1221 replies to this topic

[Lister]

I took a look around the forum and wasn’t able to find any neutral discussions on Intelligent Design and creationism. I’m very curious about the whole idea and hence I wanted to find out more.

Ground Rules:

• Please try your best to avoid childish bickering. If they’re being childish that doesn’t give you the right to be childish yourself. Nurture a strong conversation, avoid the rest.
• Please limit sourcing to what’s reasonable. As in academics please source to support your argument rather than in place of your argument.
• Please try your best to present your arguments in a reasonable way. Please try and avoid the same old tricks. Those being:
  
  • Attack the Messenger (Instead of addressing the point you attack the person making it)
  • The Bait & Switch (Ignoring the point and starting up another)
  • The Blitzkrieg (Blasting your opponent with too many points)
  • Strawman (Over stating someone else’s opinion then arguing against that)
  • Conveniently Ignoring the Point (Self descriptive)
• If you assume Creationism or Intelligent Design is total nonsense please give a valid argument for that; stating it as Nonsense exclusively is about as good as saying “I am an Ignorant Fool.” That would be an IAAIF response.
• Please avoid name calling. If you can count to 10 without using your fingers you can tell someone they’re wrong without telling us how immature you are. Again direct insults will be an IAAIF response.

So on to it then:

I realized recently that I don’t completely understand the entire argument made for Creationism and Intelligent design. I made a previous post defending it as more of a taunt for the ignorant however this thread I really want to know both sides of the debate as factually as possible.

I understand the faithful to a degree and I understand science to a degree however I don’t understand how, where, and why they can mingle.

Is Intelligent Design Science or is it purely religion?
Why is it science? What makes it science?
If ID contains some Science, how much is science and how much is Religion? Where is the line drawn?
Is ID being used as a tool to bring those outside of the faith in? Is that all it’s good for?
How much of the Bible is involved in ID? How do creationists deal with conflicts regarding other faiths?

What do you think?

IMPORTANT: New Earth Creationists (those that think the Earth was made several thousand years ago) are NOT the same thing. This thread is not intended to be a place for their argument. It could become that way however I would be surprised to find a New Earth Creationist here to defend their side. Please keep this in mind.

Edited by Lister, 26 September 2012 - 08:37 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Definition of Intelligent Design


What is intelligent design?
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

See New World Encyclopedia entry on intelligent design.

Is intelligent design the same as creationism?


No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.
Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.

Is intelligent design a scientific theory?


Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

[Lister]

Well that’s neat. I’ve never really delved into the differences between ID and Creationism.

I think the reason some “Darwinists” would try and link ID to Creationism is down to a slippery slope situation. Being someone who holds tightly onto doubt I can see where I would worry.

Let’s say we find an irreducibly complex situation like DNA. In this situation we may be able to say that Intelligence definitely created it. Now is that were we stop? Do we say “Yes an Intelligence created that! We figured it out! Time for a Beer!”?

My fear is this would provide something of definitive scientific proof of one of the “Bigger” questions. My injection of emotion into these debates Shadow is down to my belief in emotions overwhelming power. If you use ID to find a level of certainty on something as big as “Where did we come from” you may find that religion gains enormous traction (or this is our unreasonable fear). So then why is that a bad thing?

I shed my religion long ago not because I suddenly realised some things in religion seem silly and can’t be proven – NO! I shed it because of many other social issues which have little to do with whether God exists or not. Thus I would fear a hard rise in religion. You shadow may be responsible with your beliefs however those that burnt all those US embassies were not.

Do you understand my Fear and why we try and push ID out of science? I don’t know if it should be excluded from Science but I fear the power it could give religion especially if it gets taught in high schools and the like. Perhaps it would be ok to leave ID as a possible explanation but not the final answer.

I CERTAINLY wouldn’t be ok with jumps being allowed. That is to say “This was likely made by an intelligent designer. Jesus died for your sins. Here’s a Bible.” If it was to be taught it would have to be more “Some believe that due to the Irreducible Complexity of this there could be an intelligent designer behind it.” If they want to know more about this intelligent designer they should be directed to religious studies.

Thoughts?

