The Scientific Case for Intelligent Design

[Roger J Smith]

Quite a few points that I could comment on after reading the past few days of discussion.

This will follow no particular order, because I don't want to be accused of intelligent design.

My comment about research pointing to intelligent design referred to the astro-climatology research that I have outlined in the advanced section on this forum (once again, I repeat that I did not name this the advanced forum, it was put there by a very generous moderator who didn't know there was a pointy-headed section for the likes of me). I have done no research in evolution at all, I probably shouldn't be knocking Charles Darwin at all because I know less than many of you about his theories. I don't have much of a quarrel with his basic concepts as far as I understand them, I just happen to believe that evolution lies within the framework of deliberate acts of creation by some powerful being.

Then some here are saying, well the design is not that good, it has flaws, it reveals a certain amount of malice or neglect, things ain't perfect.

No kidding. I said I believed in the existence of a supreme being, and I'll go further and say I believe that more in the Jewish or Christian mode than any other that I've studied. I happen to consider Buddhism more of a philosophy and I think that as far as that goes, it is a very good philosophy.

Clearly then, I am not what you would call a religious person. I have been in the past, but I have come to the conclusion that God as we who are not atheists, picture Him, is very possibly a being who comes into existence in our future, and then has some access to parts of the past, you might say constrained by such things as known facts, laws of nature, and the recorded instances of His appearance in our world in the past.

This doesn't make God a nasty "person" if he is human or humanoid, nor someone I would wish to "punch in the face" -- although I don't claim many pearls of wisdom, punching God in the face seems like a really bad idea on a number of different levels.

Rather, God is some actual Being, and one that we need to adjust our thinking and our behaviour towards, if we care about the outcome of our own lives or other lives. As such, my belief is neither religious or anti-religious. It is fairly similar to the advice I would give people anywhere about anything -- do what you want, you have free will, but don't blame me if you don't take into account the reality of the existing set of forces and the persons who control those forces to any extent.

Thus, was there some intelligent designer at the very beginning, and are we entitled to criticize the results? I am not sure on either count. The universe seems designed rather than random to me, but I don't think the human race has figured out very much of this design yet. My research tells me that, because what I can rather easily see now that I've been working on things for 20-25 years, even the most acute and skilled observers of the atmosphere otherwise seem absolutely unable to see, even after being given some fairly detailed pointers on what to look for. Maybe I am delusional, but the funny thing about that is that I can make accurate predictions using this delusion (severe weather on June 15th, predicted right here on Netweather on March 11th). Experiences like this are bound to point one in the direction of design, whether intelligent or unfinished, because as you say, this is hardly a Sunday picnic world that we live in -- if you're familiar with the Jehovah's Witnesses and their pamphlets, or anything of that sort, you'll know what I mean when I say that many believers expect some transformation of the present earth into some sort of utopian paradise, not just in social terms, but perhaps environmental terms too, because happy smiling people are always sitting outside having picnics in sunny weather on these pamphlets.

Perhaps 2006 was a foretaste of this future age.

Anyway, you'll realize that I do sometimes present things in an ironic style, and the bottom line is, I have no real idea what happened in the past to build up to the present, nor do I have much idea how the present will transition to some future, especially as it regards human affairs. Those of you who have a negative opinion of God, if there is a God as you say, should realize that we are given the gift of free will, and it is us doing most of the bad acts here on earth, not God.

The basic story of Jesus, I suppose, is that even God does not fare particularly well in the game of free will, so why should we expect to do a lot better when we don't have any outs, ones that we would probably use whereas Jesus supposedly didn't call on them.

Whole different point now, and one that has not surfaced in this discussion at all. The believer is likely to have a spiritual rather than a material perception of God. This is hard to explain in scientific terms. One senses the presence of God, so if there really are four out of ten active scientists who are believers, I wonder how many of them are at that level, because there are believers who approach God more as a sort of being and set of laws, not an active presence. At that reduced level, God can perhaps be safe to profess within the halls of science, because he is just a placeholder for any sort of principle of order in the universe. One man's God can therefore be another woman's Universal Theory of Forces, or whatever.

But I will certainly accept what some here are saying, there are different concepts of an Intelligent Designer, ranging from the one where God created a perfect universe and only sinful mankind is mucking things up, to a Being who stumbles into existence through some unknown set of future events and has to deal, like you and me, with the random chaos that exists in the universe around us today.

I don't know if we can know these things.

