The flaws in Intelligent design

[Bear Wild]

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.

 

[Jollybear]

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.

That fox in your evator is intelligently design. Why else would you think its pretty to use it as an evator, right?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

Luskin has outlined some key criteria to show that humans design things.

I did like his analogy of wheels on cars, and nature does conserve traits that work, but in his analogy, there would have to be cars where the wheels were derived from modifications of the bumper or the back seat, to make it fit with what is seen in nature.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

Intelligent design advocates are working harder and harder to separate the designer away from their claims, but the question still remains. If it is a supernatural designer, then their work is not science. If it is a physical, material designer, then are all the creationists going to stop deifying the Bible and stop believing in God. They cannot have it both ways.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

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.

These arguments do not avoid the existence of the intelligent designer. That's the core of the whole debate. You might expect that His existence would more clearly be the central focus, but the arguments for and against go all over the place by necessity. "God exists - He does not; Does too - Does not..." This would be wasted time and effort without supporting the respective positions, so that's where it all goes. It's already a given up front that one believes in God's existence and one doesn't.

Just because something is complex does not mean it has to be made by an intelligent designer

Since order cannot arise out of chaos by unguided matter and energies according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, then anything as complex and perfect even as a single cell of your body cannot exist and function but as a result of intelligent design. So how could anything as complex and perfect as the universe and life on earth not require 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.

This statement assumes that the tiny human mind can comprehend or test the infinite intellect and will of the omniscient God and that human behavior can impose anything on the natural world comparable to designing, creating, and sustaining it.

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

Absolutely false. Genetic information for each species pertains to that species. Complex proteins and their activity are specific to the creatures they were designed for.

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.

Yes, actively involved, but has no need to rearrange genetic material to create anything new. He created the entire universe out of nothing, and created new species the same way as and when He wanted to.

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.

And today, Darwin's whole theory is on artificial life support. Maybe he's thinking about that right now in his current spirit form. There is no question whatever that God has been a constant presence and influence in our world since He created it. That's a very good thing -- not hard to accept at all.

 

[Skwim]

The Casey Luskin remarks can all be answered with a "So what?" None go to showing why design in nature requires a designer.

The two remarks from evolutionnews.org. are just examples of specious double talk and lies.

.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

If it is a supernatural designer, then their work is not science.

Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, Robert Boyle, Francis Bacon.... they all attributed the origin of the physical universe to God. Yet their beliefs did not inhibit their searches and their discoveries. Are you saying their work wasn't science?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, Robert Boyle, Francis Bacon.... they all attributed the origin of the physical universe to God. Yet their beliefs did not inhibit their searches and their discoveries. Are you saying their work wasn't science?

.
Some of their works was science, some was not. An all or nothing attitude is incorrect. For example Newton was quite successful with physics. But he also believed in alchemy and his work there was not scientific. None of these scientists did any work in evolution at all The closest might have been Francis Bacon who did no work in evolution, but was key in developing the scientific method, which the theory of evolution is based upon. This amounts to an improper appeal to authority. None of these scientists were authorities on biology so it really does not matter what they believed in that science.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, Robert Boyle, Francis Bacon.... they all attributed the origin of the physical universe to God. Yet their beliefs did not inhibit their searches and their discoveries. Are you saying their work wasn't science?

"Goddidit" was not part of their scientific explanations.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

The flaws in Intelligent design

It has no predictive or explanatory power. Bam. [/thread]

 

[Ellen Brown]

This conversation has exceeded what I consider to be the boundaries of the original premise. Neither Intelligent Design or Evolution are "Laws" and are merely hypothesis in my opinion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This conversation has exceeded what I consider to be the boundaries of the original premise. Neither Intelligent Design or Evolution are "Laws" and are merely hypothesis in my opinion.

ID is not even a hypothesis, and evolution is a full fledged theory.

Here is how one knows that ID is not a hypothesis, no reasonable test that could possibly refute it is ever given.

 

[Sapiens]

Intelligent design is disproven by any number of structures but perhaps the most telling is the giraffe's Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve.

