There Can be no "Intelligent Design"

[McBell]

Oh, sure. The fact that one had to happen (without a creator) in order for the other to happen just makes them totally unrelated.

Evolution had to have started from the very first organism. In fact the first organism had to have enough code in its RNA sequence to lead to every living thing in the world today. So you must be right, they are totally unrelated, shouldn't be discussed in the same paragraph at all.

You really should start reading posts for comprehension.
It was already flat out stated that it does not matter in the least if it was abiogenesis or creation, NEITHER one effects evolution.

All you are doing now is revealing not only your ignorance, but that you are not willing (or is it able?) to learn.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If science doesn't know how life began, what is the point of concentrating on how it adapted over time?

If science finally came to terms with the astronomical improbability of life arising by chance and was forced to come face to face with an Intelligent Designer/Creator, would they still make excuses for their decades of conjecture, supposition and guesswork which would all suddenly fall in a heap?

Ummm, because it's important to know how things work? I mean, why not?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Oh, sure. The fact that one had to happen (without a creator) in order for the other to happen just makes them totally unrelated.

But I've already explained that evolution could (and most likely would) be true regardless of whether or not there was a creator.

Evolution had to have started from the very first organism. In fact the first organism had to have enough code in its RNA sequence to lead to every living thing in the world today. So you must be right, they are totally unrelated, shouldn't be discussed in the same paragraph at all.

I don't think you quite understand. Evolution is the process by which life diversifies over time. Abiogenesis is the process by which life is formed through natural, chemical processes. They are not dependent on each other. You don't need to know the origin of the rubber ball in order to observe and understand how a rubber ball rolls down a hill.

 

[First Baseman]

You really should start reading posts for comprehension.
It was already flat out stated that it does not matter in the least if it was abiogenesis or creation, NEITHER one effects evolution.

All you are doing now is revealing not only your ignorance, but that you are not willing (or is it able?) to learn.

You are wrong, sir.

Abiogenesis without a creator absolutely affects evolution. Sorry if you don't buy that but I have already shown that it clearly does.

 

[First Baseman]

But I've already explained that evolution could (and most likely would) be true regardless of whether or not there was a creator.


I don't think you quite understand. Evolution is the process by which life diversifies over time. Abiogenesis is the process by which life is formed through natural, chemical processes. They are not dependent on each other. You don't need to know the origin of the rubber ball in order to observe and understand how a rubber ball rolls down a hill.

I disagree. It's just that simple. The main reason macro-evolution cannot be properly proven is because the original organism cannot be identified - simply because abiogenesis did not happen. Therefore, the creator is the absolute. See Romans 1:20.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You are wrong, sir.

Abiogenesis without a creator absolutely affects evolution. Sorry if you don't buy that but I have already shown that it clearly does.

You've not shown anything, just claimed it. I've already explained that abiogenesis and evolution are unrelated, and whether or not a God is involved doesn't affect the possibility of evolution's occurrence or the way in which it accounts for biodiversity.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I disagree. It's just that simple.

If you can't support you arguments, don't make them.

The main reason macro-evolution cannot be properly proven is because the original organism cannot be identified - simply because abiogenesis did not happen. Therefore, the creator is the absolute. See Romans 1:20.

Do you have any evidence that abiogenesis did not occur? And what does the initial organism have to do with macro-evolution? Even if we had no idea whatsoever about the original life form or how it was created, that does absolutely nothing to dismiss or refute the genetic, geological and archaeological evidence of common ancestry. You're not really making any sense.

 

[First Baseman]

IYou're not really making any sense.

Well, if you can't keep up and follow the conversation, that's on you, Slick.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Well, if you can't keep up and follow the conversation, that's on you, Slick.

The fact that your statements make no sense and have no basis in reality is hardly my fault, champ. The fact that you feel the need to respond only to this one sentence I wrote rather than the entire rest of my argument speaks volumes about your ability to debate this subject reasonably and rationally.

 

[Deeje]

You really should start reading posts for comprehension.
It was already flat out stated that it does not matter in the least if it was abiogenesis or creation, NEITHER one effects evolution.

All you are doing now is revealing not only your ignorance, but that you are not willing (or is it able?) to learn.

