Does complexity require intelligent design?

Fyi, I've long been aware about NS. Either however, imo, would be correct.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

Then you should know that to mention randomness as an obviously erroneous mechanism for evolution, while leaving out selection (without which randomness would indeed be an erroneous explanation of the process of evolution), is to misrepresent the argument. Doing so while being aware of selection, is dishonest even. If by that you mean that "either random mutation or natural selection" is a correct answer to the question of where the information in DNA comes from, then you're simply wrong. Both are necessay for information to build up. The correctness of the answer depends on its completeness.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

I believe in intelligent design. This intelligent designer I call God. I don't believe that in Himself, God can be proved because this would mean He was self-evident. But I do believe that the credibility of God can be proved. In the summa theologica by Aquinas, the arguments more or less are for intelligent design, they just go one step beyond and state that this, "uncaused cause/first mover, etc... we call God." The skelatal structure of his arguments for the credibility of intelligent design are based on the first principles, and they follow logically, so I've never had reason to question the credibility of God's existence. There are several points and they go something like this if I remember correctly:1. There are "things."
2. These "things" are not of themselves but are "by which"
3. Neither are the "things by which" of themselves but by dependence on another
4. This other is also a "thing by which"
5. Thus there is a continuation of "things by which"
6. But there cannot be a continuation of "things by which" to infinity for "things by which" then could not be "by which," but would maintain their existence entirely of themselves
7. But if there is an end to the chain of "things by which" so also is there a beginnning
8. This beginning must be the only thing to exist entirely of its own accord and not by which
9. This thing we call God.As applied to intelligent design specifically Aquinas said:"The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God."The argument that a lot of people like to use against this is that things which lack intelligence don't necessarily work towards an end and just exist for and by their own sake. But I think that nothing I have ever seen exists of its own volition, therefore, because its existence is dependent on another, there has to be a reason, an end for its very existence. The final end of everything not intelligent was meant for man's use - and man was meant for the glory of God. And God simply is.

Intelligent Design is a pseudo-scientific enterprise which would reject what you just laid out. You mean to argue for creationism, and so believe that life has been designed by an intelligence. That is different than Intelligent Design.In any case, while Aquinas might have used a logical structure for his argument, that is not cause for saying you "had no reason to question the credibility of God's existence." You may say you found no challenges which could refute the logic, but saying you had no reason to challenge it seems a bit strange.Please define what you mean in points 2, and 6-9. You will find problems associated with all of them.One of your larger problems is that #7 and the quote you gave from Aquinas, leaves God quite undefined besides where it was or what it did. It could end up being almost anything... including a very nonXian, nonIntelligent entity. Indeed the God from #7 could very well be totally unconnected from the God which directs all natural things toward their end.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

Welcome, trent. Okay, so the definition of God is "first thing". Perhaps the logic holds thus far (if you ignore some rather obvious possibilities like an infinite past for all matter).However, you seem to add #10; in my words: That logic does not follow from the argument that God was the "first thing". What exactly does this mean, to you? An example perhaps? Could you give a defintion of "end" as used by Aquinas? Perhaps "goal" is interchangeable, but the "goal" of whom or what?Does a pebble rolling down a hill, or the formation of a water molecule, achieve an end? If so, where is the design detectable in such instances? Pebbles on a planet mankind cannot know are meant for our use? Sorry, this argument seems to fail on its own anthropocentrism. Which God? The Judeo-Christian God?Nothing in the your, or Aquinas' "logical" arguments allows the leap to a specific supernatural God or theology. By the logic laid out in the "9 steps", God could be anything; even something as simple as a subatomic particle carrying the embodiment of the natural laws of the universe.Is man meant for the glory of that subatomic particle?