I point to Casey Luskin's (a primary shill for the intelligent design advocacy group the Discovery Institute) Point I (1):

“ Ways Designers Act When Designing (Observations):"
the
(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)

No competent designer would design a structure like the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve, which can be spotted in a wide variety of animals, from fish to mammals. In fish, exhibiting as they do the primitive condition, the nerve heads straight from the brain, down to the larynx. However, in mammals, the structure of the head and development of the neck from fish-like organisms causes the recurrent laryngeal nerve to become "trapped" under the aortic arch in the thorax and thus forces its path down and around the aortic arch.

The gradual change from the anatomy of a fish to that of a mammal means that there is no way for the nerve to magically jump from one side of the aortic arch to the other. So, in mammals, the nerve controlling the larynx by necessity drops deep into the chest cavity and then reverses up to the larynx.

This considerable detour is consistent with how embryological development entwines with evolution, but inconsistent with the ID wrongheaded idea that insists organisms were made as they appear to day, individually, by an intelligent designer.

In his book Why Evolution is True, Jerry Coyne claims that "Imperfect design is the mark of evolution; in fact it's precisely what we expect from evolution." (p. 81) He makes this prediction because "... we have to work well with the parts that have already evolved. Because of this, we should expect compromises: some features that work pretty well, but some not as well as they might, or some features--like the kiwi wing--that don't work at all, but are evolutionary leftovers." (p. 81)

Even Luskin gets it right when he says, "Thus according to Coyne, evolution predicts that some features will work well, some will work not-so-well, and some will work not at all." But then Luskin drives off the road with typical IDer apologium: "This is not exactly a useful set of predictions, but when he couples the argument with the dubious assertion that intelligent design (ID) requires 'perfect design,' then Coyne places evolution in a unique position to explain such examples of allegedly 'imperfect design.' The fact remains that only the invocation of evolution provides a rational and reasonable explanation for the observed structure ... and that is at it's core the way science works and ID fails.

 

[Sapiens]

This conversation has exceeded what I consider to be the boundaries of the original premise. Neither Intelligent Design or Evolution are "Laws" and are merely hypothesis in my opinion.

You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. Evolution is not a "law" it is a scientific theory and scientific theories (providing as they do the "why") rank above laws (that only provide the "what").

 

[Sapiens]

These arguments do not avoid the existence of the intelligent designer. That's the core of the whole debate. You might expect that His existenc e would more clearly be the central focus, but the arguments for and against go all over the place by necessity. "God exists - He does not; Does too - Does not..." This would be wasted time and effort without supporting the respective positions, so that's where it all goes. It's already a given up front that one believes in God's existence and one doesn't.

No, one believes in god(s) the other assumes their absence based on the dearth of rational evidence.

Since order cannot arise out of chaos by unguided matter and energies according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, then anything as complex and perfect even as a single cell of your body cannot exist and function but as a result of intelligent design. So how could anything as complex and perfect as the universe and life on earth not require an intelligent designer?

No. Given the huge input of energy from the sun the Second Law of Thermodynamics is obeyed. In fact, there is one school of thought that if there in energy input available that is not so strong as to shatter all the molecular bonds of proteins then the evolution of life is virtually assured, no designer required.

This statement assumes that the tiny human mind can comprehend or test the infinite intellect and will of the omniscient God and that human behavior can impose anything on the natural world comparable to designing, creating, and sustaining it.

Aw ... your making up mythology as you go along, or just repeating someone else who did.

Absolutely false. Genetic information for each species pertains to that species. Complex proteins and their activity are specific to the creatures they were designed for.

No. Better than 90% of our human proteins are shared with chimps (a reason humans are referred to as "the third chimpanzee). Some proteins, like those in the Cytochrome C series [a small hemeprotein found loosely associated with the inner membrane of the mitochondrion. It belongs to the cytochrome c family of proteins. Cytochrome c is highly water-soluble, unlike other cytochromes, and is an essential component of the electron transport chain, where it carries one electron. It is capable of undergoing oxidation and reduction, but does not bind oxygen. It transfers electrons between Complexes III (Coenzyme Q – Cyt C reductase) and IV (Cyt C oxidase)] is highly conservative and is present in virtually identical in all living organisms, differing by only a few residues. In more than thirty species tested in one study, 34 of the 104 amino acids were perfectly conserved; identical at their characteristic position. The full sequences of cytochrome c in humans is identical to that of chimpanzees (our closest relatives), but differs more from that of horses and these small differences can be used to construct phylogenies that mirror genome analysis, immunological studies, and the fossil record itself.

