It’s rather like a puddle waking up one morning— I know they don’t normally do this, but allow me, I’m a science fiction writer— A puddle wakes up one morning and thinks: “This is a very interesting world I find myself in. It fits me very neatly. In fact it fits me so neatly… I mean really precise isn’t it?… It must have been made to have me in it.” And the sun rises, and it’s continuing to narrate this story about how this hole must have been made to have him in it. And as the sun rises, and gradually the puddle is shrinking and shrinking and shrinking— and by the time the puddle ceases to exist, it’s still thinking— it’s still trapped in this idea that— that the hole was there for it. And if we think that the world is here for us we will continue to destroy it in the way that we have been destroying it, because we think that we can do no harm.
The Panda's Thumb: Privileged Planet: The puddle and the hole

 

[sandor606]

So Sandor, you agree with Denton when he says in Nature's Destiny...

"the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes"

...or....

"Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world - that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies."

Of course I agree but the statement begs the question: Where did natural laws come from? Did Nature make her own laws? When we look at a law in the human arena we say it was made/passed by people/legislators. Imo, the same line of reasoning applies to natural laws: Unless Nature made her own, someone must have made them.

 

[painted wolf]

perhaps you need to review the term 'natural'...

wa:do

 

[sandor606]

If they are the consequences of necessity, why do you need a designer?

Good question. As strange as it may seem, however, scientists assert that a designer had no choice but to design everything precisely "as is" or there would not be a Universe with life; that s/he was constrained by the very requirement of the objective: life on a planet that would evolve into homo sapiens. It is the goal - the evolution of Man from unicellur life - which makes it necessary for everyhting to be just as it is. This is Denton's main argument in Nature's Destiny: that everyhting in the chemical world and the biological world must be exactly as is or carbon-based life and its evolution would not have been possible.

 

[sandor606]

perhaps you need to review the term 'natural'...

wa:do

natural: existing in or formed by nature (opposed to artificial ): a natural bridge.

A law exists in Nature, of course. However, if it is also "formed" by Nature then Nature becomes the designer of her own laws; and if she can design/form her own laws she must be a real person with individual consciousness and will which, of course, she is not.

 

[painted wolf]

Nature is not a she... it is not a sentient thing or a designer... Nature is the result of physics.
There is no need for a consciousness behind physics.

wa:do

 

[camanintx]

Good question. As strange as it may seem, however, scientists assert that a designer had no choice but to design everything precisely "as is" or there would not be a Universe with life; that s/he was constrained by the very requirement of the objective: life on a planet that would evolve into homo sapiens. It is the goal - the evolution of Man from unicellur life - which makes it necessary for everyhting to be just as it is. This is Denton's main argument in Nature's Destiny: that everyhting in the chemical world and the biological world must be exactly as is or carbon-based life and its evolution would not have been possible.

Isn't this just anthropomorphism in the extreme? Just because life as we know it is perfectly suited to this universe doesn't mean life couldn't take a different form in a universe with different physical constants. As linwood pointed out, it's the puddle and hole story all over again.

 

[painted wolf]

exactly... it's like saying that life can't exist without oxygen.

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

Sandor: Here's your problem. It's not that the universe was designed for life. It's that life evolved to fit the universe it evolved in.

 

[sandor606]

Isn't this just anthropomorphism in the extreme? Just because life as we know it is perfectly suited to this universe doesn't mean life couldn't take a different form in a universe with different physical constants. As linwood pointed out, it's the puddle and hole story all over again.

I agree that it's very anthropocentric but that is what is asserted by those who advocate the Anthropic Principle as does Denton:

"...science has revealed a universe stamped in every corner, riven in every tiny detail, with an overwhelmingly and all pervasive biocentric and anthropocentric design." (op.cit. p.380)

 

[painted wolf]

"...science has revealed a universe stamped in every corner, riven in every tiny detail, with an overwhelmingly and all pervasive biocentric and anthopocentric design."

if that's true then tell me... what does life need?

Oxygen?
Sunlight?
Easy atmospheric pressure?
Benevolent temperatures?

Just because we need some things doesn't mean life does... The anthropocentric idea is pure vanity.

wa:do

 

[fantome profane]

Of course I agree but the statement begs the question: Where did natural laws come from? Did Nature make her own laws? When we look at a law in the human arena we say it was made/passed by people/legislators. Imo, the same line of reasoning applies to natural laws: Unless Nature made her own, someone must have made them.

You seem to be stuck on the word “law”. You should know that scientific laws are not like human legislated laws. Scientific laws are nothing more than descriptions of the natural world. You cannot argue that they must be “written” by someone simply because we use the same word. The two usages of the word “law” are very different and to say that the same line of reasoning must apply to both is simply not true.

 

[sandor606]

Sandor: Here's your problem. It's not that the universe was designed for life. It's that life evolved to fit the universe it evolved in.

The problem is yours because you don't distinguish between the messenger and the message. I am just a messenger. The message, based on recent discoveries in the natural sciences, is that the Universe is designed to harbor life and the goal of life is to evolve homo sapiens; that we are not here by accident but by design.

 

[painted wolf]

Were we designed to breath oxygen?
Does life even need it?

How can you say we were designed if you don't know what life needs?

wa:do

 

[sandor606]

You seem to be stuck on the word “law”. You should know that scientific laws are not like human legislated laws. Scientific laws are nothing more than descriptions of the natural world. You cannot argue that they must be “written” by someone simply because we use the same word. The two usages of the word “law” are very different and to say that the same line of reasoning must apply to both is simply not true.

Mere descriptions? Throw yourself out of an airplane without a parachute and experience first hand the consequence of the law of gravity. May you land unscathed and give a description of its reality.