The Scientific Case for Intelligent Design

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

I think most Evolutionists would be happy with the teaching of an alternate or complementary theory if one existed! As has been said before, Intelligent Design isn't actually a theory - a theory needs to offer a fully self-consistent explanatory framework for a mechanism, and one that needs to be potentially falsifiable.

ID is not falsifiable, since it relies on the existence of some unseen and unseeable Creator, the existence of whom can be neither proved nor disproved. Any objections to the "Theory" can be shrugged off by invoking this Creator concept. Nor does ID offer a self-consistent explanatory framework - in fact it doesn't offer any explanatory framework, it basically just says "God made everything". (You can replace the word "God" with "Creator" or "Intelligent Designer" or "Alien" or whatever you like.)

As I say, I am no biologist and I can't attempt to explain the existence of the flagellum, but I am certain that in time the Evolutionary Biologists will find a sensible way of explaining it...

CB

however you shut down debate, debate is shut down. and what is undeniable is that it's the Darwinists who are closing up the minds.

the proposal is to prevent the teaching of what we have discussed, namely the problem Darwinism has explaining nano-scale complexity.

from the link

A possible scenario for the evolution of the eubacterial flagella is as follows: a secretory system arose first, based around the SMC rod pore forming complex, which was the common ancestor of the type III secretory system, and the flagellar system.

The proto-flagellar filament arose next as part of the protein secretion structure (cf the Pseudomonas pilus, the Salmonella filamentous apendages and the E coli filamentous structures), finally (as suggested by the presence of at least two, if not three, indpendent motors) an ion pump which was doing something else [see note] became associated with this structure and motility (presumably weak) occured fortuitosly. Even today MotAB can freely dissociate and re-associate with the flagellar structure. This early, limited motility was later refined into the more compentent system we see today. Alternatively, the ion pumps became linked to the proto-flagella to provide extra "power" to pump proteins out of the complex, and flagella motion occured via fortuitous mutations in the linkers Fli G,N,M later on. Regulation and switching can be added on later as there are modern eubacteria that lack these and function well in their environments.

there's quite a bit of handwaving away of eons of biological time here and "because it can happen did happen" totally ignoring the enormous probablilities.

one of the better just-so stories that will satisfy Darwinists who don't want to believe their theory is limited at the cellular level but wild speculation to anyone else.

bring on cellular husbandry. I want a petri-dish porsche.

[VillagePlank]

the proposal is to prevent the teaching of what we have discussed, namely the problem Darwinism has explaining nano-scale complexity.

Hmm. Bit of an odd statement, this. If I program my computer logically, does that mean that the quantum interactions clearly occuring follow the laws of Boole? I don't think they do. Why can't evolution occur at the macroscale level?

from the link

there's quite a bit of handwaving away of eons of biological time here and "because it can happen did happen" totally ignoring the enormous probablilities.

Well, great criticism there. Really.

one of the better just-so stories that will satisfy Darwinists who don't want to believe their theory is limited at the cellular level but wild speculation to anyone else.

Hmmm

[Admiral_Bobski]

however you shut down debate, debate is shut down. and what is undeniable is that it's the Darwinists who are closing up the minds.

Shutting down the debate? There is no debate. ID isn't a competing theory. It isn't even a theory. It's a complaint. And what could be more closed-minded than "This evolution stuff's a load of nonsense - God did it all"?

the proposal is to prevent the teaching of what we have discussed, namely the problem Darwinism has explaining nano-scale complexity.

Give me another example of a nano-scale problem - something other than the flagellum - and I'll look into it. As I said before, one complaint does not destroy Evolutionism.

there's quite a bit of handwaving away of eons of biological time here and "because it can happen did happen" totally ignoring the enormous probablilities.

But that's just the point - enormous periods of time allow for enormous probabilities to come to fruition. But regardless of the apparent unlikelihood, it is a plausible evolutionary explanation.

CB

Edited July 16, 2007 by Captain_Bobski

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Hmm. Bit of an odd statement, this. If I program my computer logically, does that mean that the quantum interactions clearly occuring follow the laws of Boole? I don't think they do. Why can't evolution occur at the macroscale level?

Well, great criticism there. Really.

Hmmm

You've not read the preceding discussion. I've not said evolution cannot occur at the macroscale, I've questioned it at the nano-scale which is a far harder test. In fact I've said evolution is the best explanation of the origin of species (even though it's not "proved" and therefore not a "law").

Shutting down the debate? There is no debate. ID isn't a competing theory. It isn't even a theory. It's a complaint. And what could be more closed-minded than "This evolution stuff's a load of nonsense - God did it all"?

Give me another example of a nano-scale problem - something other than the flagellum - and I'll look into it. As I said before, one complaint does not destroy Evolutionism.

