The flaws in Intelligent design

[Jose Fly]

Tell me how to find out.

That's a very good point. Let's say for example that I were to give you a link to a paper from a scientific journal that described the observed evolution of a new species. Would that matter to you?

 

[Audie]

Your inability to define "design" is tripping you up. Your answer assumes a design.

By the way "accidental" is a bit of a strawman when it comes to evolution.

Let him have design for a sec, assuming it could be
proved that some varmint is designed.

Then look at the implications.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Tell me how to find out.

Learn about science. Stop getting your information from unsupported claims. Just a couple of ideas. It is not possible to teach you basic biology on this forum. You will have to do most of the leg work yourself.

 

[dianaiad]

This shows how you are getting ahead of yourself. You are assuming design when you do not have any evidence for it. The time to believe something is after sufficient evidence has been found for that concept. You keep supporting my claims that ID is not science.



I never said that. I said that one must find evidence for one's claims. But if there is no evidence for a claim the rational way to act is not to believe that claim.



No, once again my only claim is that ID is not scientific, it is not a rational belief. You keep supporting that claim of mine.



I have yet to see an ID believer properly approach their beliefs. They go about it backwards. They assume an answer and then try to fit observations to it. The problem is that they have to pretend that certain observations do not exist.

The reason that it is illegal to teach ID in schools is because it is a religious belief and not a scientific one, as you have shown all too well.

Question;

If we basically agree on something, why are you so determined to argue with me?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Let him have design for a sec, assuming it could be
proved that some varmint is designed.

Then look at the implications.

I have tossed the idea of the implications around for a while and am only now focusing more attention on it.

I do not see any evidence that most of the intelligent design advocates on here have given it even passing thought.

 

[dianaiad]

Your inability to define "design" is tripping you up. Your answer assumes a design.

By the way "accidental" is a bit of a strawman when it comes to evolution.

No. My answer assumes NOTHING. My answer is "it doesn't matter to science or the examination of the design, whether it is deliberate or accidental." I keep saying that. You keep ignoring it.

 

[Audie]

Tell me how to find out.

It is kind of like,

Q- "How do I get to Carnegie Hall?"

A- "Practice, practice, practice!"

Some of us here, like myself and the floppy eared one,
put in many many long hours of lecture, lab,
field and library, and are actually interested in the
subjects, not just trying to find an internet site
that proposes to prove it's all preposterous.

We find it very unlikely that you are going to make
a real effort to understand the things you are so sure
must be wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let him have design for a sec, assuming it could be
proved that some varmint is designed.

Then look at the implications.

I know. The "I" in ID clearly does not stand for "intelligent".

 

[Forever_Catholic]

I see we have entered the "gotcha" phase of the discussion where you cannot win based on logic and evidence, so you are going to keep firing out post to trip me up.

It's not a gotcha. I'm trying to get you think about it. if you can ponder that God created the universe, then you could naturally accept the notion that God can create whatever form of life he wants for whatever specialized existence. So a creature might fit neatly into a category of creatures or it might not.

 

[viole]

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.

Well, first of all “intelligent” is question begging. Even if things were designed, that does not exclude stupid design. And indeed there are thngs in nature that look pretty stupid, if they had been designed.

Second, design seems pointless. Take a lion. Designed to capture and eat antelopes. Now take the antelope, designed to escape the lion.

Looks pretty silly to me to design things so that they increase their odds against other designs of mine. Looks like a bored designer that tries to outperform Himself, like those guys who plays solitary chess.

On the other, an iterative arm race between pryas and predators, driven by evolution by natural selection, is much more compelling.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Subduction Zone]

Question;

If we basically agree on something, why are you so determined to argue with me?

I am merely pointing out how ID is an irrational belief. As Audie pointed out what does "design" tell us about the designer?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. My answer assumes NOTHING. My answer is "it doesn't matter to science or the examination of the design, whether it is deliberate or accidental." I keep saying that. You keep ignoring it.

You assume "design" when you can't even define it. One must be able to define one's terms to study them. You keep using a meaningless term. Without a proper definition it cannot those observations are meaningless.

In the sciences terms must be well defined. For example "work" has a very specific meaning. Without a proper definition of such concepts ideas cannot advance.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

That's a very good point. Let's say for example that I were to give you a link to a paper from a scientific journal that described the observed evolution of a new species. Would that matter to you?

I'd be willing to read it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's not a gotcha. I'm trying to get you think about it. if you can ponder that God created the universe, then you could naturally accept the notion that God can create whatever form of life he wants for whatever specialized existence. So a creature might fit neatly into a category of creatures or it might not.

