Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Science behind intelligent design?

Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 12:40:31 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
I know this should probably go in the science section, but I imagine I'll find the proponents of ID here.

So is there any SCIENTIFIC evidence of ID? How is the scientific method applied to ID? Can we infer who the designer is and our purpose? Can we distinguish what is and isn't intelligently designed? Can we make predictions from the science of ID like we can with evolution?

If you folks want creationism taught in the science class along side evolution there should be science involved. Is there any?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,630
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 1:04:01 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/24/2016 12:40:31 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
I know this should probably go in the science section, but I imagine I'll find the proponents of ID here.

So is there any SCIENTIFIC evidence of ID? How is the scientific method applied to ID? Can we infer who the designer is and our purpose? Can we distinguish what is and isn't intelligently designed? Can we make predictions from the science of ID like we can with evolution?

If you folks want creationism taught in the science class along side evolution there should be science involved. Is there any?

" what we have to acknowledge is that in order to test intelligent design theory, the required test conditions must be such that the causal interaction between an intelligent agent and organism must be available to observation...."

(Response to Behe's suggestion of an experiment involving active selection for mobility being entirely irrelevant)
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 1:07:20 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/24/2016 1:04:01 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/24/2016 12:40:31 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
I know this should probably go in the science section, but I imagine I'll find the proponents of ID here.

So is there any SCIENTIFIC evidence of ID? How is the scientific method applied to ID? Can we infer who the designer is and our purpose? Can we distinguish what is and isn't intelligently designed? Can we make predictions from the science of ID like we can with evolution?

If you folks want creationism taught in the science class along side evolution there should be science involved. Is there any?

" what we have to acknowledge is that in order to test intelligent design theory, the required test conditions must be such that the causal interaction between an intelligent agent and organism must be available to observation...."

(Response to Behe's suggestion of an experiment involving active selection for mobility being entirely irrelevant)

Thank you for response. Could it not be said that evolution suffers the same challenge for macro evolution in that we as observers can't observe evolution over long periods of time?
Silly_Billy
Posts: 645
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 1:09:49 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/24/2016 1:04:01 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/24/2016 12:40:31 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
I know this should probably go in the science section, but I imagine I'll find the proponents of ID here.

So is there any SCIENTIFIC evidence of ID? How is the scientific method applied to ID? Can we infer who the designer is and our purpose? Can we distinguish what is and isn't intelligently designed? Can we make predictions from the science of ID like we can with evolution?

If you folks want creationism taught in the science class along side evolution there should be science involved. Is there any?

" what we have to acknowledge is that in order to test intelligent design theory, the required test conditions must be such that the causal interaction between an intelligent agent and organism must be available to observation...."

(Response to Behe's suggestion of an experiment involving active selection for mobility being entirely irrelevant)

As the theists keep saying, that would also debunk evolution as the evolutionary process of one species changing into another has never been subject to such a test condition itself.

Please don't kill the messanger though, i believe in evolution!
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,630
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 2:04:13 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/24/2016 1:07:20 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 10/24/2016 1:04:01 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/24/2016 12:40:31 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
I know this should probably go in the science section, but I imagine I'll find the proponents of ID here.

So is there any SCIENTIFIC evidence of ID? How is the scientific method applied to ID? Can we infer who the designer is and our purpose? Can we distinguish what is and isn't intelligently designed? Can we make predictions from the science of ID like we can with evolution?

If you folks want creationism taught in the science class along side evolution there should be science involved. Is there any?

" what we have to acknowledge is that in order to test intelligent design theory, the required test conditions must be such that the causal interaction between an intelligent agent and organism must be available to observation...."

(Response to Behe's suggestion of an experiment involving active selection for mobility being entirely irrelevant)

Thank you for response. Could it not be said that evolution suffers the same challenge for macro evolution in that we as observers can't observe evolution over long periods of time?

It would be fantastic to observe evolution in real time, but instead we observe evolution over long periods of time through the fossil record.

Diversity of species, a postulate of evolution shows us the huge array of diversity within a species that transforms across all other species requiring macro-evolution to be valid, as well as an extension of the same processes that validates micro-evolution, that of natural selection and mutation.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 2:58:36 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
"Intelligent design (ID) is a scientific theory that employs the methods commonly used by other historical sciences to conclude 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. ID theorists argue that design can be inferred by studying the informational properties of natural objects to determine if they bear the type of information that in our experience arise from an intelligent cause. The form of information which we observe is produced by intelligent action, and thus reliably indicates design, is generally called "specified complexity" or "complex and specified information" (CSI). An object or event is complex if it is unlikely, and specified if it matches some independent pattern.

