During my interaction on the forum with reference to evolution I keep coming across what I thought were odd responses when the argument went to intelligent design. After asking for evidence that clearly shows intelligent design as apposed to the natural creative forces of nature, I finally looked at length at the arguments on the sites dedicated to intelligent design. Despite extensive articles with drawn out scientific jargon I could not find the evidence to overcome two unescapable flaws with intelligent design which are clearly never addressed. First I have included sections from two web sites that describe the argument for intelligent design which seem to be representative to be clear about the argument. Then I list two flaws I see for feedback on this concept.
1. From the Intelligent design and evolution awareness center - ideacenter.org.
By Casey Luskin
“Ways Designers Act When Designing (Observations):"
(1) " Intelligent agents think with an "end goal" in mind, allowing them to solve complex problems by taking many parts and arranging them in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information):"
(2) "Intelligent agents can rapidly infuse large amounts of information into systems:"
(3) "Intelligent agents re-use functional components that work over and over in different systems (e.g., wheels for cars and airplanes):"
(4) " Intelligent agents typically create functional things (although we may sometimes think something is functionless, not realizing its true function):"
"Predictions of Design (Hypothesis):"
(1) " Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information)"
(2) "Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors."
(3) "Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in different and unrelated organisms."
(4) " Much so-called "junk DNA" will turn out to perform valuable functions."
"Examining the Evidence (Experiment and Conclusion):"
(1) " Language-based codes can be revealed by seeking to understand the workings of genetics and inheritance. High levels of specified complexity and irreducibly complexity are detected in biological systems through theoretical analysis, computer simulations and calculations"
(2) "The fossil record shows that species often appear abruptly without similar precursors".
(3) "Similar parts are commonly found in widely different organisms. Many genes and functional parts not distributed in a manner predicted by ancestry, and are often found in clearly unrelated organisms."
(4) " There have been numerous discoveries of functionality for "junk-DNA." Examples include recently discovered surprised functionality in some pseudogenes, microRNAs, introns, LINE and ALU elements.”
From evolutionnews.org
1. “ID is not merely a negative argument against evolution"
"The fires problem with the critics definition is that it frames ID as meagerly a negative argument against evolution. In fact, ID offers a strong positive argument based on findings in nature the type of information and complexity that, in our experience, comes from intelligence alone."
2. “ID is not a theory about the designer or the supernatural”
"The second problem with the critics definition of ID is that it suggests the theory is focus on studying the designer. The claim is that it specifically invokes supernatural forces or a deity. But Id is not focused on studying the actual intelligent cause responsible for life, but rather studies natural objects to determine whether they bear an informational signature indicating an intelligent cause. All ID does is infer an intelligent cause behind the origins of life and of the cosmos. Id does not seek to determine the nature of identity of that cause. “
The two flaws that I see in the argument
1. Despite the clear attempts to separate the study of “intelligent design” from the “intelligent designer”, you still cannot escape from the problem of the existence of the intelligent designer so no wonder all the argument avoids this primary aspect of their argument. Just because something is complex does not mean it has to be made by an intelligent designer nor is there clearly any goal orientation in our universe that can be proven. These two aspects are aspects of human behavior which we are imposing on the natural world.
2. The second flaw has to do with the change in life over time. This requires two possibilities with an intelligent design. 1. All of the necessary genetic information for all forms of life and all complex proteins and their activity was present in the first form of life thus all life has this information available and only uses aspects of it or 2. The intelligent designer must be actively involved with rearranging the genetic material all of the time to create the new complex proteins that could not form naturally according to intelligent design experts. Ironically even Darwin realized (even without all of our current knowledge) that it would be hard for people to accept that god would be present in our world creating new species or even new variations.
Would like thoughts about the arguments for intelligent design and what flaws exist in the argument.
If something is truly inescapable -it is the truth.
So... Unless I am missing something....
The creative forces of "nature" -in its broadest sense -are a prerequisite of intelligent design of any kind.
It is not a problem for the non-religious to believe that our intelligent design capabilities developed naturally.
It IS seemingly a problem for both religious and non-religious people to believe that "God" developed naturally.... or that the sum of all things first developed self-awareness, identity, creativity, etc.... before being able to create the universe and all therein (all from that which "always" simply existed)
....unless you realize it would not be a problem at all. Mysterious -yes, but not problematic as all that is obviously simply exists and changes form and function.
Such a God would not only be perfectly natural, but a perfectly natural and obvious explanation for that which is extremely indicative of an intelligent designer.
Not everything CAN develop naturally -UNTIL DEVELOPED BY a naturally-occurring creative designer. The development of such is a necessary intermediate stage.
We see this to be true on our level -and our level is the product of that which has always existed being arranged in a complex way. As we are dealing with the same stuff at any level of complexity, the same would be true on any level -even the all-inclusive.
Some have a problem with "God" (original) being necessary for man's (mass-produced initially-complex state) existence.... and some have a problem with God not deciding that he exist.