Yes, actively involved, but has no need to rearrange genetic material to create anything new. He created the entire universe out of nothing, and created new species the same way as and when He wanted to.

Now you are faced with the regression issue ... solve that and then get back to us.

And today, Darwin's whole theory is on artificial life support. Maybe he's thinking about that right now in his current spirit form. There is no question whatever that God has been a constant presence and influence in our world since He created it. That's a very good thing -- not hard to accept at all.

No, Darwin's theory is considered to be quite sound. There is, however, growing rejection of the belief in the existence of a deity ... that's where the artificial life support is to be found.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Intelligent design is disproven by any number of structures but perhaps the most telling is the giraffe's Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve.

I point to Casey Luskin's (a primary shill for the intelligent design advocacy group the Discovery Institute) Point I (1):

“ Ways Designers Act When Designing (Observations):"
the
(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)

No competent designer would design a structure like the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve, which can be spotted in a wide variety of animals, from fish to mammals. In fish, exhibiting as they do the primitive condition, the nerve heads straight from the brain, down to the larynx. However, in mammals, the structure of the head and development of the neck from fish-like organisms causes the recurrent laryngeal nerve to become "trapped" under the aortic arch in the thorax and thus forces its path down and around the aortic arch.

The gradual change from the anatomy of a fish to that of a mammal means that there is no way for the nerve to magically jump from one side of the aortic arch to the other. So, in mammals, the nerve controlling the larynx by necessity drops deep into the chest cavity and then reverses up to the larynx.

This considerable detour is consistent with how embryological development entwines with evolution, but inconsistent with the ID wrongheaded idea that insists organisms were made as they appear to day, individually, by an intelligent designer.

In his book Why Evolution is True, Jerry Coyne claims that "Imperfect design is the mark of evolution; in fact it's precisely what we expect from evolution." (p. 81) He makes this prediction because "... we have to work well with the parts that have already evolved. Because of this, we should expect compromises: some features that work pretty well, but some not as well as they might, or some features--like the kiwi wing--that don't work at all, but are evolutionary leftovers." (p. 81)

Even Luskin gets it right when he says, "Thus according to Coyne, evolution predicts that some features will work well, some will work not-so-well, and some will work not at all." But then Luskin drives off the road with typical IDer apologium: "This is not exactly a useful set of predictions, but when he couples the argument with the dubious assertion that intelligent design (ID) requires 'perfect design,' then Coyne places evolution in a unique position to explain such examples of allegedly 'imperfect design.' The fact remains that only the invocation of evolution provides a rational and reasonable explanation for the observed structure ... and that is at it's core the way science works and ID fails.

Of course, this is where we encounter the inherent unfalsifiable nature of creationism/id. Any biological system that works, they point to and say "See? Evidence of design!" Any biological system that is inefficient or prone to failure, they point to and say "See? Evidence of 'the Fall!'".

 

[Jollybear]

Intelligent design advocates are working harder and harder to separate the designer away from their claims, but the question still remains. If it is a supernatural designer, then their work is not science. If it is a physical, material designer, then are all the creationists going to stop deifying the Bible and stop believing in God. They cannot have it both ways.

Man, you just keep banging away at twisting and misrepresenting what we IDers believe. And you wanna call me a fraud? How dar you. And your a "bible believer" yourself.

You make absolute ZERO sense to me.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Wow this looks rather biased

I can offer a criticism. We have a good but broken world. Intelligent design doesn't grapple with the brokenness sin and suffering in the world.

Creationism does offer explanation for brokenness sin and suffering

 

[Salvador]

Even if there were an intelligent designer of life, that wouldn't necessarily mean this creator is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient nor highly benevolent. Maybe we're just merely simulated beings whose Creator is a post human futuristic distant relatives of people whom we duplicate in our ancestral simulation. Or perhaps, our Creator could be an advanced extraterrestrial civilization who has programmed us simulated conscious beings along with our simulated surroundings for our Creator's amusement.

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

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.

I apply xenoview's razor to the intelligent designer. No one has been able to give objective evidence that designer exist.

Xenoview's razor
Objective claims requires objective evidence