[shadowhawk]

Lister: I think the reason some “Darwinists” would try and link ID to Creationism is down to a slippery slope situation. Being someone who holds tightly onto doubt I can see where I would worry.

Let’s say we find an irreducibly complex situation like DNA. In this situation we may be able to say that Intelligence definitely created it. Now is that were we stop? Do we say “Yes an Intelligence created that! We figured it out! Time for a Beer!”?

Hardly, and Intelligent Design is not at all like this. The use the same scientific method as anyone else. Theists are not strangers to science.

My fear is this would provide something of definitive scientific proof of one of the “Bigger” questions. My injection of emotion into these debates Shadow is down to my belief in emotions overwhelming power. If you use ID to find a level of certainty on something as big as “Where did we come from” you may find that religion gains enormous traction (or this is our unreasonable fear). So then why is that a bad thing?

Because it is an unreasonable fear. It does not bother me because Science is not designed to investigate those “Bigger,” questions. Only the ignorant think, it is. Science is a method not a position.

I shed my religion long ago not because I suddenly realised some things in religion seem silly and can’t be proven – NO! I shed it because of many other social issues which have little to do with whether God exists or not. Thus I would fear a hard rise in religion. You shadow may be responsible with your beliefs however those that burnt all those US embassies were not.

Dare I say, “off topic.” Don’t tar and feather all religions or theists with the same brush. This is a logical fallacy.

Do you understand my Fear and why we try and push ID out of science? I don’t know if it should be excluded from Science but I fear the power it could give religion especially if it gets taught in high schools and the like. Perhaps it would be ok to leave ID as a possible explanation but not the final answer.

No I do not understand based upon your statements what gives you or anyone the right to push ID or any other school of thought out of science. Naturalism as a philosophy not science, is the issue. I think you have no right to censor what perspectives are taught.

I CERTAINLY wouldn’t be ok with jumps being allowed. That is to say “This was likely made by an intelligent designer. Jesus died for your sins. Here’s a Bible.” If it was to be taught it would have to be more “Some believe that due to the Irreducible Complexity of this there could be an intelligent designer behind it.” If they want to know more about this intelligent designer they should be directed to religious studies.

You could never say this if you had any real exposure to Christianity. I’ll send you some bookmarks on Theists in science.

[Lister]

Science may be a method shadow however those that use said method usually (not always) have a reason, a drive behind their actions. Climate scientists may be researching to prove Global Warming while other climate scientists may be working to disprove the same.

An Oven is just a tool though usually we’re more interested in the food that we cook in it than the Oven itself.

If the scientific method is used to prove something (say that there are habitable planets outside of our solar system) then one usually assumes the scientists involved are doing said research for a reason. Is that an unreasonable assumption? The flip side is to assume that all scientists have no ultimate goal in using the scientific method in their research which would be to… what did you call it? Tar and feather?

What is the ultimate goal when including ID in the scientific method? I believe you said to “seek evidence of design in nature” yes? Why include ID in science? Because to not include it would be unreasonable? Like removing Red as a color when trying to describe a rainbow? Perhaps…

Though ID is often (not always) wielded by Religious people in an effort to back up their beliefs. Is that not the concept behind Creationism? So then is it unfair to link ID and Creationism? Is it unfair to link Creationism and Christianity? Is it unfair to Link Christianity to many of the other “Off Topic” things that we don’t always see eye to eye on (Abortion, Contraception, Gay Rights… etc.)? I could link Hitler to Obama if I wanted to but linking ID and Christianity is a little easier (though I'm sure some would disagree..hah!)

Answer me this (and I will bring it up again if you dodge it or ignore it): Can ID be linked to Religion?

You can try and talk about a knife Shadow but I’m talking about the Murder it was used in.

[shadowhawk]

Science may be a method shadow however those that use said method usually (not always) have a reason, a drive behind their actions. Climate scientists may be researching to prove Global Warming while other climate scientists may be working to disprove the same.

An Oven is just a tool though usually we’re more interested in the food that we cook in it than the Oven itself.

If the scientific method is used to prove something (say that there are habitable planets outside of our solar system) then one usually assumes the scientists involved are doing said research for a reason. Is that an unreasonable assumption? The flip side is to assume that all scientists have no ultimate goal in using the scientific method in their research which would be to… what did you call it? Tar and feather?