Contrary to what many people suppose, the debate over intelligent design is much broader than the debate over Darwin"s theory of evolution. That"s because much of the scientific evidence for intelligent design comes from areas that Darwin"s theory doesn"t even address. In fact, the evidence for intelligent design comes from three main areas: Physics and Cosmology, the Origin of Life, and the Development of Biological Complexity.

Evidence for Design in Physics and Cosmology

The fine-tuning of the laws of physics and chemistry to allow for advanced life is an example of extremely high levels of CSI in nature. The laws of the universe are complex because they are highly unlikely. Cosmologists have calculated the odds of a life-friendly universe appearing by chance are less than one part in 1010^123. That"s ten raised to a power of 10 with 123 zeros after it! The laws of the universe are specified in that they match the narrow band of parameters required for the existence of advanced life. As an atheist cosmologist Fred Hoyle observed, "[a] common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology." The universe itself shows strong evidence of having been designed. To find out more, read Jay Richards, "Is There Merit for ID in Cosmology, Physics, and Astronomy?" and Stephen Meyer, "Evidence of Design in Physics and Biology."

Evidence for Design in the Origin of Life

Bernd-Olaf Kuppers has pointed out in his book Information and the Origin of Life that "[t]he problem of the origin of life is clearly basically equivalent to the problem of the origin of biological information." As noted previously, intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents generate large quantities of complex and specified information (CSI). Studies of the cell reveal vast quantities of biochemical information stored in our DNA in the sequence of nucleotides. No physical or chemical law dictates the order of the nucleotide bases in our DNA, and the sequences are highly improbable and complex. Moreover, the coding regions of DNA exhibit sequential arrangements of bases that are necessary to produce functional proteins. In other words, they are highly specified with respect to the independent requirements of protein function and protein synthesis. Thus, as nearly all molecular biologists now recognize, the coding regions of DNA possess a high "information content""where "information content" in a biological context means precisely "complexity and specificity." Even atheist zoologist Richard Dawkins concedes that "[b]iology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Atheists like Dawkins believe that unguided natural processes did all the "designing" but intelligent design theorist Stephen C. Meyer notes, "in all cases where we know the causal origin of "high information content," experience has shown that intelligent design played a causal role." To find out more, read Stephen Meyer, "DNA and Other Designs" or "DNA and the Origin of Life."

Evidence for Design in the Development of Biological Complexity

The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. In this regard, ID uses the scientific method to claim that many features of life are designed"not just the information in DNA. After starting 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 tested and discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures through genetic knockout experiments to determine if they require all of their parts to function. When experimental work uncovers irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

This method has been used to detect irreducible complexity in a variety of biochemical systems such as the bacterial flagellum. Moreover, the more we discover about the cell, the more we are learning that it functions like a miniature factory, replete with motors, powerhouses, garbage disposals, guarded gates, transportation corridors, and most importantly, CPUs. The central information processing machinery of the cell runs on a language-based code composed of irreducibly complex circuits and machines: The myriad enzymes used in the process that converts the genetic information in DNA into proteins are themselves created by the process that converts DNA into proteins. Many fundamental biochemical systems won"t function unless their basic machinery is intact, so how does such complexity evolve via a "blind" and "undirected" Darwinian process of numerous, successive, slight modifications? Since cellular language requires an author, and microbiological machines require an engineer, and genetically encoded programs require a programmer, increasing numbers of scientists feel the best explanation is intelligent design

http://www.discovery.org...
Skeptical1
Posts: 693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 3:11:51 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/24/2016 12:40:31 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
I know this should probably go in the science section, but I imagine I'll find the proponents of ID here.

So is there any SCIENTIFIC evidence of ID? How is the scientific method applied to ID? Can we infer who the designer is and our purpose? Can we distinguish what is and isn't intelligently designed? Can we make predictions from the science of ID like we can with evolution?

No, ID is not a scientific theory. It is a pseudo-scientific theory, designed to attempt to get around the objections to religion which have in part been initiated by preposterous creation myths. Examination of the natural world shows it is indeed remarkable, but not the result of intelligence.

If you check out new age mystic sites, "paranormal" sites, etc. you will see they also employ scientific sounding jargon to attempt to win people to their cause.

