1221 replies to this topic

[AgeVivo]

the evolution of the eye is often cited as requiring ID

Anything more convincing perhaps?

[DAMABO]

well, humanity for instance is intelligent. and it also designs. why aren't our computers, our buildings, etc considered as intelligent designs? why aren't synthetic cells considered as intelligent designs? they are, and why should nothing else be designed in other places by other entities? It's not that things 'require' it, it's that ,somewhere along the lines of history, intelligence arose. Which gave rise to intelligent designs, including computers, AI, 'synthetic' biology, even 'synthetic' universes perhaps.

Edited by DAMABO, 15 October 2012 - 09:04 PM.

[AgeVivo]

What is made by humans/monkeys/animals is 'intelligent', but that's not the point of this thread.

I was more asking for an exemple suggesting that "something else/a god" had to intervene. So far, there was something about the eye, but natural selection seems able to explain it pretty easily.

[xEva]

My take is as follows. With yeas, the more I study biology, the more I become convinced that life is a program. I don't know how this relates to the intelligent design, since I never looked into it. I read the definition in the beginning of this thread and it was helpful. But I still think that it may be misleading.

I believe that life is a program and the universe is a computer (since no program can exist without a computer, right?). Just look how DNA is stored inside the nucleus, its structure, how it is used, built, etc. Having a degree in computer science, there is no way that I could believe that a thing like that would evolve by chance. Not in an infinite time. No way. It is impossible in principle, because the causation there is top-down, not bottom-up.

To me, all this means only one thing, Namely, we are made in the similar way as we made our computers and the internet. It may sound like a joke, but I find lots of similarities between the biblical stories and how real information systems are put together in practice. Even the notion that man is made in the image of God is expressed in the fact that recently we have fulfilled our godlike mission by creating the digital world of the internet. By doing so we have continued the real evolution of life. And that is not merely some new species appearing. The true evolution of life is in evolution of worlds created by intelligent species and eventually populated by intelligent beings, who in turn create a new world, and so on.

Many here dream about downloading their minds into the net and getting lost in it forever. Have they thought that perhaps they are already downloaded and this life is it?


.

Edited by xEva, 15 October 2012 - 09:08 PM.

[AgeVivo]

? I understood the power of Nature when I made a program to simulate trees in details, leaf by leaf, part by part... : no way. That's too much informatoin for current computers, even for one tree. Then, imagine the number of simultaneous experiments that Nature does in parallel!! No wonder nature is so strong.

This being said, xEva, I'm not sure how to appreciate your admiration of the packed DNA in the nucleous. Myself I was impressed by dissecting rats a decade ago: discovering how we are legos, rather than a continuous tissue. Sometimes, one wonder...

[DAMABO]

What is made by humans/monkeys/animals is 'intelligent', but that's not the point of this thread.

I was more asking for an exemple suggesting that "something else/a god" had to intervene. So far, there was something about the eye, but natural selection seems able to explain it pretty easily.

I think you have just defined the point of this thread as the point of your question. these are not the same. this topic is about whether intelligent design can be considered science, no? shadowhawk defines intelligent design as: "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. "
I'm not sure whether you can follow this reasoning, but I'm not only talking about humans and monkeys. Clearly if humans have awesome capabilities such as designing cells, what other capabilities should even more intelligent beings have. In any case, whether there exist other intelligent beings (although most certainly it is the case) does not even matter: certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause.
This does not deny natural selection however.

[DAMABO]

My take is as follows. With yeas, the more I study biology, the more I become convinced that life is a program. I don't know how this relates to the intelligent design, since I never looked into it. I read the definition in the beginning of this thread and it was helpful. But I still think that it may be misleading.

I believe that life is a program and the universe is a computer (since no program can exist without a computer, right?). Just look how DNA is stored inside the nucleus, its structure, how it is used, built, etc. Having a degree in computer science, there is no way that I could believe that a thing like that would evolve by chance. Not in an infinite time. No way. It is impossible in principle, because the causation there is top-down, not bottom-up.

To me, all this means only one thing, Namely, we are made in the similar way as we made our computers and the internet. It may sound like a joke, but I find lots of similarities between the biblical stories and how real information systems are put together in practice. Even the notion that man is made in the image of God is expressed in the fact that recently we have fulfilled our godlike mission by creating the digital world of the internet. By doing so we have continued the real evolution of life. And that is not merely some new species appearing. The true evolution of life is in evolution of worlds created by intelligent species and eventually populated by intelligent beings, who in turn create a new world, and so on.

Many here dream about downloading their minds into the net and getting lost in it forever. Have they thought that perhaps they are already downloaded and this life is it?