Final point refers to a comment about confidence in the human race. I have very little. Human beings are entirely responsible for such events as the holocaust, terrorism, the Gulag, the various atrocities of Chinese labour camps, the excesses of capitalist greed, and any number of other very nasty pieces of work. At the same time, somewhere, Bach and Mozart found their inspiration to leave us a great legacy of uplifting music, and on a smaller scale, people practice random acts of kindness that bring a little light into a dark world. So I have hope for the human race, but confidence will have to be earned, I suppose you could say. Not that I claim to be any better, each one of us is a mixture of the dark and the light, most more dark than they suppose, and less light.

[PersianPaladin]

What irritates me is the arrogance of certain scientists who claim that certain parts of the body, genes and other biota...'serve no apparent function' - thus 'proving' the nature of evolution. Arrogance!

What if we find out later that they do serve a function? That there is wisdom behind everything?

Edited June 30, 2007 by PersianPaladin

[Iceberg]

I can't believe that if you believe in niche adaptation you don't believe in natural evolution.

the tracing back of DNA shows the inherant evidence of natural evolution, take the dog for example, see how many different types etc of dog have developed in the last 500 years purly through breeding.

There is also the jump type of natural evolution i.e a bunch of rabbits living in Europe, suddenly it gets really cold re an ICE AGE one lucky bunny is born with thick hair, normally he would be at a disadvantage but now he's likely to live longer so are his offspring. Rabbits that don't have the thick hair are likely to move south to warmer areas, the ones with thick hair can now enjoy the grass in the colder areas.

However the colder weather brings a new preditor so out of the thicker hair rabbits those with the longer legs that can run faster live longer have more offspring etc.

The above makes really simple sense which we can see in every day life. This has been going on for Billions of years. Quite along time really for all the different species to develop. The evolution of mammals shows the theory perfectly.

The switch from single cell organisms to multi cell organisms probably took hundred's of millions of years and could well have been accidental i.e through DNA complications.

No they don't say that certain parts of the body serve no apparent function, but do say that they serve no function anymore i.e they use to in the past when we where swimming in the sea or borrowing in the soil.

[Red Raven]

... It suggests that I was borne merely out of the whim of selfishness and 'competition'....

What could be more selfish than a 'designer' deciding to create life? If that is how life came about then it was either done on a "whim" or for some other purpose which cannot be said to be altruistic.

[PersianPaladin]

What could be more selfish than a 'designer' deciding to create life? If that is how life came about then it was either done on a "whim" or for some other purpose which cannot be said to be altruistic.

<_<

I would think it be completely opposite of selfish. Being given life for free, our bodies do all the work for us, as do our brains (we don't programme them), food is provided for us, every inch is a miracle. Hell, we even seem to have free will.

Oh...and multi-cell organisms resulting by 'accident'? Sorry, but where's my bull**** horn?!!

Edited June 30, 2007 by PersianPaladin

[Osbourne One-Nil]

I've been wondering where that is for a couple of years now PP.

[flagpole]

I think PP strengthens the case against Intelligent Design myself.

[PersianPaladin]

I think PP strengthens the case against Intelligent Design myself.

<_<

I'll have to give you that one Flagpole.

[Red Raven]

I would think it be completely opposite of selfish. Being given life for free, our bodies do all the work for us, as do our brains (we don't programme them), food is provided for us, every inch is a miracle. Hell, we even seem to have free will.

That reminds me of a conversation i had a long time ago with my research supervisor (who was a life long atheist and anarchist) about the irony of revolution as a means by which to free the people from the yoke of control. Whilst some, probably most, would welcome the freedom, but forcing freedom on all somewhat undermines the notion of true liberty. The revolutionary chant was then amended from "You will be Free" to "You will be Free, if that's what you want".

A version of the same argument can be applied to the notion of a selfless creation of life. Some may be very grateful for the gift of life, but others would rather not have it. And unless the apprecaition of that gift is unanimous it cannot be anything other than a selfish passtime of the 'creator'.

[PersianPaladin]

That reminds me of a conversation i had a long time ago with my research supervisor (who was a life long atheist and anarchist) about the irony of revolution as a means by which to free the people from the yoke of control. Whilst some, probably most, would welcome the freedom, but forcing freedom on all somewhat undermines the notion of true liberty. The revolutionary chant was then amended from "You will be Free" to "You will be Free, if that's what you want".