But that's just the point - enormous periods of time allow for enormous probabilities to come to fruition. But regardless of the apparent unlikelihood, it is a plausible evolutionary explanation.

CB

Okay, how about this. Newtonian physics, macro-scale physics was a work of intelligent design. Newton believed in a Creator; he believed his laws uncovered God's handiwork.

Newtonian ID was the summit of macro-scale physics, while we are just beginning biological nano-scale scientific investigation.

Another example than the flagellum? Why is another required? Perhaps God just left one clue, one tiny impossible machine that could not hide in evolutionary logic, even given enormous time periods.

However I do note from the wiki page

Although Behe acknowledged that the evolution of the larger anatomical features of the eye have been well-explained, he claimed that the complexity of the minute biochemical reactions required at a molecular level for light sensitivity still defies explanation.

which would bring us back to chemical, nano-scale.

The larger and more complex the biological forms, the more Darwinism makes sense as the explanation, and the harder it is to see it as the work of God.

Edited July 16, 2007 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[Admiral_Bobski]

Okay, how about this. Newtonian physics, macro-scale physics was a work of intelligent design. Newton believed in a Creator; he believed his laws uncovered God's handiwork.

Newtonian ID was the summit of macro-scale physics, while we are just beginning biological nano-scale scientific investigation.

I'm not sure I see where this came from... Newtonian physics is a perfect example of straightforward simplicity. The principles of Newtonian physics are so simple that there really is no need to invoke the idea of a Creator. When we start looking at the sub-atomic in Quantum Mechanics things start getting exponentially more complicated, and yet there is still no need to invoke the idea of a Creator.

Not that any of Physics actively negates the existence of a Creator, you understand.

Another example than the flagellum? Why is another required? Perhaps God just left one clue, one tiny impossible machine that could not hide in evolutionary logic, even given enormous time periods.

Maybe, on the other hand, there's only the one example of an Evolutionary "miracle" that developed a sufficiently unique combination of simplicity and complexity that would baffle biologists for many years.

However I do note from the wiki page...which would bring us back to chemical, nano-scale.

I have read various articles, chapters in books and so on about the development of the eye, and I've never heard anyone make an issue of these biochemical "problems". That doesn't mean there aren't problems, of course, just that they're not often publicised. But I shall take Behe's comments with a pinch of salt, since he's an IDer. It seems rather like his Irreducible Complexity argument was torn apart so he found a straw to clutch at in this "biochemical reaction"....

The larger and more complex the biological forms, the more Darwinism makes sense as the explanation, and the harder it is to see it as the work of God.

Again, there's this idea that evolution denies God in some way - can people not look at the macroscopic world around them and see God in every single thing in nature?

CB

[VillagePlank]

Okay, how about this. Newtonian physics, macro-scale physics was a work of intelligent design. Newton believed in a Creator; he believed his laws uncovered God's handiwork.

Newton also believed that he could turn lead into gold and spent a large part of his life sodding around with alchemy. What is your point?

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Newton also believed that he could turn lead into gold and spent a large part of his life sodding around with alchemy. What is your point?

Newton's scientific investigation into alchemy are often bought up with a flourish to demonstrate Newton's belief in God was equaly "crazy."

What they forget is Newton's macro-physics did uncover the workings of God.

Remember today it's easy to say alchemy was futile and Newton was stupid, but back then there was still serious interest in it. The investigations of this great scientist once and for all showed the impossibity of alchemy.

the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capability of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look at a first cause having an intelliegent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a theist - Charles Darwin (Autobiography).

That's right, Darwin, not Newton.

Religion and science have coexisted fine. The idea ID theory is opposed to science is ridiculous.

Our "intelligent first cause" is noticable at the nano-scale of life, where Darwinian "laws" appear to break down.

For the rest of us, life at macro-scale, Natural Selection is a good enough explanation but it's surface plausability hides a fundamental contradiction.

Again, there's this idea that evolution denies God in some way - can people not look at the macroscopic world around them and see God in every single thing in nature?

CB

Yes. So one has to wonder how it is that thoughtful people have managed to poke holes in Darwinism. And whether its a coincidence they managed this where biology meets chemisty, where Darwinian "laws" are replaced by chemical reactions and physical laws.

[Hiya]

Don't know if anyone has posted this link so far

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6896753.stm

typical BBC sloppiness these days in that the butterfly didn't evolve a gene, the gene expressed in 1% of males was selected by external pressure.

or

God liked this butterfly and he fixed the males so they could live happily forever more.

[PersianPaladin]

Don't know if anyone has posted this link so far

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6896753.stm

typical BBC sloppiness these days in that the butterfly didn't evolve a gene, the gene expressed in 1% of males was selected by external pressure.

or

God liked this butterfly and he fixed the males so they could live happily forever more.

It's been posted x amount of times now, and I'm frankly getting sick of it.

