The Scientific Case for Intelligent Design

[Admiral_Bobski]

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

Can you prove that proposition true by giving an example of one of ID's effective predictions?

CB

[shuggee]

But CB - asking for evidence is a sin and thou shall be struck down.

[Roo]

I have made a proposition. I have used 3 examples of irreducible complexity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

I particularly like the paragraph that says:

'Critics consider that most, or all, of the examples were based on misunderstandings of the workings of the biological systems in question, and consider the low quality of these examples excellent evidence for the argument from ignorance. Irreducible complexity is generally dismissed by the majority of the scientific community;^[3] it is often referred to as pseudoscience.^[7]'

This is good too:

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldO.../box/behe.shtml

especially,

'The conclusion that an "irreducibly complex system cannot be produced gradually by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system" is simply wrong. There are at least three different ways that an IC system can be produced by a series of small modifications: 1) Improvements become necessities, 2) Loss of scaffolding 3) Duplication and divergence. By Behe's definition, many systems we see around us are IC, and yet have developed gradually. Think of the chaotic growth of towns into large cities, the self-organizing forces behind market economies, and the delicate causal webs that define complex ecosystems. Evolutionary algorithms run on computers routinely evolve irreducibly complex designs. So given an IC system, it could either be the product of coordinated design, or of a gradual, cumulative, stochastic process. The truth is, we should expect Darwinian evolution to produce such systems in biology, and not be surprised to find them. The underlying processes are called co-adaptation and co-evolution, and they have been understood for many years. Biochemical structures and pathways are not built up one step at a time in linear assembly-line fashion to meet some static function. They evolve layer upon layer, contingency upon contingency, always in flux, and retooling to serve current functions. The ability of life to evolve in this fashion has itself evolved over time. Detecting IC does not indicate design, and therefore Behe's hypothesis collapses.'

And this is definitely worth a read (in fact, can we have it as a forum sticky???):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Edited July 18, 2007 by Roo

[shuggee]

Here's a good one from that wiki site Roo:

"If polar bears are (the) dominant (predator) in the Arctic, then there would seem to have been no need for them to evolve a white-coloured form of camouflage." In his book Probability of God, Anglican Bishop Hugh William Montefiore casts doubt on neo-Darwinian evolution with that statement. This argument from lack of imagination was famously dismissed by the evolutionary theorist Richard Dawkins in his book The Blind Watchmaker, who wrote that if the writer had thought to imagine a black polar bear trying to sneak up on a seal in the arctic, he would see the evolutionary value of such fur.

I bet, not for the first time, the Bishop felt a bit silly

[Admiral_Bobski]

But CB - asking for evidence is a sin and thou shall be struck down.

Oops - hope there's no thunderstorms forecast for a while...!

CB

[Hiya]

Sense has prevailed upon this thread!

[Admiral_Bobski]

Here's another Wiki page (linked from the page about "Argument from Ignorance", but posted here for easy access!):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_ga...in_modern_usage

CB

[shuggee]

I think this thread has to receive an award - and to plaigerise a well known speech:

Never in the field of weather forums has so much nonsense been written by so few - yet it's managed to get to 18 pages

[Osbourne One-Nil]

Except threads started by Blizzards.

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Can you prove that proposition true by giving an example of one of ID's effective predictions?

CB

Medicine. The heart is designed to pump blood, which contains oxygen and nutrients, throughout the body to keep all the cells alive. Prediction: when the heart stops this process ends and the body dies.

Darwinian might add detail about the conditions in which a heart may continue to function but nothing about what the function is. This is what I meant when I said Darwinists often "smuggle" ID concepts into their explanations.

In my conception of ID neither "irreducible complexity" or Darwinism are provable. However my place in this debate is long past its shelf-live.

There is more for me to read and learn on both sides of the debate.

[PersianPaladin]

I think this thread has to receive an award - and to plaigerise a well known speech:

Never in the field of weather forums has so much nonsense been written by so few - yet it's managed to get to 18 pages

Shugee, with respect, you are behaving like a sheep. You merely follow the accepted theory (and yes, its a theory not fact) without actually creating arguments yourself. By attacking me and AF without creating your own case or going to the effort of analysis, you are making yourself look both condescending and foolish.

[VillagePlank]

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.

There is no clear proposition, here.

I'll help you out: try 'All living things are designed' You shouldn't insert the arguments into a proposition. Besides, the fact is that it makes the proposition look weak. I mean consider the proposition that 1+1=2; you wouldn't want to someone to attach the complete argument for integers, now, would you?

Are you happy with the notion that 'All living things are designed' ?

