10 Categories of Evidence For ID

Proposed for the Intelligent Design Forum.In this thread I would like to address an assertion often raised by ID detractors to the effect of: ID has no evidence to support it.I know I promised to also discuss methodologies to detect design and I will. But first, let's just concentrate on the one topic as this post is already way too long.ID has several areas of evidence that directly supports the overall concept. Here are five and 5 more will follow in a subsequent post.1) Function found in nature. Function is an attribute assigned by intelligence to cause something to cause 'something else' to do something. I design a hammer and cause it to do something else: drive a nail. My body causes my brain to function and the brain then causes me to think (sometimes). My car is a designed mechanism that allows me to drive it to get something else from point A to point B (could be my body, mail or groceries).In fact, just looking up the word at dictionary.com and considering the first two definitions we can see the intelligence inherent in the word function: 1) The action for which a person or thing is particularly fitted or employed. 2) Assigned duty or activity.FACT: We see much function in nature. This is evidence that intelligence operated to design and assign function in order that in each case, one something (often quite different) causes something else.2) The fossil record. Many IDists believe that species were designed very similar to the way they are today. Some evolution may have slightly affected their morphology of course, but when we look at the fossil record we would predict to see species coming into it fully formed, not evidence that species gradually evolved into their macroscopic forms as Darwin proposed.FACT: This is exactly what we see in the fossil record. There is no gradual evolution of bauplanes, but long periods of nothing interspersed with relatively sudden explosions of fully formed organisms. These organisms then stay this way until they go extinct in the record. This is direct evidence for intelligent design.3) DNA found only in organisms. The DNA found in the cellular genome contains more information than in all 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica. ID predicts that DNA, a major building block of complex organisms, can only be created by an intelligent agent or by code preprogrammed by an intelligent agent. Furthermore, some of the building blocks for these nucleic acids are very unstable in nature. For example, Miller found that ribose, which is essential for both DNA and RNA, has a half life (t) of only 44 years at pH 7.0 (neutral) and 0 C. It’s even worse at high temperatures 73 minutes at pH 7.0 and 100 C (the latter evidence is given for the benefit of heat-vent enthusiasts). This is no time at all when we view life as having formed over billions of years.FACT: DNA must be designed.4) Mathematical calculations and evidence as in the form of the study I introduced in the Intelligent Design in Universities thread showing that nature has a tendency to disorganize: As loose information is diffused, information entropy will tend to increase unless energy, guided by intelligence, is added into the system to stabilize it.FACT: This shows the human genome to be DEVOLVING not EVOLVING. This is what ID predicts. Darwinism predicts the exact opposite tendency. This devolving tendency in vertebrate genomes is direct evidence for intelligent design.5) Existence of irreducibly complex systems in nature. ICSs are interesting little critters as they consist of several well matched parts that perform a function and all work together to cause an overall system function. These are well conceived systems that must be planned before they are designed in that Part A--Does job A--Part B, Does job B--Part C, Does job C--Part D, does job D; and the result is that all of these jobs work together to cause an overall function in the system as a whole.FACT: ICSs must be designed and the reality they are found everywhere in nature is evidence for intelligent design.Let's hold 'er here for now.

Very interesting post but I believe you failed to mention what exactly do you want to debate here. Can you please do that in a few words?

Proposal is withdrawn. WAY too much hassle to start new posts on this forum. I will just respond to to others.Thanks, JDB

---

Design Dynamics

Jerry,If you're still interested in starting this topic, I'm willing to promote this as-is. I think people here will find more than enough to debate in this topic. But I do agree with AJ that it's better to explicitly state what you want to debate.One last thing. Comments about proposing new topics (such as why you find this board to be more of a hassle than others) are appreciated; if you'd like to make some more detailed comments, please go to the the "Suggestions and Questions" forum, which you can reach via the links in my signature.Thanks.

---

Yeah, you can run with it. Thanks. I hope I can edit it when you put it on the thread because now I've deleted the other five topics from my laptop. Thanks again, Jerry

---

Design Dynamics

Not sure if this is what you mean, but you can edit your post by clicking the "edit" button under the previously submitted post.It's better not to edit your opening post. That's what the feedback in the Proposed New Topics forum is for--for making suggestions on edits for your opening post, so that once it's "promoted" it won't need to be changed.Anyway. Let's see what happens!

Thread copied to the "Intelligent Design" forum, this copy closed.