"Flat out" statements by evolutionists that go beyond adaptive (micro) change within a species are pure supposition and conjecture. Anyone who claims differently hasn't read or listened to their arguments. "Might have" and "could have" or "this leads us to the conclusion that..." are not statements of scientific fact..they are guesses. "Comprehension" of guesswork and conjecture is of little benefit to anyone IMO. What happened to facts supporting truth? When did the definition of a "theory" have to change to make it sound like "fact"?

If there is a Creator, then his creation took place as he said it did...in the order that he said it did, in his word. It would shoot evolution down like the gigantic fraud that it is. This would greatly affect evolution...so how do you come to the conclusion that it wouldn't change anything?
If there proves to be an Intelligent Designer of all things then nothing will stay the same.

Organic (macro) evolution is a belief system which elicits as much emotion as the opposition demonstrates for creation. Neither side can "prove" anything, so why all the anger?

Isn't it because atheists NEED evolution to be true in order to justify their unbelief.....if there IS a Creator and they have been lobbying against him for all these years, what does that mean for them if he demonstrates himself to be real?

On the other hand, if creation is false and the Bible isn't its textbook, what will faithful believers do? Die happy in the knowledge that the life they lived was the best one possible in this world (love God and neighbor) and that this life is not all there is. (something to look forward to in the future) Why does make so many people cranky?

 

[Deeje]

That's like asking if we don't know the origin of physical forces, what is the point of concentrating on gravity? There is a lot of point to it: understanding how life develops over time, the mechanisms that allow for populations to change, and a greater understanding of the biological world and how it functions. How is that not a good point?

All of that is good but unless you give credit where credit is due, you miss the point of its existence....of our existence.
Intelligent Creation gives our lives purpose and a reason to be here. Intelligent creatures need reasons for why things exist, not simply that they exist and can adapt. Science likes to explore reasons but balks at a Creator because it seems to be in the realms of fantasy....and some of the creationists have some pretty lousy stories that feed that assumption.....but I believe that there is middle ground that is reasonable and believable. God and science are partners, not opposites.

Gravity is a law...an unchangeable set of circumstances where there are no loopholes. "What goes up, must come down"...very basic stuff. But how many laws exist without a law maker and a penalty? If you defy the law of gravity, can you plead ignorance and somehow fail to pay the penalty?

What science knows about gravity has grown exponentially since Newton mused over the apple. The law of gravity extended out into the whole universe! Other laws were discovered that govern things we cannot see from our earth-bound position. Sending satellites with sophisticated cameras out into space has given us new insights into what is "out there". The images beamed back, simply take our breath away. Can a human brain with any intelligence imagine that all this came from nothing without intelligent direction?

What does this have to do with anything, and on what basis do you assert the probability of life arising "by chance"?

Evolutionists resist talking about how life began because it might force them to come to terms with the probability that there is more evidence for an Intelligent Creator than there is for life spontaneously popping into existence on its own by chance, on a "Goldilocks" planet, and then evolving into all the life forms we see on earth today. We then end up with an intelligent species that thinks they are far too clever to believe in the one who designed them in the first place.

We are all able to acquire knowledge and come to our own conclusions based on what appeals to our hearts. But knowing what the choices really are is important. Informed choice is the only one worth making.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

All of that is good but unless you give credit where credit is due, you miss the point of its existence....of our existence.
Intelligent Creation gives our lives purpose and a reason to be here. Intelligent creatures need reasons for why things exist, not simply that they exist and can adapt. Science likes to explore reasons but balks at a Creator because it seems to be in the realms of fantasy....and some of the creationists have some pretty lousy stories that feed that assumption.....but I believe that there is middle ground that is reasonable and believable. God and science are partners, not opposites.

Gravity is a law...an unchangeable set of circumstances where there are no loopholes. "What goes up, must come down"...very basic stuff. But how many laws exist without a law maker and a penalty? If you defy the law of gravity, can you plead ignorance and somehow fail to pay the penalty?