[Hiya]

It's been posted x amount of times now, and I'm frankly getting sick of it.

Is that cause you've seen it so many times or some other reason?

[SP1986]

I think this should be locked in all honesty, there have been some abusive posts perviously, and everyones opinions are hitting the wall. Close the book and write unclassified on it.

Everyone knows that disagreeing with peoples beliefs gives the other person some sort of power until it descends into a virtual reality killing spree in the style of a Roman amphitheatre with people roaring for the criminals death.

There is no science in this thread, lets not claim there is.

[PersianPaladin]

I think this should be locked in all honesty, there have been some abusive posts perviously, and everyones opinions are hitting the wall. Close the book and write unclassified on it.

Everyone knows that disagreeing with peoples beliefs gives the other person some sort of power until it descends into a virtual reality killing spree in the style of a Roman amphitheatre with people roaring for the criminals death.

There is no science in this thread, lets not claim there is.

Bit harsh in saying that there is no science in this thread. VillagePlank myself and others have tried to argue by referring to scientific processes and using deductive reasoning within a measurable material level. Surely that is scientific?

[SP1986]

Bit harsh in saying that there is no science in this thread. VillagePlank myself and others have tried to argue by referring to scientific processes and using deductive reasoning within a measurable material level. Surely that is scientific?

Scientific bits and pieces but its one of those things no one can prove, so therefore it is not hard science. (the topic of the thread) and it has descended from a healthy debate into negative arguments, which don't do the thread any justice.

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Is this thread still open?

Wibs - this is evidence.

ID is based on a number of observations, particularly at a biochemical level, that cannot be accounted for by the theory of evolution by natural selection.

ID theory states that that which has been observed - laws of physics or 45 nanometer wide machines - weredesigned by a designer and not created by a process of blind evolution.

After reading this thread you sort of get the feeling ID needs to be taught in schools to correct the misconceptions around the theory, namely that it's not a theory.

It seems just because some people think "evolution got there first" ID cannot be a theory let alone be proved. Whereas ID is the opposite theory to Darwinism (analogous to Newtonian physics) and itself shows Darwinism has its limits as a theory.

[PersianPaladin]

I have one question.

Is there any evidence at all that points to Intelligent Design being the answer?

And keep it simple please. Some of us don't have time to read up on this subject.

Well, look at the principle of the cell. This principle seems to be replicated (I've said this many times before) not only within the level of biota (organic matter) but macrocosmically up to the the level of plasma (weather systems, solar systems, etc).

Oh, and there are other examples of irreducible complexity, such as this: -

Another example of irreducible complexity is the system that allows proteins to reach the appropriate subcellular compartments. In the eukaryotic cell there are a number of places where specialized tasks, such as digestion of nutrients and excretion of wastes, take place. Proteins are synthesized outside these compartments and can reach their proper destinations only with the help of "signal" chemicals that turn other reactions on and off at the appropriate times. This constant, regulated traffic flow in the cell comprises another remarkably complex, irreducible system. All parts must function in synchrony or the system breaks down. Still another example is the exquisitely coordinated mechanism that causes blood to clot.

Biochemistry textbooks and journal articles describe the workings of some of the many living molecular machines within our cells, but they offer very little information about how these systems supposedly evolved by natural selection. Many scientists frankly admit their bewilderment about how they may have originated, but refuse to entertain the obvious hypothesis: that perhaps molecular machines appear to look designed because they really are designed.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html

Edited July 17, 2007 by PersianPaladin

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Well, look at the principle of the cell. This principle seems to be replicated (I've said this many times before) not only within the level of biota (organic matter) but macrocosmically up to the the level of plasma (weather systems, solar systems, etc).

Hi PP. Can you explain further what you mean here, or provide the page number where you explained earlier? Sounds interesting.

What is the principle of the cell?

How is the weather system and solar system like that?

What are they all designed to do that is the same?

Thanks.

[PersianPaladin]

Hi PP. Can you explain further what you mean here, or provide the page number where you explained earlier? Sounds interesting.

What is the principle of the cell?

How is the weather system and solar system like that?

What are they all designed to do that is the same?

Thanks.

Think I explained this very briefly earlier: -

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?s...t&p=1020551

I think it just represents the basic principle of unity, to be honest. Despite all the complex forms of manifestation, processes, etc...they are all held under a unifying principle of self-perpetuating order replicated at different levels. There is no chaos here.

Another, perhaps, esoteric point is to talk about the chakras of the body that exist (no matter what religion you are) and that they are like spinning wheels of energy.

Edited July 17, 2007 by PersianPaladin

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Thanks for the link.

As intelligent design emphasises logic and purpose it should, to a greater extent than Darwinism, encourage prediction, and through prediction evaluation of theory.