What is the ultimate goal when including ID in the scientific method? I believe you said to “seek evidence of design in nature” yes? Why include ID in science? Because to not include it would be unreasonable? Like removing Red as a color when trying to describe a rainbow? Perhaps…

Though ID is often (not always) wielded by Religious people in an effort to back up their beliefs. Is that not the concept behind Creationism? So then is it unfair to link ID and Creationism? Is it unfair to link Creationism and Christianity? Is it unfair to Link Christianity to many of the other “Off Topic” things that we don’t always see eye to eye on (Abortion, Contraception, Gay Rights… etc.)? I could link Hitler to Obama if I wanted to but linking ID and Christianity is a little easier (though I'm sure some would disagree..hah!)

Answer me this (and I will bring it up again if you dodge it or ignore it): Can ID be linked to Religion?

You can try and talk about a knife Shadow but I’m talking about the Murder it was used in.

The ID scientist is not trying to read design into science subjects but to recognize it if it is there. ID is a scientific position that argues there is evidence of design in the physical world. It indicates intelligence. Do you deny there is evidence of design in the physical world? Religion goes beyond the physical arguing that God is that intelligence. Some ID proponents are agnostic. I don’t get your knife and murder point.

Some religious hold to almost every position in science. Just because you are religious does not dictate what view in science one takes. You really don’t understand Christianity. Science is a method not a position. Do you get it?

Are you advocating censorship? Should theists be driven out of science?

[shadowhawk]

[Lister]

Science may be a method shadow however those that use said method usually (not always) have a reason, a drive behind their actions. Climate scientists may be researching to prove Global Warming while other climate scientists may be working to disprove the same.

An Oven is just a tool though usually we’re more interested in the food that we cook in it than the Oven itself.

If the scientific method is used to prove something (say that there are habitable planets outside of our solar system) then one usually assumes the scientists involved are doing said research for a reason. Is that an unreasonable assumption? The flip side is to assume that all scientists have no ultimate goal in using the scientific method in their research which would be to… what did you call it? Tar and feather?

What is the ultimate goal when including ID in the scientific method? I believe you said to “seek evidence of design in nature” yes? Why include ID in science? Because to not include it would be unreasonable? Like removing Red as a color when trying to describe a rainbow? Perhaps…

Though ID is often (not always) wielded by Religious people in an effort to back up their beliefs. Is that not the concept behind Creationism? So then is it unfair to link ID and Creationism? Is it unfair to link Creationism and Christianity? Is it unfair to Link Christianity to many of the other “Off Topic” things that we don’t always see eye to eye on (Abortion, Contraception, Gay Rights… etc.)? I could link Hitler to Obama if I wanted to but linking ID and Christianity is a little easier (though I'm sure some would disagree..hah!)

Answer me this (and I will bring it up again if you dodge it or ignore it): Can ID be linked to Religion?

You can try and talk about a knife Shadow but I’m talking about the Murder it was used in.

The ID scientist is not trying to read design into science subjects but to recognize it if it is there. ID is a scientific position that argues there is evidence of design in the physical world. It indicates intelligence. Do you deny there is evidence of design in the physical world? Religion goes beyond the physical arguing that God is that intelligence. Some ID proponents are agnostic. I don’t get your knife and murder point.

Some religious hold to almost every position in science. Just because you are religious does not dictate what view in science one takes. You really don’t understand Christianity. Science is a method not a position. Do you get it?

Are you advocating censorship? Should theists be driven out of science?

So can ID be linked to Religion (Without taking huge unreasonable leaps)?

Edit: I watched the video - Interesting how he brought in Aliens. You ever see Stargate Universe Shadow? That show would be a good way for you to connect ID in with a cool and interesting scifi scenario.

Still please - Answer the question.

Edited by Lister, 05 October 2012 - 01:06 AM.

[shadowhawk]

:Lister So can ID be linked to Religion (Without taking huge unreasonable leaps)?

Edit: I watched the video - Interesting how he brought in Aliens. You ever see Stargate Universe Shadow? That show would be a good way for you to connect ID in with a cool and interesting scifi scenario.

Still please - Answer the question.