ID, like creationism, starts with a premise which it accepts as fact, and which cannot be disproven. To consider it a genuine scientific pursuit is erroneous.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 3:20:57 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/24/2016 1:07:20 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 10/24/2016 1:04:01 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/24/2016 12:40:31 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
I know this should probably go in the science section, but I imagine I'll find the proponents of ID here.

So is there any SCIENTIFIC evidence of ID? How is the scientific method applied to ID? Can we infer who the designer is and our purpose? Can we distinguish what is and isn't intelligently designed? Can we make predictions from the science of ID like we can with evolution?

If you folks want creationism taught in the science class along side evolution there should be science involved. Is there any?

" what we have to acknowledge is that in order to test intelligent design theory, the required test conditions must be such that the causal interaction between an intelligent agent and organism must be available to observation...."

(Response to Behe's suggestion of an experiment involving active selection for mobility being entirely irrelevant)

Thank you for response. Could it not be said that evolution suffers the same challenge for macro evolution in that we as observers can't observe evolution over long periods of time?

We see evolution in action. Novel genes emerge. Selection occurs naturally. Life changes over time. There is very little dispute over that. The conflict is over whether this process is responsible for all of life's diversity or not. Since evolution already is a defined, observed process, many hypothesis can be made and tested. For instance, if all life is related, we should see that DNA is shared across all organisms and in accordance with their relatedness. That's what we see. We should also see a progression of fossils in the earth, which we do. So the theory of has many ways to be tested and mountains of scientific data supporting it.

The competing idea is that the diversity of life is the result of some "intelligent designer." This designer has never been observed and is not even defined in any meaningful way. As a result, a well-structured, testable hypothesis is nearly impossible. This is why there isn't any scientific evidence supporting ID. Instead, there are gut-feelings ("It looks designed!") and bad reasoning (the fine-tuning argument).
Skeptical1
Posts: 693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 3:29:30 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/24/2016 2:58:36 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
"Intelligent design (ID) is a scientific theory that employs the methods commonly used by other historical sciences to conclude 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. ID theorists argue that design can be inferred by studying the informational properties of natural objects to determine if they bear the type of information that in our experience arise from an intelligent cause. The form of information which we observe is produced by intelligent action, and thus reliably indicates design, is generally called "specified complexity" or "complex and specified information" (CSI). An object or event is complex if it is unlikely, and specified if it matches some independent pattern.

Contrary to what many people suppose, the debate over intelligent design is much broader than the debate over Darwin"s theory of evolution. That"s because much of the scientific evidence for intelligent design comes from areas that Darwin"s theory doesn"t even address. In fact, the evidence for intelligent design comes from three main areas: Physics and Cosmology, the Origin of Life, and the Development of Biological Complexity.

Evidence for Design in Physics and Cosmology

The fine-tuning of the laws of physics and chemistry to allow for advanced life is an example of extremely high levels of CSI in nature. The laws of the universe are complex because they are highly unlikely. Cosmologists have calculated the odds of a life-friendly universe appearing by chance are less than one part in 1010^123. That"s ten raised to a power of 10 with 123 zeros after it! The laws of the universe are specified in that they match the narrow band of parameters required for the existence of advanced life. As an atheist cosmologist Fred Hoyle observed, "[a] common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology." The universe itself shows strong evidence of having been designed. To find out more, read Jay Richards, "Is There Merit for ID in Cosmology, Physics, and Astronomy?" and Stephen Meyer, "Evidence of Design in Physics and Biology."

Evidence for Design in the Origin of Life

Bernd-Olaf Kuppers has pointed out in his book Information and the Origin of Life that "[t]he problem of the origin of life is clearly basically equivalent to the problem of the origin of biological information." As noted previously, intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents generate large quantities of complex and specified information (CSI). Studies of the cell reveal vast quantities of biochemical information stored in our DNA in the sequence of nucleotides. No physical or chemical law dictates the order of the nucleotide bases in our DNA, and the sequences are highly improbable and complex. Moreover, the coding regions of DNA exhibit sequential arrangements of bases that are necessary to produce functional proteins. In other words, they are highly specified with respect to the independent requirements of protein function and protein synthesis. Thus, as nearly all molecular biologists now recognize, the coding regions of DNA possess a high "information content""where "information content" in a biological context means precisely "complexity and specificity." Even atheist zoologist Richard Dawkins concedes that "[b]iology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Atheists like Dawkins believe that unguided natural processes did all the "designing" but intelligent design theorist Stephen C. Meyer notes, "in all cases where we know the causal origin of "high information content," experience has shown that intelligent design played a causal role." To find out more, read Stephen Meyer, "DNA and Other Designs" or "DNA and the Origin of Life."