A version of the same argument can be applied to the notion of a selfless creation of life. Some may be very grateful for the gift of life, but others would rather not have it. And unless the apprecaition of that gift is unanimous it cannot be anything other than a selfish passtime of the 'creator'.

If you compare a 'creator' to that of a mother and baby....the mother is ready to sacrifice herself and her health for the baby and its wellbeing. Where is the selfishness in that? True, some couples wish to have children merely for the selfishness in 'owning' a child or an extension of their egos....but if you look at the reality of the situation generally...the mother-child relationship is as pure and unselfish as one can imagine.

[Red Raven]

If you compare a 'creator' to that of a mother and baby....the mother is ready to sacrifice herself and her health for the baby and its wellbeing. Where is the selfishness in that? True, some couples wish to have children merely for the selfishness in 'owning' a child or an extension of their egos....but if you look at the reality of the situation generally...the mother-child relationship is as pure and unselfish as one can imagine.

erm... Dawkins and the selfish gene! a mother protects not simply because of the love and care she has for her child but because there is an overiding imperative that that gene pool must succeed and carry on reproducing. If that is not the case then why in the anaimal world does infanticide occur?

[PersianPaladin]

erm... Dawkins and the selfish gene! a mother protects not simply because of the love and care she has for her child but because there is an overiding imperative that that gene pool must succeed and carry on reproducing. If that is not the case then why in the anaimal world does infanticide occur?

Infanticide is usually an exception to the rule in the animal kingdom, and it is often due to the activity of males and rivalry between mates.

Infanticide is widespread in the animal world and it is largely carried out by males. Now, however, a Spanish biologist has found a species in which both females and males practise infanticide.

Jose Veiga, of the Natural Science Museum in Madrid, has studied the house sparrow (Passer domesticus), a species in which infanticide is a major cause of the death of nestlings. He finds that the two sexes have different reasons for murdering nestlings. In both cases, however, infanticide is 'sexually selected' - that is, it occurs when members of one sex compete for mates (Animal Behaviour, vol 39, p 496).

Infanticide is most common in males because females tend to invest most time and energy in reproduction. This limits the rate at which males can mate and produce offspring. By killing a female's young, a male will make the female available to breed and so increase his own opportunities ...

Above Source: New Scientist

It is not a reflection of the mothers love and protection. And btw....we are more than animals and different to them. It is too easy to use examples like 'selfish gene', 'competitive advantage', etc and it is a slippery slope to the competitive worlds of tribalism, capitalism, and eugenics.

Oh...and Dawkins is a complete tit in my opinion and best avoided.

[shuggee]

This thread is hilarious. Apparently black is the new white because I read it in a magazine.

[PersianPaladin]

This thread is hilarious. Apparently black is the new white because I read it in a magazine.

Ugh

New Scientist is a journal. Not a mag.

Oh...and don't poo poo my thread. Its not hilarious, its serious. Darwinian evolution is purely based on conjecture, and to espouse it as scientific fact is not only an arrogance but..at best...only a partial truth. Like cause and effect.

Edited July 3, 2007 by PersianPaladin

[Osbourne One-Nil]

But Darwin was, without a shadow of a doubt, broadly along the right lines.

Simple.

[PersianPaladin]

But Darwin was, without a shadow of a doubt, broadly along the right lines.

Simple.

There may be a partial truth to his claims....but I think the amount of conjecture regarding mutations, the theory of 'competition' generating or controlling mutations (which attributes innate intelligent foresight to rudimentary cells\RNA), etc is somewhat hard to accept.

[Osbourne One-Nil]

Does it? Perhaps I need to revisit my A Level biology notes, but I thought it was down to survival of the fittest passing on genes.

Personally, I find it far easier to believe in that than believe there's something spitirual behind all of this.

[Red Raven]

... And btw....we are more than animals and different to them...

Now that is a silly argument. And quite frankly a rather arrogant one.

Ugh

New Scientist is a journal. Not a mag.

Oh...and don't poo poo my thread. Its not hilarious, its serious. Darwinian evolution is purely based on conjecture, and to espouse it as scientific fact is not only an arrogance but..at best...only a partial truth. Like cause and effect.

If Darwinian theory is based on pure conjecture then what is Intelligent Design based on?

[RedShift]

Ugh

New Scientist is a journal. Not a mag.

Oh...and don't poo poo my thread. Its not hilarious, its serious. Darwinian evolution is purely based on conjecture, and to espouse it as scientific fact is not only an arrogance but..at best...only a partial truth. Like cause and effect.