What science knows about gravity has grown exponentially since Newton mused over the apple. The law of gravity extended out into the whole universe! Other laws were discovered that govern things we cannot see from our earth-bound position. Sending satellites with sophisticated cameras out into space has given us new insights into what is "out there". The images beamed back, simply take our breath away. Can a human brain with any intelligence imagine that all this came from nothing without intelligent direction?



Evolutionists resist talking about how life began because it might force them to come to terms with the probability that there is more evidence for an Intelligent Creator than there is for life spontaneously popping into existence on its own by chance, on a "Goldilocks" planet, and then evolving into all the life forms we see on earth today. We then end up with an intelligent species that thinks they are far too clever to believe in the one who designed them in the first place.

We are all able to acquire knowledge and come to our own conclusions based on what appeals to our hearts. But knowing what the choices really are is important. Informed choice is the only one worth making.

Certainly Darwin considered that a valid point, that if we found we could never explain what spontaneous unguided process created life in the first place, it was difficult to assume it was spontaneous and unguided thereafter
He identified many potential fatal flaws in the theory, long before they were as well established scientifically as they are today

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

The classic example arguing for intelligent design in the universe is William Paley’s “watchmaker” analogy. If, while roaming along a beach full of sand, rocks and random, chaotic waves, any reasonable person finds and picks up a pocket watch, he or she would understand that it was very different from the rest of the natural surroundings, that it was artificial, that it had purpose and that it was DESIGNED by an intelligence.

This analogy is used to argue for Intelligent Design in the establishing of the universe, in ranges all the way from a very subtle form (arranging the laws of nature by an intelligent creator) to a very literal and explicit form (that everything, including humans, were deliberately and specifically designed in moments of special creation).

I’m sure I can find writings from experts on both sides of the fence that answer the following questions. But I’m interested in opinions among us generally:

Paley contrasts the obvious design of the watch with the obvious non-design of the natural shoreline to argue positively that the universe at large is designed. But, if we take the situation literally (and I do understand, no analogy is meant to be), then the watch was designed by a being (a human) who itself was designed by a designer – the SAME designer that designed the sand, rocks and seawater. Hence, these other features are ALSO intelligently designed.

So, in real life, in cosmic terms, it seems impossible to distinguish between the design of a watch and the natural environment. If a creator made all in a moment (or six days) of special creation, then no aspect, no particle, no force, nor feature of that cosmos is NOT intelligently designed.

On what basis, then, can one claim that the universe IS intelligently designed since no one has ever experienced any phenomenon that is not intelligently designed? Doesn’t the universe appear to us in a way that can just as easily called “UN-intelligently” designed as “intelligently designed”?

Isn’t the question of intelligent design of a universe that contains everything meaningless and illogical?

That is quite a well thought out argument.

But it requires the concept of 'quality' to expose its flaw.

The well-designed universe would include within it, aspects which are deliberately of low-quality design.
Thus the inhabitant of the universe would live in a state oscillating between the beautiful and the mundane.
This is because it requires this contrast in order for the concept 'beautiful' to have meaning.
If all were beautiful, then beauty itself would be mundane.

So the person how lived in an entirely clockwork and mechanical world and discovered
a lagoon with a desert island and palm trees, would then use this island as the most perfect example of creation.

Someone who had escaped a dystopian world controlled by man-made machines,
and had sought refuge to the exotic island, may use the example of a the watch as proof that the devil exists.

Either way, we realize that Perfection (God) is always offset by banality as a necessary construct of meaning.

So when you say

Isn’t the question of intelligent design of a universe that contains everything meaningless and illogical?

You are trying to contain 'everything' within the quantitative parameters of logic.
Instead of seeing that some things require the qualitative phenomenon of experience.

...

You see, if you really believed that questions like the above quote were illogical,
then you would have no reason to ask it.

By asking the question, you are implying that either:
(A) a logical answer is forthcoming,
or
(B) the question has no logical answer.

Because you are expecting an answer, you must know that the question is logical.

Thus you must know God exists,
but what you do not know is to what extent God has a qualitative influence on this life of yours.
That requires intent on your part.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

All of that is good but unless you give credit where credit is due, you miss the point of its existence....of our existence.
Intelligent Creation gives our lives purpose and a reason to be here. Intelligent creatures need reasons for why things exist, not simply that they exist and can adapt. Science likes to explore reasons but balks at a Creator because it seems to be in the realms of fantasy....and some of the creationists have some pretty lousy stories that feed that assumption.....but I believe that there is middle ground that is reasonable and believable. God and science are partners, not opposites.