This "scientific" theory is nothing but a rehash of the old teleological and cosmological arguments, which predate Socrates.

Evidence for Design in the Development of Biological Complexity

The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. In this regard, ID uses the scientific method to claim that many features of life are designed"not just the information in DNA. After starting 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 tested and discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures through genetic knockout experiments to determine if they require all of their parts to function. When experimental work uncovers irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

This method has been used to detect irreducible complexity in a variety of biochemical systems such as the bacterial flagellum. Moreover, the more we discover about the cell, the more we are learning that it functions like a miniature factory, replete with motors, powerhouses, garbage disposals, guarded gates, transportation corridors, and most importantly, CPUs. The central information processing machinery of the cell runs on a language-based code composed of irreducibly complex circuits and machines: The myriad enzymes used in the process that converts the genetic information in DNA into proteins are themselves created by the process that converts DNA into proteins. Many fundamental biochemical systems won"t function unless their basic machinery is intact, so how does such complexity evolve via a "blind" and "undirected" Darwinian process of numerous, successive, slight modifications? Since cellular language requires an author, and microbiological machines require an engineer, and genetically encoded programs require a programmer, increasing numbers of scientists feel the best explanation is intelligent design

http://www.discovery.org...

A bit dishonest, this claim. The only reason "increasing" number of "scientists" are turning to ID is that, finally, they have realised they can no longer look people in the eye and say they advocate creationism. This statement makes it sound like people are turning away from traditional evolution by natural selection, and turning to ID, which is just rubbish.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 4:02:22 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/24/2016 2:58:36 AM, Benshapiro wrote:


"To understand why, it is important to remember that Behe's main argument is that in an irreducibly complex system, every part is vital to the system's overall operation.

A necessary " and often unstated " flipside to this is that if an irreducibly complex system contains within it a smaller set of parts that could be used for some other function, then the system was never really irreducibly complex to begin with."

This flipside makes the concept of irreducible complexity testable, giving it a scientific virtue that other aspects of ID lack.

"The logic of their argument is you have these multipart systems, and that the parts within them are useless on their own," said Kenneth Miller, a biologist at Brown University in Rhode Island. "The instant that I or anybody else finds a subset of parts that has a function, that argument is destroyed."

"Viewed this way, all of the systems that Behe claims to be irreducibly complex really aren't."

"A subset of the bacterial flagellum proteins, for example, are used by other bacteria to inject toxins into other cells and several of the proteins in the human blood-clotting system are believed to be modified forms of proteins found in the digestive system.

Evolution takes pieces and parts and re-uses them." [http://www.nbcnews.com...]

"There is no scientific evidence that this concept holds in practice, and where Dembski and company have attempted to study it they have insisted on doing it in computer science rather than biology. ... One easy illustration of Dembski's idea is if you randomly draw out 5 cards from a deck of 52 cards, the sequence of cards you have is highly improbable, but as long as the cards do not fit a preconceived pattern, it can be explained by chance. But if the cards fit a pattern (such as a royal flush), then it must have been designed and couldn't have happened by chance. Dembski, of course, never explains how the fact that both a "random" sequence of cards and a "royal flush" both having the same probability allows us to say one must be designed but the other cannot be. Nor does he address the more complex issues of evolution, such as scaffolding or co-option of function. [http://rationalwiki.org...]
Willows
Posts: 2,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 4:07:00 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/24/2016 2:58:36 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
"Intelligent design (ID) is a scientific theory that employs the methods commonly used by other historical sciences to conclude 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. ID theorists argue that design can be inferred by studying the informational properties of natural objects to determine if they bear the type of information that in our experience arise from an intelligent cause. The form of information which we observe is produced by intelligent action, and thus reliably indicates design, is generally called "specified complexity" or "complex and specified information" (CSI). An object or event is complex if it is unlikely, and specified if it matches some independent pattern.

Contrary to what many people suppose, the debate over intelligent design is much broader than the debate over Darwin"s theory of evolution. That"s because much of the scientific evidence for intelligent design comes from areas that Darwin"s theory doesn"t even address. In fact, the evidence for intelligent design comes from three main areas: Physics and Cosmology, the Origin of Life, and the Development of Biological Complexity.