New Scientist is a magazine, not a journal. It does not publish original research as say, Science or Nature does, it just reports on what other journals are publishing. After many of their articles they will give the 'journal reference' of a particular topic.

Go to the New Scientist website and you will be met with links to 'subscribe to magazine'.

[Roo]

This thread is hilarious.

Thank goodness [god?] someone said it....

what is Intelligent Design based on?

Now, that is what we'd all like to know!

Edited July 4, 2007 by Roo

[Guest Viking141]

Darwinian evolution is purely based on conjecture, and to espouse it as scientific fact is not only an arrogance but..at best...only a partial truth. Like cause and effect.

So is AGW on that basis but you seem to have quite a firm belief in that.

[VillagePlank]

Darwinian evolution is purely based on conjecture ...

Well the anecdotal evidence, which, I must add, amounts to proof by induction is around for all to see. I look somewhat like my parents, grandparents, and my brothers. I have inherited disease from my grandfather (severe rhinitis) Now, you might like to argue that it's pure chance, but I think you'd have a very difficult task ahead to convince anyone of that.

More coherently, you could argue that this only proves the passing of genetic information to offspring, and to a certain extent you would be right. However, we know that DNA is not copied correctly all of the time, look at some forms of cancer, for instance, and this would indeed create a mutation. Sometimes the information to copy a complete section is missing hence conditions like Down's Syndrome. We know this happens. It is demonstrable.

We also know that crossover happens. That is a child's genetic information. particularly within diploid reproduction, is derived in a somewhat haphazard manner from both parents.

We can also simulate this on a computer. I sometimes revert to genetic programming to search massive problem domains to which the problem is intractable. It doesn't find the optimum solution, but it finds one that works.

So we know (i) We inherit, (ii) Our genes mutate, (iii) Crossover occurs, and we can simulate this with an excellent success rate on a computer.

Which part of Darwinism is conjecture?

(Please note the difference between Origin of Species, and Origin of Life. The two quite correctly, should always be delineated, as one quite clearly does not describe the other)

Edited July 4, 2007 by VillagePlank

[PersianPaladin]

Well the anecdotal evidence, which, I must add, amounts to proof by induction is around for all to see. I look somewhat like my parents, grandparents, and my brothers. I have inherited disease from my grandfather (severe rhinitis) Now, you might like to argue that it's pure chance, but I think you'd have a very difficult task ahead to convince anyone of that.

More coherently, you could argue that this only proves the passing of genetic information to offspring, and to a certain extent you would be right. However, we know that DNA is not copied correctly all of the time, look at some forms of cancer, for instance, and this would indeed create a mutation. Sometimes the information to copy a complete section is missing hence conditions like Down's Syndrome. We know this happens. It is demonstrable.

We also know that crossover happens. That is a child's genetic information. particularly within diploid reproduction, is derived in a somewhat haphazard manner from both parents.

We can also simulate this on a computer. I sometimes revert to genetic programming to search massive problem domains to which the problem is intractable. It doesn't find the optimum solution, but it finds one that works.

So we know (i) We inherit, (ii) Our genes mutate, (iii) Crossover occurs, and we can simulate this with an excellent success rate on a computer.

Which part of Darwinism is conjecture?

(Please note the difference between Origin of Species, and Origin of Life. The two quite correctly, should always be delineated, as one quite clearly does not describe the other)

That does not prove Darwinist theory that genes and cell mutation contribute to an eventual change in a new species. As you have clearly demonstrated, vast majority of mutations are harmful. Oh....and giving 'nature' the intelligence to know whether a mutation will end up being positive is assuming it has the power of foresight...which of course, it does not innately.

For every 'good' mutation inherited (if there is such a thing), there will be 'bad' mutations which may end up being beneficial down the line in theory....but how does 'nature' know this? No...it will get rid of the mutant dna for healthy familiar deck-of-cards so that the species is secure.

Thank goodness [god?] someone said it....

Now, that is what we'd all like to know!

Don't insult my intelligence.

Edited July 4, 2007 by PersianPaladin

[Osbourne One-Nil]

Quite right...PP can do that for himself.

(joke)

[Red Raven]

Quite right...PP can do that for himself.

(joke)

naughty naughty OON we should be supportive of our fellow cumbrian and his philosphy even if the grounds for the theory of intelligent design is well ... not very intelligent.

PP show us we are wrong and present some evidence for the theory. At the moment it's just a faith.