That's all well and good, but there is no need for science to evoke the existence of something when it has no reason or basis on which to assume it is true.

Gravity is a law...an unchangeable set of circumstances where there are no loopholes.

Not quite. There is a law of gravity, but gravity itself isn't a law. The law of gravity is a description of the Universal constant related to gravity. The theory of gravity explains this law, amongst other aspects of gravity.

"What goes up, must come down"...very basic stuff. But how many laws exist without a law maker and a penalty? If you defy the law of gravity, can you plead ignorance and somehow fail to pay the penalty?

Physical laws aren't the same as man-made laws. This is simple equivocation. Physical laws are descriptions of constants we see in nature. There is no requirement for their to me a "law maker".

What science knows about gravity has grown exponentially since Newton mused over the apple. The law of gravity extended out into the whole universe! Other laws were discovered that govern things we cannot see from our earth-bound position. Sending satellites with sophisticated cameras out into space has given us new insights into what is "out there". The images beamed back, simply take our breath away. Can a human brain with any intelligence imagine that all this came from nothing without intelligent direction?

Yes.

Evolutionists resist talking about how life began because it might force them to come to terms with the probability that there is more evidence for an Intelligent Creator than there is for life spontaneously popping into existence on its own by chance, on a "Goldilocks" planet, and then evolving into all the life forms we see on earth today. We then end up with an intelligent species that thinks they are far too clever to believe in the one who designed them in the first place.

Well, as soon as you present any evidence for the existence of such a creator, I'd be more than happy to discuss it. Until then, we only have two facts: 1) life started at some point, and 2) there is no reasonable evidence to suggest that any intelligent agency was responsible for said life.

We are all able to acquire knowledge and come to our own conclusions based on what appeals to our hearts. But knowing what the choices really are is important. Informed choice is the only one worth making.

Agreed, which is why I refute the misinformation spread by creationists constantly.

 

[Deeje]

That's all well and good, but there is no need for science to evoke the existence of something when it has no reason or basis on which to assume it is true.

Bible believers have no reason to believe that purposeful creation is not true. They see with their own eyes what is around them every day. Logic dictates that all this had to start somewhere and there is no real proof in evolutionary science to make God disappear in logical minds unless they have swallowed the propaganda fully immersed in rhetoric that is nothing more than assumption..
If you want God to go away...he will. Believe me...he has no use for those who have no use for him.

There is a law of gravity, but gravity itself isn't a law. The law of gravity is a description of the Universal constant related to gravity. The theory of gravity explains this law, amongst other aspects of gravity.

Which doesn't alter the substance of what I said at all. That is just meaningless jargon designed to make the argument sound flawed.....it isn't.

Physical laws aren't the same as man-made laws.

Then why call them "laws"? All laws are put in place and enforced by someone....why should natural laws be any different? Can you circumvent them? Someone put them in place.....someone who could plan ahead. Blind chance can't do that.

This is simple equivocation. Physical laws are descriptions of constants we see in nature. There is no requirement for their to me a "law maker".

Unless, of course you see "nature" as the designer instead of God. You just swapped a Father for a Mother is all. So there is your belief system, right there.
We see God as the designer of "nature", not nature as the unintelligent accidental designer of all things.

Well, as soon as you present any evidence for the existence of such a creator, I'd be more than happy to discuss it. Until then, we only have two facts: 1) life started at some point, and 2) there is no reasonable evidence to suggest that any intelligent agency was responsible for said life.

The impasse exists because science cannot produce anything more than conjecture and supposition for the absence of an intelligent agency responsible for, not only life, but of its amazingly complex systems and interactions and symbiosis in an intricate and co-dependent Eco-system. That all just all came about by chance, did it? You can keep that fantasy if you like...mine is far more satisfying and gives me hope for the future.....your belief system is a dead end...literally.

Agreed, which is why I refute the misinformation spread by creationists constantly.