Evidence for Design in Physics and Cosmology

The fine-tuning of the laws of physics and chemistry to allow for advanced life is an example of extremely high levels of CSI in nature. The laws of the universe are complex because they are highly unlikely. Cosmologists have calculated the odds of a life-friendly universe appearing by chance are less than one part in 1010^123. That"s ten raised to a power of 10 with 123 zeros after it! The laws of the universe are specified in that they match the narrow band of parameters required for the existence of advanced life. As an atheist cosmologist Fred Hoyle observed, "[a] common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology." The universe itself shows strong evidence of having been designed. To find out more, read Jay Richards, "Is There Merit for ID in Cosmology, Physics, and Astronomy?" and Stephen Meyer, "Evidence of Design in Physics and Biology."

Evidence for Design in the Origin of Life

Bernd-Olaf Kuppers has pointed out in his book Information and the Origin of Life that "[t]he problem of the origin of life is clearly basically equivalent to the problem of the origin of biological information." As noted previously, intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents generate large quantities of complex and specified information (CSI). Studies of the cell reveal vast quantities of biochemical information stored in our DNA in the sequence of nucleotides. No physical or chemical law dictates the order of the nucleotide bases in our DNA, and the sequences are highly improbable and complex. Moreover, the coding regions of DNA exhibit sequential arrangements of bases that are necessary to produce functional proteins. In other words, they are highly specified with respect to the independent requirements of protein function and protein synthesis. Thus, as nearly all molecular biologists now recognize, the coding regions of DNA possess a high "information content""where "information content" in a biological context means precisely "complexity and specificity." Even atheist zoologist Richard Dawkins concedes that "[b]iology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Atheists like Dawkins believe that unguided natural processes did all the "designing" but intelligent design theorist Stephen C. Meyer notes, "in all cases where we know the causal origin of "high information content," experience has shown that intelligent design played a causal role." To find out more, read Stephen Meyer, "DNA and Other Designs" or "DNA and the Origin of Life."

Evidence for Design in the Development of Biological Complexity

The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. In this regard, ID uses the scientific method to claim that many features of life are designed"not just the information in DNA. After starting 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 tested and discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures through genetic knockout experiments to determine if they require all of their parts to function. When experimental work uncovers irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

This method has been used to detect irreducible complexity in a variety of biochemical systems such as the bacterial flagellum. Moreover, the more we discover about the cell, the more we are learning that it functions like a miniature factory, replete with motors, powerhouses, garbage disposals, guarded gates, transportation corridors, and most importantly, CPUs. The central information processing machinery of the cell runs on a language-based code composed of irreducibly complex circuits and machines: The myriad enzymes used in the process that converts the genetic information in DNA into proteins are themselves created by the process that converts DNA into proteins. Many fundamental biochemical systems won"t function unless their basic machinery is intact, so how does such complexity evolve via a "blind" and "undirected" Darwinian process of numerous, successive, slight modifications? Since cellular language requires an author, and microbiological machines require an engineer, and genetically encoded programs require a programmer, increasing numbers of scientists feel the best explanation is intelligent design

http://www.discovery.org...

Intelligent design is not a scientific theory and indeed is an insult to any scientist worth his salt.

Highjacking a screed of properly researched scientific data and twisting it around to make it look like you are dazzling us with so much science is pathetic.

"Even atheist zoologist Richard Dawkins concedes that "[b]iology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." .....Richard Dawkins conceded nothing and certainly would never give an inch to such a preposterous, ill-founded theory such as intelligent design.

He was stating an observation.

Drop a pseudo term such as "complex and specified information" into properly researched scientific evidence and to some gullible people, it looks half convincing.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 6:07:40 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/24/2016 12:40:31 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
I know this should probably go in the science section, but I imagine I'll find the proponents of ID here.

So is there any SCIENTIFIC evidence of ID? How is the scientific method applied to ID? Can we infer who the designer is and our purpose? Can we distinguish what is and isn't intelligently designed? Can we make predictions from the science of ID like we can with evolution?

If you folks want creationism taught in the science class along side evolution there should be science involved. Is there any?

One problem for ID proponents is defining what they mean by design. They are forced to use terminology which refers to agents, consciousness, planning etc. However none of those are well-defined physical concepts.