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

This presumes that ID is a defacto truth. We haven't established that, yet. In fact we haven't even established what ID actually is. We have pages of so-called 'evidence' for a theory which remains completely ill-defined. Whilst it is amusing (and passes the time) throwing mud at each other there will always be a time when your hand is called, and the obfuscation of the inner belief will need to stop.

Regardless of PP's wish to stop playing with semantics, he still needs to tell us what he regards as ID. He hasn't yet. I doubt he will. Watch out for obfuscation, and complex rhetoric which ultimately say nothing.

I hope I am wrong, and that PP can actually simplify and summarise what he is trying to say.

Edited July 19, 2007 by VillagePlank

[Admiral_Bobski]

Medicine. The heart is designed to pump blood, which contains oxygen and nutrients, throughout the body to keep all the cells alive. Prediction: when the heart stops this process ends and the body dies.

Darwinian might add detail about the conditions in which a heart may continue to function but nothing about what the function is. This is what I meant when I said Darwinists often "smuggle" ID concepts into their explanations.

What is called for, I think, is a Prediction which is unique to ID - the suggestion you give is a basic prediction which can be derived from any number of different fields or theories. You could derive the same prediction from the basic principles of evolution, but since Evolution came before ID (unless you accept that ID is just straightforward Creationism) it is unfair - not to mention untrue - to say that Darwinists have "smuggled" this concept from ID.

CB

[Roo]

Shugee, with respect, you are behaving like a sheep.

And with OON about, you really, really, really, do NOT want to be doing that Mr Shugs!

[PersianPaladin]

I found this quite interesting when it comes to the problematic nature of evolutionary theory: -

Some people wonder how the evolutionary process got started in the first place; this is the Argument against the First Replicator. Evolution is simple...once you have a replicating molecule; just sit back and wait for mistakes to start happening. But how do you get that first self-replicating bundle of atoms? The structure of even the very simplest replicator molecule, possibly some comparatively simple variation of RNA (ribonucleic acid), would still have to have been so complex (at least 20,000 specific atoms randomly falling into a perfect 3-dimensional matrix with not one atom out of place) that one couldn't reasonably expect it to have formed by random collision and cohesion (a one in 10^40,000 chance, according to calculations done by astronomer Fred Hoyle). With only 10⁸⁰ fundamental particles in the observable universe, and only 4x10¹⁸ seconds since its creation 14 billion years ago, well, there simply hasn't been enough roles-of-the-dice for such a fantastically improbable event to have occurred based purely on chance: if every particle in the cosmos had a collision event once per second for 14 billion years, you'd only have had about 10¹⁰⁰ events. Of course, blind chance was not the only force at work upon those bustling atoms in the early terrestrial soup; nature and chemistry favor a certain few kinds of possible chemical bonds over a vast number of other statistically possible combinations that are chemically impossible. But this line of thought is almost more unsettling. The laws of the universe are such that the formation of complex self-replicating molecules, contrary to one in 10^40,000 odds, was inevitable? What are the odds of getting a law that specific? It's not scientifically satisfying to require that the emergence of a perpetual chemical chain reaction (now four billion years and a hundred billion iterations old) somehow be written into the code of the cosmos from the beginning.

Source: http://www.jonathonart.com/book/LW2.htm

Edited July 19, 2007 by PersianPaladin

[VillagePlank]

I found this quite interesting when it comes to the problematic nature of evolutionary theory: -

Source: http://www.jonathonart.com/book/LW2.htm

Evolution doesn't describe the creation of life which is where this piece starts. Where's your proposition, anyway?

I love purple.

Yes, I have heard that about you, in particular.

[VillagePlank]

Oh?

You should feel fortunate. The only things worse than being talked about is not being talked about. Your ears do burn, don't they?

[PersianPaladin]

Evolution doesn't describe the creation of life which is where this piece starts. Where's your proposition, anyway?

Yes, I have heard that about you, in particular.

It seems you have clearly ignored everything that I have proposed and argued in this thread....something you regard as mere 'opinion' or conjecture. But the theory of speciation by evolution is also conjecture...it's just that I and AF have used logic to argue against it.

At what point does inter-species mating produce a new species (a concept that most scientists still argue about anyway), where there can no longer be inter-breeding? This requires that we have simultaneous mutation and crossover configurations in enough numbers and sexual pairs at the same time in order to generate the new species? This is highly unlikely, as I have already said that the organism responds to the environment, not the other way round (hence requiring extraordinary synergy on the part of the organisms not the environment being the cause of such). What intelligence guides the replications or results in the synergy and symbiosis of speciation and species reproduction? I propose that every cell be a small unit of potential intelligence making up a super-intelligent neural network. This could not have formed by chance and its cohesion surely must have been pre-programmed, by an intelligence outside the matrix.