The "unity" in ID I'd thought would be the existence of a Creation rather than an evolution.

ID is not a "unified theory of reality" it's an attempt to find one: the search for the fingerprints of the Creator and the similaries between them.

Newton discovered physical laws of motion that were designed with such logic and purpose they enabled prediction (moon trips). Newtonian laws appear to serve a function of shuttling things about in an orderly way.

So intelligent design whereever it is applied should expect to discover a way to predict things with what is discovered because the things they observe are designed, and have a function.

Darwinians already - unconsciously - smuggle ID "functionalist" philosophy into their work. In fact, if we ignored the functionalist view of biology you ignore most of medicine.

Strictly, evolution is not about design and function but about adaptation and survival. Evolution explains under what circumstances bodies are more likely to break down (what environs they are adapted for, for survival); it doesn't explain the function of something, such as an organ, for prediction purposes.

Because the notion of function requires implicit acceptance of a designer it takes an ID conception of biology and medicine to conceive of things (eg. organs) as having a function.

Evolution only tells us of conditions of survival - when, where and why an organ, such as a heart - might stop - which is useful, but dependent on you having first accepted the organ as an object designed for a function - to pump oxygen and energy around the body.

So the proof of ID is already out there it's just not widely recognised that medicine is linked to the "designed" view of life.

[VillagePlank]

I've had enough of this. So ....

Can a proponent of intelligent design please offer a proposition?

A proposition is generally a statement that can either be true or false but not both. I have searched through this thread and cannot find a single intelligent design proposition that fits this criteria (I've haven't looked too hard, though) If one believes that intelligent design is valid one should also be able to make a proposition without reference to Darwinism or evolution.

Edited July 18, 2007 by VillagePlank

[Osbourne One-Nil]

Perhaps "God" in his infinite wisdom, came up with evolution along the lines that Darwin thought?

[PersianPaladin]

Perhaps "God" in his infinite wisdom, came up with evolution along the lines that Darwin thought?

No, he would find it un-intelligent.

[PersianPaladin]

I've had enough of this. So ....

Can a proponent of intelligent design please offer a proposition?

A proposition is generally a statement that can either be true or false but not both. I have searched through this thread and cannot find a single intelligent design proposition that fits this criteria (I've haven't looked too hard, though) If one believes that intelligent design is valid one should also be able to make a proposition without reference to Darwinism or evolution.

I think me and AF have given at least 3 examples of irreducible complexity that demonstrate the logic of the concept of ID. I also talked about the principle of unity seen in creation and it supports the case for an Intelligence; rather than a haphazard occurrence. If randomness ultimately doesn't exist...then logically, everything is a reflection of intelligence.

Edited July 18, 2007 by PersianPaladin

[VillagePlank]

I think me and AF have given at least 3 examples of irreducible complexity that demonstrate the logic of the concept of ID. I also talked about the principle of unity seen in creation and it supports the case for an Intelligence; rather than a haphazard occurrence. If randomness ultimately doesn't exist...then logically, everything is a reflection of intelligence.

How about reconstructing this as a positive proposition?

The criteria is, that each statement must be able to be attributed a boolean tag - true or false. Thanks very much for your opinion on the history of this thread, and thanks for the final conditional statement (the use of the word 'if') but you still actually haven't proposed anything.

There are no grounds for argument if you do not set out a proposition. Until you do, I'm afraid, it will be seen by all as supposition and ramblings; ultimately a waste of my time and yours.

(Incidentally, if you bought the under-graduate book, An Introduction to Mathematical Reasoning - Numbers, Sets and functions, by Peter J Eccles, then at this stage your sense of reasoning with respect to ID has only made it to page 3, which is the first page of the first chapter)

Edited July 18, 2007 by VillagePlank

[PersianPaladin]

How about reconstructing this as a positive proposition?

The criteria is, that each statement must be able to be attributed a boolean tag - true or false. Thanks very much for your opinion on the history of this thread, and thanks for the final conditional statement (the use of the word 'if') but you still actually haven't proposed anything.

There are no grounds for argument if you do not set out a proposition. Until you do, I'm afraid, it will be seen by all as supposition and ramblings; ultimately a waste of my time and yours.

(Incidentally, if you bought the under-graduate book, An Introduction to Mathematical Reasoning - Numbers, Sets and functions, by Peter J Eccles, then at this stage your sense of reasoning with respect to ID has only made it to page 3, which is the first page of the first chapter)

I have made a proposition. I have used 3 examples of irreducible complexity, I have talked about the unity of principles from biota to plasma and the nature of harmony. I have thus proposed that such consistency and harmony is clear evidence of an intelligent design; not randomness or chance.

Enough with semantics. Please listen to our arguments.

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

VillagePlank, the proposition is ID allows for effective predictions, based on function and design, while Darwinism does not.