I reply in all charity to your many objections because it is good practice for me. right, so someone pointed out that my argument of intelligent design doesn't argue for intelligent design but for creationsim - let me say that, though perhaps you do and I should, I didn't distinguish between the two. God is the creator, yes, and He is intelligent. He neither covers space nor time, is neither as small as a sub-atomic particle, nor as large as the infinite limits of the universe, for He is all and holds all in being, time and space included. These may seem to you very strange beliefs, very stupid, because they can't be proven. That's why it's called faith, it can't be proven. Faith is a gift, but you dont't get it without wanting it. I've read what I've read, and I wanted to have faith, and I was given it. Interestingly enough, the only one's who truly believe in Christ are Christians and Satanists. LOL Anyway, right, objections.1. "Perhaps the logic holds thus far (if you ignore some rather obvious possibilities like an infinite past for all matter"Why is that an "obvious possibility"? I would say the exact opposite. Something doesn't come from nothing, no matter how hard you try. There has to have been a first thing whereby all matter came into existence. Non-being to being is impossible. The very idea of existence is grounded on the fact that the essence of a thing moves from being in potential to it being actualized. Things just don't exist on their own - have you ever witnessed any given thing come of its own out of absolute nothing?2. That logic does not follow from the argument that God was the "first thing".Mea Culpa - I explained above that I did not make admittance of the idea that one who is the first thing could be unintelligent - however, Thomas argues that because God is first likewise in perfection - the fourth way to prove the credibility of God's existence in the Summa, He likewise must have the most perfect intellect.3."What exactly does this mean, to you? An example perhaps? Could you give a defintion of "end" as used by Aquinas? Perhaps "goal" is interchangeable, but the "goal" of whom or what?"The unintelligent thing. An ocean for example, what does it do? Why does it do it - not how, but why? Were we to completely do away with the question of why a thing does something I really think that we would be able to live without the existence of God, but we can't. Why does the ocean exist? For a multitude of reasons. But why for those reasons. Let us take one. The ocean exists so that marine life may exist in it. why? So that man may have fish to eat. Why? Because man needs sustenance...or oil from whales, or whatever other scientific reasons one could give for not doing away with the ocean. another, the ocean exists so that an entire body of marine animals in all their various forms can provide a multitudinous amount of resources - without which resources being available and usable defeats the very purpose of its existence in the long, long run. This is so precisely because they are unintelligent. Humans, as the only rational creatures were meant to use all the other irrational creatures for they are inferior. There was a reason why man was created with an intellect, and nothing else material was. And neither does the ocean exist just to exist. It exists for our use and God's glory."Does a pebble rolling down a hill, or the formation of a water molecule, achieve an end? If so, where is the design detectable in such instances?"Your proposed pebble rolling down the hill, got stuck in the spoke of a wheel of a proud Cardinal just a little outside of a village, the pebble eventually so damaged things that the wheel broke and he had to stop in the village while it was repaired. While he was stopped he was exposed to much destitution and extreme poverty. he realized how bad it was that he was proud and had a conversion, grew in sanctity, eventually became pope, reformed the Church. Now, the pebble however didn't just roll down the hill of its own accord - it was either moved by gravity, or vibration, or a very, very strong wind, etc... but all these inher in something else. That which inhers in something else, does not depend on itself for its existence. I remove myself farther and claim that God created all the things above, and motion, which allowed for the situation to happen - and the sum total of the events, from the pebble rolling to the reform of the Church was for His glory. That is the final end of all things - to glorify God. God is perfect, He is happy, He is the wisest, etc... but glory can only come from something other than itself - thus, He created everything created, which final end is for His glory.4.Which God? The Judeo-Christian God? I make no admittance of any other

So nice to see someone say that ID is nothing but a way of searching for their god. Of course to be fully realized such a kind of search needs to be unfettered by preconception: it is hard to find the correct solution to a mathematical problem when you are convinced the answer is 42.Enjoy.

trent Really? How is it that you claim that he is all these things and yet declare that you cannot know such to be true,hence your faith? Would it not be more truthful to say you have faith that he has these qualities as opposed to saying he is possesed of these qualities?

.......And a whole lota other stuff had to happen which neither of us mentioned, like there had to be light and heat energy, et al. I simply mentioned one. Why not get over nitpicking?

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

Hello loudmouth,

quote:

---

Comparing design created through human manufacturing can not be compared to design created through biological reproduction.

---

Design is not created through biological reproduction. It is copied. Creation is an entirely different process than reproduction. Why would one want to differentiate between random patterns regardless of how they were created? My question was : How is it known that these are really random, as stated?
My questions were intended to point out the sweeping generalizations in the opening statement that I felt were unsubstantiated. I do not know if there is an intended pattern to the arrangement of the stars, but I doubt that the constellations we have given names to were provided for the purpose of making vague predictions about one’s life. I was primarily addressing the apparently unique conditions that exist in this solar system that make life as we know it possible. I believe we do know that it is impossible for life to have formed spontaneously. The relatively recent discoveries concerning the complexities of DNA and the minimum requirements for the simplest functioning living cells have led even ardent evolutionists to admit that life could not have formed by chance.

There is no distinguishable difference between design resulting from reproduction with modification and design resulting from intelligent intervention, especially because intelligence can employ reproduction with modification to design. Certainly a human could design something to look evolved; evolution obviously results in designs that many people mistake for being of intelligent origin.So no, creation is not an entirely different process than reproduction. That's hardly a significant admission given that no evolutionist proposed that life formed by "chance" in the first place.

Hi there, 1.61803, your post is clever; but I'm sure you know that bees are merely performing the function they were designed for. How would shape determine function in that example? Or if you don't agree with my belief about bees, how about eyes? Why are there so many differently shaped eyes on the different species when they perform basically the same function?I believe that God created all of nature, and you can't see Him, so you believe that nature created itself, somehow.This message has been edited by xevolutionist, 03-17-2005 01:56 AM

quote:

---

And a whole lota other stuff had to happen which neither of us mentioned, like there had to be light and heat energy, et al. I simply mentioned one. Why not get over nitpicking?

---

Buz, do you acknowledge that random mutation PLUS natural selection results in changes in the allele frequencies of populations over time?...or at least, do you recognize that this is what Evolutionary theory states?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-17-2005 02:25 AM

Which is different from the idea of God creating himself - or being eternal, which is the same thing - only in the fact that nature actually is known to exist.

Now crash, it seems as if you've altered the parameters here. If only it could be shown that the design could be modified by mutation to some viable redesign, which is not obvious in nature as the vast majority of mutations which have an observable effect are harmful, not beneficial. [cancer is one that comes to mind]