The flaws in Intelligent design

[Timothy Spurlin]

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.


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?


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.


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.


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.


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.

What objective evidence do you have that a god exist?

 

[dianaiad]

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.

Wait. What?

That's like saying that if someone designed a car, then science cannot be used to figure out when it's broken and fix it. As well, what makes you think that an intelligent designer wasn't using science to do the designing? Not to mention that if the scientific method can be used to figure out something an intelligent designer has done, then....it's 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.

Of course we can 'have it both ways.'

Well, perhaps not the 'deifying the bible' part, but believing in God AND that He is a physical, material designer? I think that most theists can manage that one.

 

[dianaiad]

What objective evidence do you have that a god exist?

None. Not everything can be proven through objective evidence. Belief in deity is a very subjective idea...and 'subjective' isn't a swear word.

 

[robocop (actually)]

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.

Thank you. I thought you were debunking anti-Intelligent Design arguments and liked it. If you weren't, well then I'll have to read more closely and give your article a chance to change my mind.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

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.

We disagree on all these points, of course, but the statement above is worthy of special notice for how it cracks me up. "... the evolution of life is virtually assured" -- That's funny!

 

[Jose Fly]

@Wild Fox you raise two good points against ID creationism. There certainly are others, but in the big picture it doesn't really matter.

ID creationism is dead.

It was crafted as a political strategy to get creationist talking points in schools, but the Dover decision effectively killed that. It's so dead in that context that even the Discovery Institute doesn't advocate for it to be taught, even though they believe it's not unconstitutional to do so.

It was stillborn as a science and hasn't done a single thing since it first came about. It hasn't generated a single new discovery, advancement, or avenue of research. It's advocates don't even try to make their case to the scientific community.

So unless something changes in a major way, we may as well be arguing about flat-earthism.

ID creationism is dead.....has been for some time now.

 

[Audie]

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.

if a designer can be detected, directly or indirectly,
that seems a thing for science.


We infer the intelligent design in the nature of ancient
artifacts.

You dont have to know who, or why.

Maybe outer space monsters made the pyramids;
for sure, someone did, they did not just happen, as
creos might say, "randomly".

 

[Bear Wild]

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.

That is one of the reasons I posted this. I finally understand the motive. The trick is to try and make a convincing argument that life is too complex to have been created without someone designing it. They use statistical methods incorrectly to make it sound impossible without realizing that by applying statistics despite how rare an event may be it is therefore possible. By creating the view that intelligent design is the only explanation then the next step of connecting it to a deity is obvious so they go to great lengths to separate themselves from proving god did it.

 

[Audie]

We disagree on all these points, of course, but the statement above is worthy of special notice for how it cracks me up. "... the evolution of life is virtually assured" -- That's funny!

If you are "catholic" why do you disagree with the pope?
Based on your posts, it cannot be detailed knowledge of
science-so what is it, oh cracked one?

 

[Forever_Catholic]

What objective evidence do you have that a god exist?

If you ever decide to seek God with a sincere heart and a receptive mind, then you will come to know Him as a reality. You will recognize his responses to you. You might even have a miraculous conversion experience. This sort of first-hand knowledge is definitive proof for any individual who receives it, but it cannot then be proven to others.

 

[Bear Wild]

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

Natural forces created you, me, foxes and raccoons along with all of the beauty in our natural world. Isn't it amazing. No arguments over my god is the real one and yours is not. Simply the beauty the natural processes that gave us everything.

 

[Audie]

If you ever decide to seek God with a sincere heart and a receptive mind, then you will come to know Him as a reality. You will recognize his responses to you. You might even have a miraculous conversion experience. This sort of first-hand knowledge is definitive proof for any individual who receives it, but it cannot then be proven to others.

Likewise if you ever sincerely seek to increase your knowledge of
science you will soon give up some of your cherished notions.

Try it!

 

[Audie]

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 ]

"Dog ate homework" is also an explanation.

 

[Audie]

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

"Avatar"! Please!

The time I wasted ttying to figure out if
"evator" is the personal agent for Eve,
Ethyl vinyly acetate or Earned Value Analysis!!

 

[Bear Wild]

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.


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?


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.


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.


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.


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.

First there is overlap in genetic material with well conserved portions that are common to all species but there are genetic segments that are clearly different. Since the fossil evidence shows changes in species then the intelligent designer must be visiting us all of the time to make corrections and the only way to make those corrections is to change the genetic code. That is unless you reject everything we understand about genetics. So until someone who believes in intelligent design can show an organism with brand new genetic segment never before seen with a new complex protein (and not a modification) never before seen then they are just trying to snow everyone into believing that nature does not have the creative ability that we have evidence of. Also how does this intelligent designer go in and alter the genetic code? Certainty a god that would talk to that gods followers could explain how that god places new segments of DNA into the genetic code. Maybe someone could ask the intelligent designer the believe in to find out.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

If you are "catholic" why do you disagree with the pope?
Based on your posts, it cannot be detailed knowledge of
science-so what is it, oh cracked one?

Darwinism is contrary to Catholic teaching, but the Church does not prohibit Catholics from believing that God has used some form of (unspecified) evolutionary process(es) in creation. I don't.
The Church is infallible in matters of faith and morals, but the Pope is not infallible in his personal opinions. Pope Francis has not changed any doctrines, so I have no disagreement with him in that regard. On the other hand, I disagree with many of his personal opinions as he has stated them, particularly about evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wait. What?

That's like saying that if someone designed a car, then science cannot be used to figure out when it's broken and fix it. As well, what makes you think that an intelligent designer wasn't using science to do the designing? Not to mention that if the scientific method can be used to figure out something an intelligent designer has done, then....it's science.

If you can't use the scientific method it is not science. Tell me, what reasonable test could refute the existence of this designer? If you can't answer that question it is not science by definition.

Of course we can 'have it both ways.'

Well, perhaps not the 'deifying the bible' part, but believing in God AND that He is a physical, material designer? I think that most theists can manage that one.

At least it looks as if you know that when IDists talk about a 'designer' they are really trying to sneak God into the equation.

 

[Jollybear]

Natural forces created you, me, foxes and raccoons along with all of the beauty in our natural world. Isn't it amazing. No arguments over my god is the real one and yours is not. Simply the beauty the natural processes that gave us everything.

So "naturalism did it" of the gaps, hey?

 

[Jollybear]

"Avatar"! Please!

The time I wasted ttying to figure out if
"evator" is the personal agent for Eve,
Ethyl vinyly acetate or Earned Value Analysis!!

Oh is that how ya spell it? What if my mouth pronounces it as avatOre?

Would it be a misspell then?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Man, you just keep banging away at twisting and misrepresenting what we IDers believe.

That is not true. I am on point with what intelligent design states. You just do not understand it.

And you wanna call me a fraud?

I have never called you a fraud.

How dar you.

How dare you make up lies about me. That is false witness.

And your a "bible believer" yourself.

I am a Christian. I am not a creationist, deifying the Bible.

You make absolute ZERO sense to me.

Of course. What I have to say relates to science, is not irrational and is based on logic, reason and evidence.