Because they are not well-defined, it is impossible to build an "Intelligent Design Model" of the conditions, and expectations of a set of circumstances would look like under ID, and by extension - impossible to state that "this evidence matches what we expect of the ID hypothesis, and therefore provides evidence of it".

If we assume the universe/life whatever really was 'designed' (or if God really does exist and he really did create life with a purpose in mind), then we run into this same problem. It's hard/impossible to evidence for regardless of whether or not ID is true.

It comes as no surprise to me therefore that virtually all ID arguments are simply negative arguments against other explanations, rather than evidence that actually supports their own explanation.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 7:20:38 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/24/2016 6:07:40 AM, Envisage wrote:


Indeed. I was hoping some one who believes in ID could provide a concise argument for why it's science based - besides Ben's copy and paste. But so far no dice.
keithprosser
Posts: 2,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 8:00:00 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
I think the complexity of living things is the only evidence for ID, but it is very good evidence. Explicitly and implicitly it was considered not merely evidence but proof of ID (in the form of theistic creation) by everyone since humans came down from trees to more or less just a hundred years ago. I am not saying there is no evidence against ID or that the evidence for Darwinian evolution is not as good or better - I am however saying the complexity of life is good prima facie evidence for ID.

The problem isn't with the evidence. The problem is that ID requires an intelligent designer. We can dispose of Biblical literalism quite easily as pre-scientific nonsense, but the general idea that life is too complicated to have come about by the forces of mutation and natural selection is much more reasonable. But IDers extend scepticism to a positive assertion that a purposive intelligence is raquired. But even if mutation and natural selection are inadequate, it would be premature to assume the missing factor is purposive intelligence. For example, I deliberately omited another, non-intelligent factor in evolution - genetic drift.

The evolution/ID conflict isn't about who has the best evidence. It is a clash of ideologies, a clash over naturalism versus super-naturaism. No amount of indirect evidence adds up to a rigorous proof, not to someone determined not to accept it. Evolutionist won't win the debate with IDers as long as there are people who retain a theistic (or at least deistic) mind set regardless of evidence on either side. Of course it also works the ohter way - IDers can't persuade atheists because ID isn't about the evidence - its about whether you need a god in your world picture.
Skeptical1
Posts: 693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 8:34:38 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/24/2016 8:00:00 AM, keithprosser wrote:
I think the complexity of living things is the only evidence for ID, but it is very good evidence. Explicitly and implicitly it was considered not merely evidence but proof of ID (in the form of theistic creation) by everyone since humans came down from trees to more or less just a hundred years ago. I am not saying there is no evidence against ID or that the evidence for Darwinian evolution is not as good or better - I am however saying the complexity of life is good prima facie evidence for ID.

The problem isn't with the evidence. The problem is that ID requires an intelligent designer. We can dispose of Biblical literalism quite easily as pre-scientific nonsense, but the general idea that life is too complicated to have come about by the forces of mutation and natural selection is much more reasonable. But IDers extend scepticism to a positive assertion that a purposive intelligence is raquired. But even if mutation and natural selection are inadequate, it would be premature to assume the missing factor is purposive intelligence. For example, I deliberately omited another, non-intelligent factor in evolution - genetic drift.

The evolution/ID conflict isn't about who has the best evidence. It is a clash of ideologies, a clash over naturalism versus super-naturaism. No amount of indirect evidence adds up to a rigorous proof, not to someone determined not to accept it. Evolutionist won't win the debate with IDers as long as there are people who retain a theistic (or at least deistic) mind set regardless of evidence on either side. Of course it also works the ohter way - IDers can't persuade atheists because ID isn't about the evidence - its about whether you need a god in your world picture.



I think you've presented a reasonable and balanced opinion here. You might call it stubbornness or intrasigence, but I still have to disagree with this:

the complexity of life is good prima facie evidence for ID

I look at the complexity of life, the billions of years it's had to evolve to the diversity we see today, and all the truly bizarre turns it's taken along the way, and I see no evidence whatsoever of an intelligence behind it. More than that, I see things nature has produced that seriously make me think it's impossible there is an intelligent designer in the picture. On the contrary, if a designer was involved, it would have to be a sadistic and malevolent one.