Edited July 19, 2007 by PersianPaladin

[Azores Hi]

I love purple.

With respect, this is a contradictory statement. One cannot 'love' a colour, no more than a doorframe can love it's wood. To suggest so is at least inflamatory and and worst downright offensive. Please see this link for more helpful advice.

Pies

In future please refrain from expressing colour preferences without first taking time to respect the views of the whole colour spectrum, taking into account those minority colours such as green and indigo.

As for me I find that purple should be taken in moderation.

I hope this clears up your obvious confusion.

P.s feel free to delete but you started it!

[VillagePlank]

Do you accept that 'All living things are designed' ? *

* This only requires a yes/no answer.

[PersianPaladin]

Do you accept that 'All living things are designed' ? *

* This only requires a yes/no answer.

Yes.

Whereas certain components in some cases by themselves may seem 'artificial'; they are important components of an intelligent and unique whole.

Edited July 19, 2007 by PersianPaladin

[VillagePlank]

Yes.

Finally a straightforward reply

Now we can get to the details. The proposition 'All living things are designed' contains two 'things' that make the assertion:

(i) living: so how do you define life?

(ii) designed: what constitutes design?

[SP1986]

Finally a straightforward reply

Now we can get to the details. The proposition 'All living things are designed' contains two 'things' that make the assertion:

(i) living: so how do you define life?

(ii) designed: what constitutes design?

I see a huge planet sized brick wall there.

However I think this boils down to social acceptance.

The way I see this argument is that well a billion people are wrapped up in the same beliefs so another persons idea is refuted.

What if science was completely wrong, is this acceptable?: answer is no because were all bound by a society that believes in science so therefore we cant afford to mock science because millions of people say its right.

And of course the brave man, PP in this case is thought to be an outcast, where instead he is actually quite brave to forward another proposition.

Still theres no evidence to back it up, but can everyone claims be so easily refuted.

So two questions to PP and Village Plank...

PP = You cannot prove this intelligent design stuff, so is this more a belief of yours more than what you think is hard evidence.

VP = You rely on science so much, do you honestly know that science is 100% correct, and that PP's proposition is not true, if so can you find primary evidence to refute PP's claims, or are your refutions based on a belief that ID is not true from secondary reading which not really be backed up by measurable evidence.

It's not such a simple argument now..

[VillagePlank]

VP = You rely on science so much, do you honestly know that science is 100% correct, and that PP's proposition is not true, is so can you find primary evidence to refute PP's claims, or are your refutions based on a belief that it is not true from secondary reading which is not backed up by measurable evidence.

I think you are misreading what I am attempting to do.

I have taken the argument to first principles; particularly derived using a process of decomposition therein from a general assertion. There is nothing, in my opinion, wrong in this approach, and it helps to eliminate bias (and everyone's ideas are clear and equally represented) There is no point in throwing mud at each other at such a high level where assumptions about each other's arguments are not only prevelant, they cloud the issue.

We could have quite easily started with the proposition 'All living things share a common ancestor' where at least 50% of the proof would be identical to the one I proposed earlier, but the final constuct would lead to the idiom of evolution. However this thread is about, and I quote 'the scientific case for intelligent design' I see nothing wrong in using mathematical techniques on this basis.

I feel I am quite able to change my mind should PP demonstrably construct his case from simple principles and I am unable to refute them.

It's not such a simple argument now..

Where belief is concerned it is never simple. Never. I can think of no-one here who has ever concluded otherwise. You also shouldn't confuse the construction of a logical proof simple. It never is, in my experience, even though the facts, themselves, may seem self-evident or obvious, their derivation almost certainly never is.

(Oh, and I don't rely on science so much. I am, to all intents and purposes, unqualified, and uneducated. I just like to read books)

Edited July 19, 2007 by VillagePlank

[PersianPaladin]

Finally a straightforward reply

Now we can get to the details. The proposition 'All living things are designed' contains two 'things' that make the assertion:

(i) living: so how do you define life?

(ii) designed: what constitutes design?

Can science really define life?

I define most of living things as something that self-replicates, reproduces, receives and gives nourishment, grows, and dies. There are of course, disagreements about function and life. Some people think that stones are alive, because they consist of atoms that vibrate with energy...and thus energy is needed to sustain life, it makes things alive. Again, contentious.

As for design....design shows a consistency of purpose, it is replicated and remains consistent in terms of its existence over generations, it consists of different parts which serve functions that synchronise in harmony to produce the whole. Design is harmony, effectivley, as opposed to disjunctured chaos.