No, it is a scientific theory. Some religious may or may not be attracted to it.

[Lister]

:Lister So can ID be linked to Religion (Without taking huge unreasonable leaps)?

Edit: I watched the video - Interesting how he brought in Aliens. You ever see Stargate Universe Shadow? That show would be a good way for you to connect ID in with a cool and interesting scifi scenario.

Still please - Answer the question.

No, it is a scientific theory. Some religious may or may not be attracted to it.

So ID is mostly held by those seeking proof of aliens or just trying to answer a question while using all possible methods with zero religious undertones? The majority of ID supports are.... what? Atheists, Agnostic, Islamic, Jewish... Creationists? Or is there an even spread? This is important because intent is at the core of action. You don’t do something for nothing (or you rarely do).

Scientists are pretty evenly spread among faiths and non-faiths. Some might say that there are more Agnostic Scientists than religious but I can't prove that either way.

Now I could ask you whether there are more Religious ID supports than non-religious but then that would fall into a “Provide Proof” discussion which would just become silly. My point is that ID too often shows itself as a tool for religious communities and not exclusively for scientific purposes.

I don’t want proof for this Shadow; I just want you to know that’s how it appears to me. Let’s try a new line of thought.

What is the ultimate Goal of an ID scientist in seeking proof of a creator?

“I believe there is proof of a creator here”
“Why?”
“Because of X”
“Ok I see your logic there. So now what?”
“We should look for more proof of a creator.”
“Why?”
“Because of this last proof we found.”

And they find more and more until they prove that there’s a creator. Would this then prove that religion is right? Could religion use this “evidence” as proof they are right? It doesn't matter does it shadow because dethatching ID from religion allows for Religion to use ID while ID can maintain a level of credibility. This is another unsettling thought regarding ID.

Edited by Lister, 05 October 2012 - 03:59 AM.

[shadowhawk]

Lister: So ID is mostly held by those seeking proof of aliens or just trying to answer a question while using all possible methods with zero religious undertones? The majority of ID supports are.... what? Atheists, Agnostic, Islamic, Jewish... Creationists? Or is there an even spread? This is important because intent is at the core of action. You don’t do something for nothing (or you rarely do).

I don’t know of anyone being attracted to ID seeking proof of aliens. I have heard Richard Dawkins making such statements on behalf of his views. I do not know what the religious views of ID advocates are. This question comes close to having bigoted overtones. I do know that ones religious views matter not, one way or the other as stated in the ID literature..

Scientists are pretty evenly spread among faiths and non-faiths. Some might say that there are more Agnostic Scientists than religious but I can't prove that either way.

It is the same with ID.

Now I could ask you whether there are more Religious ID supports than non-religious but then that would fall into a “Provide Proof” discussion which would just become silly. My point is that ID too often shows itself as a tool for religious communities and not exclusively for scientific purposes.

I don’t want proof for this Shadow; I just want you to know that’s how it appears to me. Let’s try a new line of thought.

Well I disagree. Why can’t you accept ID at its own word as we do everyone else.

What is the ultimate Goal of an ID scientist in seeking proof of a creator?

Not at all. It asks the question of whether design is apparent. Theistic evolutionists can also see God at work in evolution. Evolution itself does not, cannot answer these kinds of questions. Science is a process, not a position.

“I believe there is proof of a creator here”
“Why?”
“Because of X”
“Ok I see your logic there. So now what?”
“We should look for more proof of a creator.”
“Why?”
“Because of this last proof we found.”

And they find more and more until they prove that there’s a creator. Would this then prove that religion is right? Could religion use this “evidence” as proof they are right? It doesn't matter does it shadow because dethatching ID from religion allows for Religion to use ID while ID can maintain a level of credibility. This is another unsettling thought regarding ID.

I think you are really stretching it here. Christians have been involved in science from its beginning without any of this happening. HERE are only a few examples.

1. http://en.wikipedia....kers_in_science
2. http://en.wikipedia....ientist-clerics
3. http://en.wikipedia....suit_scientists
4. http://en.wikipedia....nd_philosophers
5. http://en.wikipedia....21st_century.29
6. http://en.wikipedia....Conflict_thesis

I have hundreds of other examples. I am a libertarian and feel it is wrong to censor people because of their religious and philosophical views. We are becoming quite totalitarian and we think we are not bigots.

Edited by shadowhawk, 05 October 2012 - 10:59 PM.

[shadowhawk]

[Lister]

At the end of your video:

“This is how the world works” “This is why”

I think that really highlights my concerns. The space between those two lines is the space between science and religion. Regardless of whether there’s conflict between the two there is space which we need to acknowledge. Religious use of science is no startling fact. At one point wasn’t religion one of the only sponsors of science? Even the Vatican has a stellar observatory.

The thing is though Science has always been separate from religion. Science deals with the physical whereas religion deals with the spiritual. You can at least agree with that can’t you?

So yes Science can be used by Religions people and has been in the past. But religion and science is separate and that is something fundamental about the two. ID and Creationism appears to attempt to bridge the gap; to bring physical proof into the realm of spirituality. That to me violates both fields.

You said “Theistic evolutionists can also see God at work in evolution.” The “God” in that sentence is an assumption that a Theistic person makes. “Science is a process, not a position.” I agree with this. Science is the process used to reasonably confirm a theory, idea, or perhaps an assumption.

Some questions are just too vast for us to answer any time soon. I often find that you have a serious issue with not knowing. “I’m speaking to someone who doesn’t know” you said at one point. I’m comfortable with not knowing. We’ll find out eventually.

Also to your censorship comments: I have no interest in censoring anyone. What I do want to make clear is that some things don’t belong in some places. I wouldn’t expect a law to be put into place stating that all Catholic Church’s must also teach from the Koran. Islamic peoples warship in a different church because their beliefs are different. The same goes for ID. I’m not sure it belongs outside of Theism.

Aside from having all possible alternatives on the table why should ID be allowed in the lab?

[Lister]

Doesn’t science already include ID? I’ve never heard of a good scientist turning down the possibility of a creator.

[shadowhawk]

Doesn’t science already include ID? I’ve never heard of a good scientist turning down the possibility of a creator.

Science is a process not a position. It does not include ID.

[Lister]

You’re trying to say that ID, like natural evolution is a theory. Science is the tools used to interact with that theory. Am I correct? Science is the process used to interact with the position of an Intelligent Design theorist?

So what we’re trying to include here is the position that everything was designed by a creator; just as we include the theory that everything evolved naturally through random events. Hmm…

I realize that this debate has been raging for a long time. I realize that the majority of the debate has been over the “evidence”. But I’m hopeless. I still feel there’s room to debate before we arrive upon the nonsensical evidence that both sides fling along with pathetic emotionally charged statements.

When Einstein battled against quantum mechanics the same sorts of enraging debates occurred; though the impasse was conquered through math.

If ID is correct we should be able to predict and prove events in the natural world. Have there been situations (specific not general) where this is happened? I can prove evolution easily by pointing out drug resistant bacteria. I can also look at fossilized evidence of animals gradually changing over millions and billions of years.

Has this happened for ID?

[shadowhawk]

Lister: You’re trying to say that ID, like natural evolution is a theory. Science is the tools used to interact with that theory. Am I correct? Science is the process used to interact with the position of an Intelligent Design theorist?

Yes.

So what we’re trying to include here is the position that everything was designed by a creator; just as we include the theory that everything evolved naturally through random events. Hmm…

The issue is Design not who the designer is. We do this all the time in Archaeology. We look for the evidence of human design when examining artifacts. There would be no reason to think artifacts evolved naturally without intelligence. I have a huge Indian artifact collection and I can tell you if you ignored intelligent design you could never understand. Intelligent design is part of the physical world.

I realize that this debate has been raging for a long time. I realize that the majority of the debate has been over the “evidence”. But I’m hopeless. I still feel there’s room to debate before we arrive upon the nonsensical evidence that both sides fling along with pathetic emotionally charged statements.

When Einstein battled against quantum mechanics the same sorts of enraging debates occurred; though the impasse was conquered through math.

Don’t mix apples and oranges,

If ID is correct we should be able to predict and prove events in the natural world. Have there been situations (specific not general) where this is happened? I can prove evolution easily by pointing out drug resistant bacteria. I can also look at fossilized evidence of animals gradually changing over millions and billions of years.

Has this happened for ID?

No , and it won’t. Science is a tool for measuring the physical world which was not itself measured. What do you mean by, “specific?” Evolution is more than genetic possibility. Evolution is more than just change. You started off talking about bacteria and still are. You need to read more about ID. Read my past arguments


1. What if Evolution was true?
http://www.longecity...476#entry491476

2.WAS DARWIN RIGHT OR WRONG?
http://www.longecity...932#entry491932

3.There is a mutation algorithm in DNA that makes *INTELLIGENT* (not random noise)
substitutions when species need to adapt to their environment.
http://www.longecity...066#entry492066

4.What if your computer were able to do that?? #3 above.
http://www.longecity...250#entry492250

5.Logos came first, that Mind created Matter,
http://www.longecity...433#entry492433

The arguments I have made go like this:

A. The pattern in DNA is a code (by definition)

B. All codes we know the origin of are designed (by observation)

Therefore we can explore five possible conclusions:

a) Humans designed DNA
b) Aliens designed DNA
c) DNA occurred randomly and spontaneously
d) There must be some undiscovered law of physics that creates
information
e) DNA was Designed by a Superintelligence, i.e. God.

(a) requires time travel or infinite generations of humans. (b)
could well be true but only pushes the question back in time.
© may be a remote possibility, but it's not a scientific
explanation in that it doesn't refer to a systematic, repeatable
process. It's nothing more than an appeal to luck. (d) could
be true but no one can form a testable hypothesis until someone
observes a naturally occurring code. So the only systematic
explanation that remains is (e) a theological one.


Therefore:

C. To the extent that scientific reasoning can prove anything, DNA is proof of a designer.

ARGUMENT
1. http://www.longecity...post__p__491476
2 http://www.longecity...post__p__491932
3. http://www.longecity...post__p__492066
4. http://www.longecity...post__p__492250
5. http://www.longecity...post__p__492433


6.ON GOD AND EVOLUTION
http://www.longecity...211#entry496211

SUMMARY OF EVOLUTION POSTS
http://www.longecity...123#entry508123

[shadowhawk]

Craig would be an example if ID. Here is a very recent talk he gave Eastwooding Dawkins. I know you dislike videos vut this is a good one that covers issues related to who the Intelligent Designer is.

[Elus]

© may be a remote possibility, but it's not a scientific
explanation in that it doesn't refer to a systematic, repeatable
process. It's nothing more than an appeal to luck.

There are trillions of planets in the universe. One of them is bound to spawn a self-replicating molecule by chance, given enough time. The universe has had 14 billion years of time to spawn life. RNA was our molecule that self replicates. Life began with it. This process is systematic, repeatable, and logical.

If you think that's unlikely, tell trillions of people to start flipping coins. Eventually one of those people will get heads 200 times in a row. That's the equivalent of life of happening. It's bound to happen eventually, given the enormity and age of the universe, which you fail to comprehend.

Edited by Elus, 13 October 2012 - 06:31 PM.

[DAMABO]

"There must be some undiscovered law of physics that creates
information" really? everything is information, in case you did not notice...

[DAMABO]

to Shadowhawk and Lister, I challenge you both to give good reasons for Intelligent Design, on this website.http://bossensnonfiction.com . make it 500-1500 words. Think about it as long as you want. You know, Shadowhawk, two of your statements didn't make sense: that chemical variations cannot account for DNA, and that information 'is some undiscovered law'. Everything can be registered as information, via different methods. Some even consider entropy as a measure of information, but I don't know whether that is correct.
I hope to get some creative writers on my webpage, so please go ahead and try this difficult task. And please Shadow, keep it text, not the thousand links you always post - explain it in your own words, people don't like to switch pages to read a point.
to others who want to make the opposite stance; please go ahead as well.

[DAMABO]

(a) requires time travel or infinite generations of humans. -- a large finite number is not the same as an infinite number

(d) could be true but no one can form a testable hypothesis until someone
observes a naturally occurring code ------- haven't you just stated that DNA is a naturally occuring 'code'

[DAMABO]

and if we find a naturally occurring code, you just go 'codes cannot come naturally, there has to be a designer'- as you did with DNA.
even with a designer, the code comes naturally by the way. what is it supposed to come like, unnaturally - i.e. in violation of the laws of physics?