I agree, neither side is going to convince the other. If religion did suffer a massive decline in adherents, it wouldn't be the origins question that would bring that about.
Willows
Posts: 2,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 8:45:43 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/24/2016 8:00:00 AM, keithprosser wrote:
I think the complexity of living things is the only evidence for ID, but it is very good evidence. Explicitly and implicitly it was considered not merely evidence but proof of ID (in the form of theistic creation) by everyone since humans came down from trees to more or less just a hundred years ago. I am not saying there is no evidence against ID or that the evidence for Darwinian evolution is not as good or better - I am however saying the complexity of life is good prima facie evidence for ID.

Anyone could just as well (and more rightly) claim that because life is so complex it would be impossible for it to have been created.
As with any other complex natural phenomenon on earth, life built extremely slowly, bit by bit, and in the case of life, from simple organisms billions of years ago.

Stating that complexity of life is evidence of ID is mere speculation and, in the absence of any evidence such a claim can be appropriately dismissed.
Willows
Posts: 2,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 8:55:00 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/24/2016 12:40:31 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
I know this should probably go in the science section, but I imagine I'll find the proponents of ID here.

So is there any SCIENTIFIC evidence of ID? How is the scientific method applied to ID? Can we infer who the designer is and our purpose? Can we distinguish what is and isn't intelligently designed? Can we make predictions from the science of ID like we can with evolution?

If you folks want creationism taught in the science class along side evolution there should be science involved. Is there any?

There is no scientific evidence whatsoever to support the notion of ID.
Proponents of ID commonly sneak scientific findings into illogical arguments or deceptively refer to pseudo-science as science.

Creationism has no place in the science classroom since there is no science involved. Creationism also has no part in any other classroom, unless it is taught alongside fictional mythology.
keithprosser
Posts: 2,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 9:39:02 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
but I still have to disagree with this:

the complexity of life is good prima facie evidence for ID


Fair enough, but I did say 'prima facie', ie latin for 'at first sight'!
PureX
Posts: 1,528
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 5:45:39 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/24/2016 12:40:31 AM, Bennett91 wrote:

So is there any SCIENTIFIC evidence of ID?

Yes, there is evidence of intelligent design, but it depends on how we identify "intelligence", and it is only evidence, not proof.

Everything that exists, exists as the result of an organized expression of energy. The source of this energy, and of the ordered limitations within it's expression, remains a mystery. But the fact that the cause and nature of existence depend on this order implies both intelligence and purpose.

Implication is not proof, however.

Also, the nature of existence allows for transcendent realms of being. The existential realm of mater and energy, for example, allowed for transcendence into the existential realm of life. And the existential realm of life then allowed for transcendence into the existential realm of consciousness. And these examples of transcendence imply the possibility of others. A transcendent 'divine realm' may exist beyond the reach of our cognitive abilities in the way the realm of consciousness exists beyond the perceptual grasp of plant life.

How is the scientific method applied to ID? Can we infer who the designer is and our purpose? Can we distinguish what is and isn't intelligently designed? Can we make predictions from the science of ID like we can with evolution?

All science can do is uncover the mechanisms of that order that is inherent to the expression of energy. That enables us to understand and control our relational circumstances better. And we do consider this understanding, "intelligence". So it seems to me that if understanding this divine existential order defines intelligence, then the divine existential order, itself, ought to be considered intelligent. So that by this reasoning we may say that science is verifying the "intelligence" of existential design, in it's study of it.

If you folks want creationism taught in the science class along side evolution there should be science involved. Is there any?

Evolutionary theory is part of the body of scientific thought and investigation. Thus it belongs in a science classroom. The intelligence of existential design is more of a philosophical question, and so would belong in a philosophy classroom. And the existence and nature of "God" is a theological issue, which would put it in a theology classroom. And creationism is a religious idea, which would put it in a comparative religion classroom.

I can't think of any reason why anyone would want religious ideas mixed up with science in a science classroom. All that would result is confusion about both religion AND science.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,630
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2016 3:07:17 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/24/2016 2:58:36 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
"Intelligent design (ID) is a scientific theory that employs the methods commonly used by other historical sciences to conclude 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. ID theorists argue that design can be inferred by studying the informational properties of natural objects to determine if they bear the type of information that in our experience arise from an intelligent cause. The form of information which we observe is produced by intelligent action, and thus reliably indicates design, is generally called "specified complexity" or "complex and specified information" (CSI). An object or event is complex if it is unlikely, and specified if it matches some independent pattern.

What that does is allow for confirmation bias to be a valid way of forming a conclusion, it is not science by any stretch and could easily allow insane notions like Fati claiming checkerboard patterns prove God exists. This is not science.