.

the problem is that postulating 'giant program = universe' does not necessarily help in being 'less random'. Clearly, whether we are a program or not, the same physical laws apply. It should not matter.

[xEva]

the problem is that postulating 'giant program = universe' does not necessarily help in being 'less random'. Clearly, whether we are a program or not, the same physical laws apply. It should not matter.

Perhaps you misunderstood me, and it is my fault. Sorry, I used wrong words (downloading instead of uploading). But I was clear when I said that the universe is a computer, not a program. Life is a program; and you cannot deny that. And if you agree, then it follows logically that the universe is a computer.

? I understood the power of Nature when I made a program to simulate trees in details, leaf by leaf, part by part... : no way. That's too much informatoin for current computers, even for one tree. Then, imagine the number of simultaneous experiments that Nature does in parallel!! No wonder nature is so strong.

This being said, xEva, I'm not sure how to appreciate your admiration of the packed DNA in the nucleous. Myself I was impressed by dissecting rats a decade ago: discovering how we are legos, rather than a continuous tissue. Sometimes, one wonder...

I know what you mean by trees. I too played with fractals and PostScript programs back in school and was amazed how a little and simple recursive program can output a semblance of this or that tree, from a leaf and a branch to the overall shape of it.

And it is amazing not just how DNA is packed in the nucleus, but also how it is copied, read, shuffled... checked for errors (!) ..it does get you thinking..

And our computers are not even 100 years old. Think what the internet will be 1000 years from now. You see, the underlying hardware of the digital world, which is still very young and evolving, will undoubtedly change in the future, but its organizing principle, the space in which that world exists, is already set and will stay the same. The Net is the world. In time it will be populated by intelligent beings who, in turn, will create a world of their own. Just as we have.

[shadowhawk]

The subject is Intelligent Design, and Science, In or
Out

Elus: 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.

Off topic. This is not science but a theory which may or may not be true. Where is your proof and why do you say there is no intelligence behind it? You are making claims for which you have a burden of proof.

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.

Straw man. Do you think this a scientific theory? Do you have enough time. Read my arguments for ID.

Arguments for Intelligent Design - Evolution
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. http://www.longecity...post__p__496211

All arguments.. http://www.longecity...post__p__498997


Challenge to Atheists to prove random mutations drive evolution. http://www.longecity...post__p__499021

Summary. http://www.longecity...post__p__507405

And what does the video prove?

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

I agree. Maybe

[shadowhawk]

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.

I appreciate the offer but I don’t have the tine, Lister does not hold to ID I have given IDs definition of itself earlier and I am not in position to dictate to someone else what they believe. Let the ID people speak for themself.

I can’t argue with an undiscovered law you believe in, Don’t call it science.

If you don’t follow references you won’t go far in school. I am not going to rewrite all the sources I read.

(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'

Can't tell who you are addressing. My answer is no.

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?

???

[shadowhawk]

"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.

I mentioned a number of candidates for a possible designer beside God earlier in this thread.. This makes your observation incorrect. What ID is arguing for is Design.

In the case of the watchmaker it would be entirely correct to deduce there was a watchmaker to get a complete explanation f the watch. Could you ever understand the watch without the watchmaker? Go ahead, conceive of a natural process that would produce a watch or eye for that matter. ID does not try to answer whether demons did it, just whether it show marks of intelligent design.

Occam’s Razor is in itself poorly used to exclude evidence if design by someone wearing the colored glasses of Naturalism which is itself an extra

It is indeed fun..

[shadowhawk]

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.

Excellent observation. I like maxwatt but he missed it here.

[shadowhawk]

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!

Well there are many examples but we have been talking about DNA.

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.

And don't forget to give evidence for your statement. Remember the topic also,

[Turnbuckle]

I mentioned a number of candidates for a possible designer beside God earlier in this thread.. This makes your observation incorrect. What ID is arguing for is Design.

ID is purely religious, and that religion is Bible based. The "I" is not an alien or anything supernatural other than the Christian god. Any other contention is pretense.

[shadowhawk]

What is made by humans/monkeys/animals is 'intelligent', but that's not the point of this thread.

I was more asking for an exemple suggesting that "something else/a god" had to intervene. So far, there was something about the eye, but natural selection seems able to explain it pretty easily.

Natural selection? Good explain it using natural selection. Use science.

[shadowhawk]

What is made by humans/monkeys/animals is 'intelligent', but that's not the point of this thread.

I was more asking for an exemple suggesting that "something else/a god" had to intervene. So far, there was something about the eye, but natural selection seems able to explain it pretty easily.

I think you have just defined the point of this thread as the point of your question. these are not the same. this topic is about whether intelligent design can be considered science, no? shadowhawk defines intelligent design as: "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. "
I'm not sure whether you can follow this reasoning, but I'm not only talking about humans and monkeys. Clearly if humans have awesome capabilities such as designing cells, what other capabilities should even more intelligent beings have. In any case, whether there exist other intelligent beings (although most certainly it is the case) does not even matter: certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause.
This does not deny natural selection however.

Right on. Science is a process not a position. In fact any thing we now believe can be challenged tomorrow. What most people are thinking about here on Longecity when they talk about science is naturalism, a philosophy, nor science. There are some things science cannot prove including science itself. Science can only be concerned with the physical world and things not physical are difficult to approach. Some things are beyond science which has its limitations,
Most people of all views hold to natural selection. It is obvious. But can natural selection explain everything. The ID people argue “no.”

[Turnbuckle]

What is made by humans/monkeys/animals is 'intelligent', but that's not the point of this thread.

I was more asking for an exemple suggesting that "something else/a god" had to intervene. So far, there was something about the eye, but natural selection seems able to explain it pretty easily.

Natural selection? Good explain it using natural selection. Use science.

Google it. Or look here.

[Turnbuckle]

But can natural selection explain everything. The ID people argue “no.”

And that was the question above. What things?

[DAMABO]

xEva, the point is not whether or not the universe is a computer - I have not disagreed with that: I cannot test it. The point is that being a program or not does not matter with regard to randomness, as the same physical laws would still apply. what I mean is: science has already found out much about the laws of physics. whether or not the universe is a computer or not, the same laws apply disregarding the 'true' nature of the universe. thus, whether these laws are programmed or not, the outcome will still be the same. it is the programmed laws that determine what the outcomes are. since the laws will be the same regardless of if anybody programmed it, the outcomes will be the same. no 'more' or no 'less' random.

Edited by DAMABO, 16 October 2012 - 01:45 PM.

[DAMABO]

Shadowhawk: what I mean with "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?"
is simply that we have found a 'code' as you name it. DNA. Since this code occurs in nature, it is also a naturally occurring code. Whether or not designed by an intelligent being, it is naturally occurring. You somewhere proposed that we should be able to investigate this better when we have found a 'naturally occurring code'. Well, if you are going to deny that DNA is a naturally occurring code, then you will never find a way to better investigate this issue - since with any 'code' that comes in nature you will dismiss it. This because you have the prejudice that you mentioned, that 'codes cannot occur naturally'.

Edited by DAMABO, 16 October 2012 - 01:54 PM.

[DAMABO]

can participants in this discussion send me their names in a private message? I would like to feature this conversation in a book I'm writing. All is cool of course.

[maxwatt]

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?....

Analogy forms a weak argument because such conclusions as it implies are as likely to be wrong as to be right.

Mathematical proofs are the exemplar of proofs that must be correct: that the square of the hypotenuse must be equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides, for example. Or logical proofs (logic as a branch of mathematics): A implies B, and B implies C, therefore A implies C.

The other class of proof is the inductive proof. An example, the sun rose every day last week (or every day for a thousand years, even if hidden by clouds) - therefor the sun will rise tomorrow. Highly probable, though there is a remote possibility that an asteroid might stop the earth from spinning.... Scientific reasoning is based on induction. We expect the universe to continue to behave much as it has in the past. Analogy is a different animal, perhaps a special case of inductive reasoning. What is being predicted is not the continuation of a past behavior, but the inference of a (perhaps novel) behavior to a phenomenon that happens to share a number of characteristics with another phenomenon, but not necessarily that which one seeks to infer. Analogy is not proof, at best it may form a basis for further investigation.

[xEva]

xEva, the point is not whether or not the universe is a computer - I have not disagreed with that: I cannot test it. The point is that being a program or not does not matter with regard to randomness, as the same physical laws would still apply. what I mean is: science has already found out much about the laws of physics. whether or not the universe is a computer or not, the same laws apply disregarding the 'true' nature of the universe. thus, whether these laws are programmed or not, the outcome will still be the same. it is the programmed laws that determine what the outcomes are. since the laws will be the same regardless of if anybody programmed it, the outcomes will be the same. no 'more' or no 'less' random.

I have difficulty understanding you. What is your native language? To me it seems it's Demagoguese.

If the universe is a computer, it would imply that it was made and programmed.

Also, I don't get your point about randomness. You probably know that random numbers generators is an important branch in computer science, which has a wide array of applications, from a simple card game to security codes, to signal appmplification. So?

[AgeVivo]

Reading the last posts I am not sure what is meant by intelligent design and science:

the last posts seem to say that, almost by definition, you can't proove whether something happened randomly, whether it was made by someone, or a very intelligent creature somewhere on another planet, and whether the last two things (people and intelligent creature) aren't themselves the result of "someone" who decided that they existed. Another way to say it, it is a belief, more like a religion, that's it. But without any use, it seems to me. Hae good discussions, I prefer to focus on what I view as a more concrete use of my life, such as improving people's lives in terms of health and longevity.

[shadowhawk]

What is made by humans/monkeys/animals is 'intelligent', but that's not the point of this thread.

I was more asking for an exemple suggesting that "something else/a god" had to intervene. So far, there was something about the eye, but natural selection seems able to explain it pretty easily.

Natural selection? Good explain it using natural selection. Use science.

Google it. Or look here.

I read the article on the eye which you referenced. Nothing new to me there and I appreciated the many qualifiers found in the article.. No one has any problem with the fact that eyes exist. The question is why and how they exist. You seem to be making the claim no intelligence was involved. I suppose you have evidence for this claim.

I have repeatedly said I believe in Natural Selection so there is one half of the evolution did it position.. Do you believe that Natural Selection did it all by itself or is there more to it for you?.

I have gone through this all before and I referenced the posts earlier in this thread.

[shadowhawk]

But can natural selection explain everything. The ID people argue “no.”

And that was the question above. What things?

Again, you claim no intelligence is involved. My question to you (I don't want to put words in your mouth), Is natural selection enough to explain the eye?

[Turnbuckle]

But can natural selection explain everything. The ID people argue “no.”

And that was the question above. What things?

Again, you claim no intelligence is involved. My question to you (I don't want to put words in your mouth), Is natural selection enough to explain the eye?

Absolutely. No intelligence is needed. If you think there is, point it out.

[DAMABO]

xEva, the point is not whether or not the universe is a computer - I have not disagreed with that: I cannot test it. The point is that being a program or not does not matter with regard to randomness, as the same physical laws would still apply. what I mean is: science has already found out much about the laws of physics. whether or not the universe is a computer or not, the same laws apply disregarding the 'true' nature of the universe. thus, whether these laws are programmed or not, the outcome will still be the same. it is the programmed laws that determine what the outcomes are. since the laws will be the same regardless of if anybody programmed it, the outcomes will be the same. no 'more' or no 'less' random.

I have difficulty understanding you. What is your native language? To me it seems it's Demagoguese.

If the universe is a computer, it would imply that it was made and programmed.

Also, I don't get your point about randomness. You probably know that random numbers generators is an important branch in computer science, which has a wide array of applications, from a simple card game to security codes, to signal appmplification. So?

No no. the universe is the whole thing. if somebody can program it, it cannot be the whole thing.
But what I was mainly referring to was the fact that things like the eye will occur via the laws of nature, whether our universe is a program or not, since those laws will be the same - the ones we have confirmed to determine all of our actions.

[shadowhawk]

Shadowhawk: what I mean with "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?"
is simply that we have found a 'code' as you name it. DNA. Since this code occurs in nature, it is also a naturally occurring code. Whether or not designed by an intelligent being, it is naturally occurring. You somewhere proposed that we should be able to investigate this better when we have found a 'naturally occurring code'. Well, if you are going to deny that DNA is a naturally occurring code, then you will never find a way to better investigate this issue - since with any 'code' that comes in nature you will dismiss it. This because you have the prejudice that you mentioned, that 'codes cannot occur naturally'.

Show me the code such as DNA which came naturally without intelligence. We occur in nature, are you saying there is no ID? Obviously ID occurs in nature. Codes are communication tools which control things and tell them what to do, They are a sign of a Intelligent programer. Hence our interest is raised. I have dismissed no code that I know of. Read mu previous posts on this topic.

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: (More?)

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.

[DAMABO]

furthermore, once you postulate that a designer is necessary to create such a program, then you will have to postulate an infinite number of such programs and designers, if I reason correctly.
let's dissect this thought: the universe is a computer, which runs a program. computers, from your own experience, cannot arise from themselves, they must be created by a designer (a leap of faith here, but let's go along with this thought). then where did this creator come from? out of nothing? no, most likely he will have been shaped by a long history of events, called evolution. According to you, life is a program, so again, the larger universe comprising this being and its subprogram, must be a giant computer. hence someone must have created it. and so on.
In short, even if the universe is a computer, there is no designer needed. If you start postulating some Uncaused Causer, well then anything is possible.
I think you're also confusing the abstract terminology 'program' and 'computer' with our daily life concepts. We know that these are created of course. program, in the sense that you have suggested that the universe 'has to be a program', only means that there are specific determinate laws from which one cannot escape. These laws may or may not have been ordained by some superintelligence.

Edited by DAMABO, 16 October 2012 - 09:38 PM.