What about the misinformation spread by godless science? We all have choices so let's be honest about them. Anyone who accuses believers of not having "evidence" better be able to produce better than the empty unsubstantiated claims they have at present. Just because something "might have" happened, doesn't mean it did.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Bible believers have no reason to believe that purposeful creation is not true. They see with their own eyes what is around them every day. Logic dictates that all this had to start somewhere and there is no real proof in evolutionary science to make God disappear in logical minds unless they have swallowed the propaganda fully immersed in rhetoric that is nothing more than assumption..
If you want God to go away...he will. Believe me...he has no use for those who have no use for him.

You've not really presented any logic that indicates the existence of a God, and as has been said here and countless other times elsewhere, evolution has nothing to do with the existence of a God or Gods. It is not evolution that lead me to lack belief in the existence of God - it is the complete absence of evidence and reasonable logic. That is another topic, however.

Which doesn't alter the substance of what I said at all. That is just meaningless jargon designed to make the argument sound flawed.....it isn't.

It absolutely alters what you said. You said that gravity was "a law". It isn't. A law is a Universal constant that can usually be described mathematically - gravity isn't that. There is a law OF gravity, which is part of the theory of gravity. Gravity itself is not "a law".

Then why call them "laws"?

Why call toilet cakes "cakes"?

All laws are put in place and enforced by someone....why should natural laws be any different?

Why should they be the same? Because we use the same word? Do you honestly think that's a reasonable argument? Do you you think toilet cakes are made in bakeries?

Can you circumvent them? Someone put them in place.....someone who could plan ahead. Blind chance can't do that.

Prove it.

Unless, of course you see "nature" as the designer instead of God. You just swapped a Father for a Mother is all. So there is your belief system, right there.

Except nature demonstrably exists.

We see God as the designer of "nature", not nature as the unintelligent accidental designer of all things.

That is your flawed ideology.

The impasse exists because science cannot produce anything more than conjecture and supposition for the absence of an intelligent agency responsible for, not only life, but of its amazingly complex systems and interactions and symbiosis in an intricate and co-dependent Eco-system. That all just all came about by chance, did it? You can keep that fantasy if you like...mine is far more satisfying and gives me hope for the future.....your belief system is a dead end...literally.

This is just a false dichotomy - either God did it, or it was "chance". Do you know what "chance" even means? If life came about as a result of natural, chemical processes governed by physical laws acting in a particular state, what about that is "chance"? None of it. Also, I have no idea what you are postulating about my belief system considering I've said absolutely nothing whatsoever about it, so you have no basis on which to judge my belief system. All I can say is that yours is obviously very flimsy and desperate if you base it on what you personally find "satisfying" and have to deny facts in order to keep it from crumbling to pieces.

What about the misinformation spread by godless science?

Such as...?

We all have choices so let's be honest about them. Anyone who accuses believers of not having "evidence" better be able to produce better than the empty unsubstantiated claims they have at present. Just because something "might have" happened, doesn't mean it did.

You're the one claiming God exists and doing so without any evidence. The burden of proof is on you. Evolution has met its burden of proof with the mountain of archaeological, geological and genetic evidence that all indicate common descent. If you can produce 1/100th of the demonstrable, testable evidence which evolution has for your God, I would give you all the credit in the world.

Just because you believe something, doesn't make it true.

 

[SkepticThinker]

"Flat out" statements by evolutionists that go beyond adaptive (micro) change within a species are pure supposition and conjecture. Anyone who claims differently hasn't read or listened to their arguments. "Might have" and "could have" or "this leads us to the conclusion that..." are not statements of scientific fact..they are guesses. "Comprehension" of guesswork and conjecture is of little benefit to anyone IMO. What happened to facts supporting truth? When did the definition of a "theory" have to change to make it sound like "fact"?

If there is a Creator, then his creation took place as he said it did...in the order that he said it did, in his word. It would shoot evolution down like the gigantic fraud that it is. This would greatly affect evolution...so how do you come to the conclusion that it wouldn't change anything?
If there proves to be an Intelligent Designer of all things then nothing will stay the same.

Organic (macro) evolution is a belief system which elicits as much emotion as the opposition demonstrates for creation. Neither side can "prove" anything, so why all the anger?