Contrary to what many people suppose, the debate over intelligent design is much broader than the debate over Darwin"s theory of evolution. That"s because much of the scientific evidence for intelligent design comes from areas that Darwin"s theory doesn"t even address. In fact, the evidence for intelligent design comes from three main areas: Physics and Cosmology, the Origin of Life, and the Development of Biological Complexity.

Evidence for Design in Physics and Cosmology

The fine-tuning of the laws of physics and chemistry to allow for advanced life is an example of extremely high levels of CSI in nature. The laws of the universe are complex because they are highly unlikely. Cosmologists have calculated the odds of a life-friendly universe appearing by chance are less than one part in 1010^123. That"s ten raised to a power of 10 with 123 zeros after it! The laws of the universe are specified in that they match the narrow band of parameters required for the existence of advanced life. As an atheist cosmologist Fred Hoyle observed, "[a] common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology." The universe itself shows strong evidence of having been designed. To find out more, read Jay Richards, "Is There Merit for ID in Cosmology, Physics, and Astronomy?" and Stephen Meyer, "Evidence of Design in Physics and Biology."

There is no such thing as fine tuning, it is a misrepresentation of facts. The
"chance" numbers above were pulled out their a$$es, cosmologists had nothing to do with it.

Evidence for Design in the Origin of Life

Bernd-Olaf Kuppers has pointed out in his book Information and the Origin of Life that "[t]he problem of the origin of life is clearly basically equivalent to the problem of the origin of biological information." As noted previously, intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents generate large quantities of complex and specified information (CSI). Studies of the cell reveal vast quantities of biochemical information stored in our DNA in the sequence of nucleotides. No physical or chemical law dictates the order of the nucleotide bases in our DNA, and the sequences are highly improbable and complex. Moreover, the coding regions of DNA exhibit sequential arrangements of bases that are necessary to produce functional proteins. In other words, they are highly specified with respect to the independent requirements of protein function and protein synthesis. Thus, as nearly all molecular biologists now recognize, the coding regions of DNA possess a high "information content""where "information content" in a biological context means precisely "complexity and specificity." Even atheist zoologist Richard Dawkins concedes that "[b]iology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Atheists like Dawkins believe that unguided natural processes did all the "designing" but intelligent design theorist Stephen C. Meyer notes, "in all cases where we know the causal origin of "high information content," experience has shown that intelligent design played a causal role." To find out more, read Stephen Meyer, "DNA and Other Designs" or "DNA and the Origin of Life."

The above is the fallacy of incredulity, they can't understand how simple life forms become complex over time, so instead they invoke a designer, which is the only answer for complex life forms.

Evidence for Design in the Development of Biological Complexity

The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. In this regard, ID uses the scientific method to claim that many features of life are designed"not just the information in DNA. After starting 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 tested and discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures through genetic knockout experiments to determine if they require all of their parts to function. When experimental work uncovers irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

The above is a clear misrepresentation of the scientific method due to fact the conclusions drawn came before the hypothesis, which is also false premise to begin with considering no such lifeform has ever been shown to be irreducibly complex.

This method has been used to detect irreducible complexity in a variety of biochemical systems such as the bacterial flagellum.

Yet, irreducible complexity was not found in the flagellum.

Moreover, the more we discover about the cell, the more we are learning that it functions like a miniature factory, replete with motors, powerhouses, garbage disposals, guarded gates, transportation corridors, and most importantly, CPUs. The central information processing machinery of the cell runs on a language-based code composed of irreducibly complex circuits and machines: The myriad enzymes used in the process that converts the genetic information in DNA into proteins are themselves created by the process that converts DNA into proteins. Many fundamental biochemical systems won"t function unless their basic machinery is intact, so how does such complexity evolve via a "blind" and "undirected" Darwinian process of numerous, successive, slight modifications? Since cellular language requires an author, and microbiological machines require an engineer, and genetically encoded programs require a programmer, increasing numbers of scientists feel the best explanation is intelligent design

Dawkins crushed this false premise long ago in his book, "The Blind Watchmaker".

http://www.discovery.org...

Yes, anyone who ever wants to pretend to sound smart but clearly has no idea what they're talking about will often refer to the Discovery Institute, a band of miscreants who do nothing more than misrepresent science and flat out lie to people who are too ignorant and gullible to understand. And of course, for those who wave their Bibles around vigorously attempting to draw attention to themselves.

Ben has been more than endearing to that cause.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth