Scientific Evidence Supporting Intelligent Design

[Autodidact]

What is being argued and shown by new science is that all that simply "is" in physics, chemistry, and biochemistry is just so because it has to be that way if carbon-based life is to evolve into homo sapiens. The goal - the evolution of Man - determines the nature of the means.

You cannot show teleology. Had the outcome not been suited to the environment, it would not have occurred; the outcome that fit the environment survived; any that didn't was eliminated. Therefore any surviving life would have to be suited to the environment--any environment--that happened to exist.

 

[Autodidact]

Some scientists opine otherwise.

They are mistaken.

 

[Autodidact]

When I say scientists I of course mean the proponents and supporters of the theory. Minority or not, ID is worthy of being judged on its merits.

Exactly. Not on whether some scientists espouse it or not. But when we discuss its merits, you respond that some scientists disagree. Let's talk about the merits.

I am sure there are scientists who disagree with the anthropic principle and if you know of any by all means present their case.

You are confused about what the anthropic principle is. It's not an argument for ID; quite the contrary.

My purpose is to offer evidence that supports ID, the title of this thread, and the anthropic principle is evidence.

No, it is not.

Why? Because in order to ensure that homo sapiens would one day evolve on a life-bearing planet, the Universe had to be exactly as it is. Every single physical, chemical, and biochemical characteristic and process had to be just-so. The purpose, the evolution of Man, demanded it. This astonishing complexity and precision could not have occurred by accident but had to have been designed, they claim.

And had people not evolved to suit this environment, there would be no people to discuss it.

 

[camanintx]

Why? Because in order to ensure that homo sapiens would one day evolve on a life-bearing planet, the Universe had to be exactly as it is. Every single physical, chemical, and biochemical characteristic and process had to be just-so. The purpose, the evolution of Man, demanded it. This astonishing complexity and precision could not have occurred by accident but had to have been designed, they claim.

Since none of these scientists have the faintest clue as to how any physical property of this universe came to be, isn't it just a little presumptuous of them to claim that this proves there is a designer? As far as they know these values could have just as much variability as π, which is to say none.

 

[sandor606]

You cannot show teleology. Had the outcome not been suited to the environment, it would not have occurred; the outcome that fit the environment survived; any that didn't was eliminated. Therefore any surviving life would have to be suited to the environment--any environment--that happened to exist.

Possible or not, that is exactly what they are doing using new discoveries in cosmology, physics, chemistry, and biochemistry - proving teleology.

 

[sandor606]

Since none of these scientists have the faintest clue as to how any physical property of this universe came to be, isn't it just a little presumptuous of them to claim that this proves there is a designer? As far as they know these values could have just as much variability as π, which is to say none.

It's not how the Universe came to be that is used as evidence for design but the just-so (and no other) nature and value of every physical, chemical, and biochemical component. For instance, the constants of Nature, the nature of the carbon atom, and the nature of the genetic code are deemed to have been designed.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

I think there is also some confusion regarding the anthropic principle. By itself it does not dictate a need for a creator being. The time-space continuum (notice that latter word which indicates that it runs forward and backward with just as much ease) allows for retrocausal interactions between those things "connected" by quantum fields. Thus some proponents of the strong anthropic principle contend that all conscious observers in the universe are responsible for "influencing" the course the laws of physics took post "big bang."

MTF

 

[Autodidact]

Possible or not, that is exactly what they are doing using new discoveries in cosmology, physics, chemistry, and biochemistry - proving teleology.

So you say. Now demonstrate it.

 

[sandor606]

I think there is also some confusion regarding the anthropic principle. By itself it does not dictate a need for a creator being. The time-space continuum (notice that latter word which indicates that it runs forward and backward with just as much ease) allows for retrocausal interactions between those things "connected" by quantum fields. Thus some proponents of the strong anthropic principle contend that all conscious observers in the universe are responsible for "influencing" the course the laws of physics took post "big bang."

MTF

Precisely, so some proponents of SAP - notably Nobel-Prize winner John A. Wheeler - have taken the reasoning to its logical conclusion and contend that there must be an Ultimate Observer who is responsible for coordinating the separate onservations of the lesser observers and is thus responsible for bringing the Universe into existence.
"The joining of sequences of observers continues, and even includes the observations made by different intelligent species elsewhere in the Universe - until all sequences of observations by all observers of all intelligent species that have ever existed and ever will exist, of all events that have ever occurred and will ever occur are finally joined together by the Final Observation of the Ultimate Observer."
(The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, p.471 - italics in text)

 

[sandor606]

So you say. Now demonstrate it.

I already have. Read my posts.

 

[Autodidact]

I already have. Read my posts.

Did that. No, you didn't. An assertion is not a concluson. An assertion of authority is not an argument. And a mistaken argument is just that.

 

[camanintx]

It's not how the Universe came to be that is used as evidence for design but the just-so (and no other) nature and value of every physical, chemical, and biochemical component. For instance, the constants of Nature, the nature of the carbon atom, and the nature of the genetic code are deemed to have been designed.

They are no more proof of design than a hole is proof that the puddle was designed for it.

We have no way of knowing if the constants of nature could be any different or if so, by how much. It could be that they are constrained in such a way that some form of life, whether ours or another, is inevitable. To assume that the universe was designed for a form of life that can occupy less than .001% of it is the height of conceit.

 

[fantome profane]

I don't know what alien intelligent life forms would think of the Anthropic Principle but I do know what proponents from different fields of the natural science think. I share their view.

Scientists are not saying that evolution of complex conscious life was inevitable, on the contrary. They are asserting that in order for this to occur all the parts and their dynamics had to be just-so, precisely what and as they are. This, they claim, require a designer.

Sandor,

You keep saying "scientists say...." as if that by itself is a valid argument. The problem is, the scientists who advocate the anthropic principle are in the minority. Thus, if you expect "scientists say..." to be a compelling argument, why isn't the fact that the majority of scientists disagree with the anthropic principle even more compelling?


Again, the question is why? Why does this universe "require a designer"? Why can't this universe have come about without one?

It is not even that scientists disagree with the anthropic principle, but rather that they disagree about what the significance of it is. It is true that the universal constants are would need to be in order for human life to exist. But many scientists respond to this fact by saying “so what?”. If things were different they wouldn’t be the same. If they were different perhaps another form of intelligent life might be here considering a similar ego-centric concept (but likely not), but so what? Consider that the universal constants are exactly what they would need to be for the cockroach to exist. This is absolutely true, does this mean that the universe was designed for cockroaches? I don’t think so, but the “roach principle” is just as valid (and just as invalid) and the anthropic principle. Also consider that the universal constants are what they would need to be in order to create maximum number of black holes in the available space. Does that mean that they were designed to create black holes? Again I don’t think so, it is possible that some grand entity out there wanted a maximum number of black holes, but there is no evidence of this, and no good reason to think so. And there is no good reason to think that the universe was designed for humans either, other than human egotism.

To sum it up, we don’t really understand how the universal constants came to be what they are, we really don’t know if they could have been different (or how different), and we certainly don’t know why they are what they are (we don’t even know if there is a why). You may choose to assume that they are what they are for the benefit of humans, or you choose to assume that they are for the benefit of cockroaches, but we don’t know that. And whatever assumptions you choose to make, your assumptions are not evidence of Intelligent Design.

 

[sandor606]

Did that. No, you didn't. An assertion is not a concluson. An assertion of authority is not an argument. And a mistaken argument is just that.

I reported on the discoveries. If you don't like what they say and how they say it address the authors, not me.

See you on another thread.

 

[sandor606]

It is not even that scientists disagree with the anthropic principle, but rather that they disagree about what the significance of it is. It is true that the universal constants are would need to be in order for human life to exist. But many scientists respond to this fact by saying “so what?”. If things were different they wouldn’t be the same. If they were different perhaps another form of intelligent life might be here considering a similar ego-centric concept (but likely not), but so what? Consider that the universal constants are exactly what they would need to be for the cockroach to exist. This is absolutely true, does this mean that the universe was designed for cockroaches? I don’t think so, but the “roach principle” is just as valid (and just as invalid) and the anthropic principle. Also consider that the universal constants are what they would need to be in order to create maximum number of black holes in the available space. Does that mean that they were designed to create black holes? Again I don’t think so, it is possible that some grand entity out there wanted a maximum number of black holes, but there is no evidence of this, and no good reason to think so. And there is no good reason to think that the universe was designed for humans either, other than human egotism.

To sum it up, we don’t really understand how the universal constants came to be what they are, we really don’t know if they could have been different (or how different), and we certainly don’t know why they are what they are (we don’t even know if there is a why). You may choose to assume that they are what they are for the benefit of humans, or you choose to assume that they are for the benefit of cockroaches, but we don’t know that. And whatever assumptions you choose to make, your assumptions are not evidence of Intelligent Design.

It's NOT MY assumption; it's the claim of the proponents who made the discoveries and describe them and their meaning in scientific books. You have not studied the books yet reject the notion. Since your mind is closed this will be my last post to you on this thread.

 

[fantome profane]

It's NOT my assumption; it's the claim of the proponents who made the discoveries and describe them and their meaning in scientific books. You have not studied the books yet reject the notion. Since your mind is closed this will be my last post to you on this thread.

Not a problem for me. This won’t stop me from debunking your nonsense for the sake of others.

The fact that you cannot or will not defend these ideas when the are challenges speaks volumes.

(remember not to respond to my posts )

 

[sandor606]

They are no more proof of design than a hole is proof that the puddle was designed for it.

We have no way of knowing if the constants of nature could be any different or if so, by how much. It could be that they are constrained in such a way that some form of life, whether ours or another, is inevitable. To assume that the universe was designed for a form of life that can occupy less than .001% of it is the height of conceit.

You are entitled to your unsubstantiated opinion but they claim otherwise and go to great lenghts to prove it. You would give your opinion credibility if you study the books and disprove the evidence.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

Sounds like you have been reading the works of David Bohm as well. I really don't have any problems with a cosmic unity/divine first principle/ultimate observer. All of these concepts, limited as they are, are attempts to express what I understand to be a fundamental truth; that either the whole of reality is God or reality is limited in which case God is needed in order to provide the First Cause.


But not all scientists accept that quantum reality's observer observed correlation or that the extremely low threshold for universe failure (change even a tiny amount some of the cosmological constants and the universe falls apart) need have any further significance.

They do this by appealing to the empirical necessity of such constructs. Which is to say "what changes when you allow for the existence of an over-reality?" And the answer is "not much." So "parsimony" would seem to dictate why have it at all?

MTF

 

[Katzpur]

They come up with any yet?

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

Silly me, I didn't even know science was looking for some!

 

[Autodidact]

I reported on the discoveries. If you don't like what they say and how they say it address the authors, not me.

See you on another thread.

Not discoveries, philosophical concepts based on scientific facts known for some time. i didn't see any new discoveries. I find those facts interesting, I just don't accept your conclusions, for the reasons I explained, and which you haven't responded to. Yes, it's absolutely true that each and every condition of the universe must have been just exactly precisely as it is in order for us to be here and talk about it. If they were not, we wouldn't. We don't know what there would be, but it wouldn't be us. It does not follow that an intelligent being created conditions that way so that we could one day argue about it. It just doesn't follow.

Had Hitler not invaded the Sudetenland, I would not be typing this today. It does not follow that Hitler invaded the Sudetenland in order to enable me to type this, or that God decreed that he would do so for the same reason. God may have done so, but we cannot know that, and cannot deduce it from the fact that had not each and every thing that has ever happened not happened, I would not exist.