Isn't it because atheists NEED evolution to be true in order to justify their unbelief.....if there IS a Creator and they have been lobbying against him for all these years, what does that mean for them if he demonstrates himself to be real?

On the other hand, if creation is false and the Bible isn't its textbook, what will faithful believers do? Die happy in the knowledge that the life they lived was the best one possible in this world (love God and neighbor) and that this life is not all there is. (something to look forward to in the future) Why does make so many people cranky?

Why could this supposed creator not have created evolution? It's supposed to be intelligent, isn't it?
How would we be able to determine which creator did all the creating? What studies could we carry out that would help us make that determination?
What reason do you have to assume that some supposed creator would just so happen to be the very one you believe in rather than one of the thousands of other gods humans have believed in throughout our history?


The theory of evolution isn't a belief system. It's a scientific theory. It's the explanation for the diversity of life on earth that best fits the available evidence. Scientists generally don't speak in absolutes like some religions tend to do because science is set up in such a way that it's open to modifying itself based on the discovery of new information. However, it is a fact that organisms evolve and change over time, just as everything else does. The "may haves" and the "could haves" that you dislike so much aren't just random guesses; rather, they are educated guesses based on the available evidence, made by people who spend their lives studying this stuff, but they are always open to modification. What's more honest than that?
On the other hand, intelligent design isn't a scientific theory, it's not demonstrable in the same way that evolution is, and it's not falsifiable, like evolution is.

As an atheist, I don't need evolution to be true. My lack of belief in god(s) based on what I think is a lack of good evidence for any god(s) isn't contingent on whether or not evolution is a fact of life.

 

[Etritonakin]

Just to add something. Self-organizing systems exist in nature, like crystals, lipid bubbles, and such, and it's usually spontaneous.

Things will organize and interact based on their properties. Even our creativity is manipulation of that self-organization. Though we can produce arrangements which would not have otherwise self-organized, the components self-organize in the new configuration (natural equilibrium in unnatural states).

Indefinite lifespan would require being taken out of the loop -or manipulating the loop to cause constant renewal -perhaps even self-adaptation.
Species could still evolve over generations even if individuals were not subject to death by their own nature -but resources would become less and less available.
The physical life cycle is dependent upon death for resources and space.
It is, for the most part, a closed system.

If individuals were able to adapt to environment, it would not need to happen over generations. If individuals were completely invulnerable and adaptable to environment, extinction would not be an issue -but that brings up many other issues within the closed system.

I suppose the only purpose of indefinite lifespan would be preservation of a self-aware individual with a desire to continue living.

Anyway -if evolution itself produced immortality, it would run itself out of business -or would be in an entirely new business.

Immortality is possible -but it's not very practical for all species to be immortal.
Even if evolution could produce things with indefinite life spans, true immortality would require invulnerability to external forces.

I suppose physical life is like buildings... increased permanence could be achieved by better design and materials -but overwhelming forces would need to be managed or made otherwise to achieve true permanence -unless some combination of material, design and foundation allowed for complete invulnerability.

 

[First Baseman]

The fact that your statements make no sense and have no basis in reality is hardly my fault, champ. The fact that you feel the need to respond only to this one sentence I wrote rather than the entire rest of my argument speaks volumes about your ability to debate this subject reasonably and rationally.

My statements make no sense and have no basis in your reality, which is an illusion you have created that you think satisfies you.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

My statements make no sense and have no basis in your reality, which is an illusion you have created that you think satisfies you.

Let's look at the score:

Statements by you:
"Well, evolution is 100% dependent on abiogenesis if there is no creator." FALSE
"Evolution is dependent on when, where and how abiogenesis occurred, if it did." FALSE
"Abiogenesis without a creator absolutely affects evolution." FALSE
"The main reason macro-evolution cannot be properly proven is because the original organism cannot be identified - simply because abiogenesis did not happen." FALSE

It's fine if you want to go the whole "we have a different perspective on this issue" route, but that's not what you have been doing. You have repeatedly made claims that a more than just opinions - you are claiming them as facts, and the moment you do that you shouldn't be surprised when you run right up against a solid wall of reality.