[maxwatt]

"Intelligent Design" is a variation on the cosmological argument for the existence of God: arguing that the existence of some feature in the world inevitably implies the existence of God. The classic example is from the 17th century: one finds a watch in the desert, and thus infers someone must of made it, it is too complex not to have a maker. The eye, by analogy, is so complex a mechanism that it too must have been designed, chance alone cannot explain it.

Like all arguments by analogy it is a flawed argument, but an attractive one none-the-less. It has been repeatedly refuted for hundreds of years: just because you cannot conceive of a natural process leading to that result, does not mean there isn't one, and while it is possible some supreme being is responsible (it could as easily be many demons, no?) the principle of Occam's Razor would suggest a simpler explanation with more proof.

Such discussions are fun, but I don't expect a persuasive conclusion. Carry on, guys.

[Turnbuckle]

© may be a remote possibility, but it's not a scientific
explanation in that it doesn't refer to a systematic, repeatable
process. It's nothing more than an appeal to luck.

There are trillions of planets in the universe. One of them is bound to spawn a self-replicating molecule by chance, given enough time. The universe has had 14 billion years of time to spawn life. RNA was our molecule that self replicates. Life began with it. This process is systematic, repeatable, and logical.

If you think that's unlikely, tell trillions of people to start flipping coins. Eventually one of those people will get heads 200 times in a row. That's the equivalent of life of happening. It's bound to happen eventually, given the enormity and age of the universe, which you fail to comprehend.

Exactly. So any argument for a Creator based on statistics is flawed from the beginning, especially as those making the argument generally have no knowledge of statistics or biochemistry, or much of anything except the Bible (and generally not much of that, either). ID wouldn't exist at all except we have a principle of separation of church and state in this country, and those who want religion taught in schools have to dress it up as science.

[DAMABO]

Like all arguments by analogy it is a flawed argument, but an attractive one none-the-less.

I hate this sentence. First of all, not all arguments by analogy are flawed. Second, you use an argument by analogy to state that - analogous to all other arguments by analogy, this one is a flawed argument.

[maxwatt]

That statement is not an argument by analogy. It is not even an argument. It is a statement.

Arguments by analogy are inherently flawed in that there is not a necessary (logical) connection established by the analogy. Flawed, not necessarily incorrect, nor is it useless. Such reasoning can lead to more exact lines of investigation and as rhetoric, analogies can be quite convincing.

P has properties a, b and C.
Q has properties a, b and c.
P has property x.
On can reason that Q is likely to have property x, but not that Q necessarily has property x.

[DAMABO]

ok see your point - you're saying that analogy is not an argument by itself, although it is likely to be correct. Agreed. but isn't every argument then 'flawed'? what types of arguments are 100% correct?
can you give another (big, general) type of reasoning that is not flawed?
why attack the principle of analogy when it is usually likely to be correct? it's not reasoning by analogy itself that is wrong, it's this instance. the principle of analogy, I believe, is one of the most powerful tools we have in terms of conceptual thinking.
edit: there is a logical connection, since they have the same properties a,b, and c. what's unlogical about this? that's basically what mathematics does: it abstracts general properties. things with the same properties will behave the same - unless there are other properties at work. the least thing we know is that some of the behaviors will be the same, because of the shared characteristics. finding out what the behaviors are that are implied by a, b and c, is important to know what these are. the catch is that, in real life, finding out what properties are in play, is darn difficult.

Edited by DAMABO, 15 October 2012 - 07:27 PM.

[AgeVivo]

reading this by curiosity. Could we have just one example of thing/process that seems to have required the help of an invisible hand?

[it can be one the things expressed above; I acknowledge that the posts above are long to me] Thank you!

[Turnbuckle]

reading this by curiosity. Could we have just one example of thing/process that seems to have required the help of an invisible hand?

[it can be one the things expressed above; I acknowledge that the posts above are long to me] Thank you!

As maxwatt mentions above, the evolution of the eye is often cited as requiring ID, but sufficient study shows that the intermediate steps are all there.