An all powerful God could accomplish anything, but it has no explanatory power. There is no difference between "God did it" than "Magic did it". Also since there is clear evidence for evolution one must ask why God would lie if evolution was not the process for life's development. The reason that various Popes have accepted evolution is that a literal reading of Genesis involves a God that lies. A lying God is a bigger threat to Christianity than evolution is. One needs to pick one's battles.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Hey what are ya going to do with a guy who has
absolute truth?

Still, I bet our friend could not name one bone in a skull,
still less identify what are the diagnostic differences among
reptile, bird, and mammal skulls. I bet I could come up with a fish or two he would know are fish.

That is the problem. When dealing with people that do not see any value in learning or gaining any knowledge that is not directly related to what they want to believe, there is no real discussion with them.

I agree. I doubt he could tell a whale skeleton from a monkey if they were side by side.

 

[Audie]

It's not a gotcha. I'm trying to get you think about it. if you can ponder that God created the universe, then you could naturally accept the notion that God can create whatever form of life he wants for whatever specialized existence. So a creature might fit neatly into a category of creatures or it might not.

Butting in to say that the floppy one and I have thought about
it far far more than you.

Then too, it is far from a "Christian v atheist" thing.

You will find very few educated christians who have a
problem accepting evolution, and god, at the same time.

It is the ones who insist on literal readin' who get all
mixed up trying to defend the undefendable, and attack
things they do not understand.

Of course, a god COULD have done all manner of things,
including making everything last thursday and making it
all look as if it is older. All you are proposing is a string
of if and might.

A careful and dispassionate examination of the actual
evidence, though, does not support the "everything as it
is, poofed by a god" idea.

 

[Audie]

That is the problem. When dealing with people that do not see any value in learning or gaining any knowledge that is not directly related to what they want to believe, there is no real discussion with them.

I agree. I doubt he could tell a whale skeleton from a monkey if they were side by side.

Post some that are a little harder than that and see what
he can do.

 

[Bear Wild]

Here's a good one you might want to start with: https://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Doubt-Explosive-Origin-Intelligent/dp/0062071483 A New York Times best seller with tons of great reviews. Buy it. It will answer many of your questions

As for the Cambrian explosion (The word explosion is deceiving considering that the Cambrian period lasted over 50 million year) there are good biological reasons for the increase in diversity without an intelligent design stopping on earth to genetically rearrange life.

Life is estimated to have begun in the oceans about 3.5 billion to 2.8 billion years in the Archean Eon. By the Proterozoic period starting 2.5 billion years ago you have Cnidarians and Kimbrella fossils with some bilateral body symmetry. Sponge like creatures date 650 million years ago and Coronacollina acula which are sponge-like fossils with hard body parts that date back as far as 560 million years.

During the latter part of the Precambrian era is the development of the Hox genes that control the body plan of an embryo along the head-tail axis. So shortly animals appear on earth the primordial homeobox gene duplicated to form a protohox cluster of two genes. These are still present in cnidara such as hydra. Sponges do not have clustered homeobox genes. The development of these HOX genes created a new way of organized development which would explain the sudden change in diversity of life.

Along with the HOX genes there were environmental changes such as rising levels of atmospheric oxygen and an increase in oceanic calcium concentrations that contributed to the “The Cambrian Explosion”.

The Cambrian diversification is predicted by evolutionary theory with increased variation with the genetic development of the Hox genes along with the changes in environment. This increase in organization of the developing organism gave all kinds of new possibilities. The Hox genes have slowly developed further as seen in more complex organisms of the animal kingdom - just as predicted by evolution.

The alternative - A intelligent designer stopped by the earth sticking different segments of DNA into all of the new organisms but it would take the intelligent designer at least 50 million years to do this only to return to make the next correction in the new era. And return again and again and again to make all of the new updates. This is clearly humans imposing how humans do things rather than understanding how nature does things.

 

[Jose Fly]

I'd be willing to read it.

Okay. I'll post three papers that describe the same thing from different perspectives.

The first is the original paper from 1950 describing the observed evolution of a new species of Tragopogon, a plant found in the palouse region of E. Washington and N. Idaho.

Natural Hybridization and Amphiploidy in the Genus Tragopogon on JSTOR

The next two papers look at the genetic details behind the speciation.

Recent and recurrent polyploidy in Tragopogon (Asteraceae): cytogenetic, genomic and genetic comparisons

Extensive chromosomal variation in a recently formed natural allopolyploid species, Tragopogon miscellus (Asteraceae)

The key takeaway is that this is a repeatedly documented and well studied example of the evolution of a new species that, due to chromosomal differences, is completely reproductively isolated from its parent species, and is able to breed and persist on its own.

 

[Bear Wild]

Enjoyment does not have to be the purpose
There can be purposes in suffering longing for something better as death and suffering swallowed up in redemption some day when God wipes every tear from their eyes

Still you are saying that god likes suffering. Now that is a really compassionate god.