Intelligent Design explains many follies

This might prove to be a bit subtle to you but let's try:If you want this analogy to be extended then the humans who designed the evolutionary algorithm would correspond, in your mind to the god who designed the laws of physics back at the initiation of the universe.If you want to argue that God did that there is no proof that he didn't. If you are very lucky there may never be.However, that has NOTHING to do with biological evolution. The ID argument is that biological creatures can not evolve because those processes can not do what the evolutionary algorithm proves they CAN do. If you wish to move to the position of a theological evolutionist there are only some here who will bother arguing with you.Somehow I don't think you want to do that. However, I'll be surprised if you get what the analogy is about here.

Well, here, we have a preordained theory of Evolution.What has to be proved has already been assumed to start with. This is known as circular reasoning. Siewing is an evolutionary biologist and he writes," It is like an observer who views a flooded orchard with the only the tips of the branches visible above the waters. He does not know how these branches connect with one another, nor how they eventually connect with the tree trunks. The major part of evolution containing the gaps in the lines of descent ,is hidden under water. These gaps must be bridged methodically" Evolution, Results and consequences, New york, 1982. The set of genes of an organism is a finely tuned team , a balanced genome whose harmonious cooperation determines the orderly development of a living being. This is unchanged at every step of cell division and the division of cell nuclei and chromosomes.This identical replication of the genes guarantees the constancy of genetic information.The replication is responsible for the phenomenon that ducks always hatch from duck eggs with all the characteristics of this bird. Mutations and selections cannot be a source of new or different information. The evolutionary assumption that simple construction plans could produce more complex plans by means of mutations and selection is false accrding to the information theory. Werner Gitt, p64 In Did God use Evolution? CLV Publishers, Bielefeld. 1993.

You are, as usual, (maybe as always) are incorrect in almost everything you post. It is however, not really worth trying to get it through to you.Your reply has, as always, little or NOTHING to do with the content of the post you are replying to. You seem to have a problem sticking to a point.

John 10:10 How did ID come to be then?I know I know OFF TOOPIC! Do not answer.This message has been edited by sidelined, Sun, 2006-03-19 03:34 PM

What we have here is an argument from ignorance of how science actually works. Compare this to the "intelligent design" concept (not even a theory) that gosh, I don't know anything, therefore {somebody\something\oh-god-I hope-it's-GOD} musta done it."Preordained"??? by whom? For what purpose? To what end?"What has to be proved is already assumed" ... you are confusing theory with dogma that cannot be challenged or falsified. Theories can be both challenged and falsified, but never proved. There are many falsified theories in the field of evolution, and they have been discarded as false. Some even from Darwin himself.The obvious way to show that certain types of evolution are false is to provide evidence that falsifies it. This is how Lamarkism was falsified.The other way to challenge theories is to provide an alternative that explains the same evidence in a different way ... and then providing a test based on this concept that can be done to determine in the original theory or the new one is better able to predict the result.This would appear to be the thesis of this thread, however to date there has been no such test put forward. Until that is done "intelligent design" is not even a theory. The major part of evolution is staring you in the face everytime you look at a mirror, other humans or any other species. Evolution is change in species over time. That this happens is undeniable, in fact it has been observed in so many scientific experiments that it is accepted by all the major adversaries of evolutionary theory. New traits, new species, even "irreducibly complex" systems have been observed to evolve. And some engineers supposedly proved that bumblebees could not fly. The problem here is that when math (of which "information theory" is a subset) proves something can't happen that has happened, it is usually found to be errors in the application of the maths (ie - the world doesn't suddenly change so that bumblebees don't fly, it remains blissfully unaware of the mathematical results).In other words, "information theory" doesn't prove anything. At best it suggests that if {these assumptions} are correct and {this process} reflects reality then {this conclusion from the theory} happens. Obviously when this does not happen, then either the assumptions or the process or the method of deriving the conclusion ... or some combination of all three could be wrong, and at least one is.How do you know? You test it: you compare it with things in the real world to see if it accurately predicts things there, and if it doesn't then it is obvious that the theory is wrong and not the world. That shows it is time to go back and refine the theory or discard it and get a new one. What is "information" in this context? The genetic structure that controls how a species grows and behaves? A bacteria that evolves the ability to digest nylon - a man-made product - has developed a new ability that did not exist before. Except that replication of genetic information is not that perfect.The problem for "intelligent design" is to explain the bad designs that are everywhere. The thesis here is that "intelligent design explains many follies" so it must be able to explain these bad designs eh?Why is there sickness and disability (and death)? How does "intelligent design" explain that? This of course ignores any sorting and selection process which means that it does not represent evolution in any way. This demonstrates a profound ignorance and a total lack of any {willingness\desire\attempt} to truly understand what you are pretending to talk about.There is no "finished puzzle" as (1) things are still evolving (changing) and (2) there are a lot of mistakes readily observable that show the "pieces" are not in the right places yet ... they are still "jumbled" ...So one could make the same argument about "intelligent design" -- how does the jumble that currently exists demonstrate any intellingence in the design? Pointing to one piece sitting on top of another and saying "look - how could that happen by random chance just like that? how could that happen except by design" is ... to date ... just an argument from incredulity (read "wishfull thinking").Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

It is the evidence that is missing. Proof is missing and instead of providing evidence, IT HAS BEEN PRESUMED THAT EVIDENCE ALREADY EXISTS. WHERE IS IT? You can rearrange words. You can accuse those who question evolution. The answer is still missing.

Also incorrect. The problem is that you need to attempt one rather challenging action.You need to open your eyes.

You took my first question, made it the subtitle of your post and still didn't answer it? Tch.So nice to see that you completely avoided all the points that I made to blindly restate your ignorant position. This is not an argument but a dogmatic response to stimuli, one that shows no hint of learning from experience.Note that I said evolution had been observed. So has Ned. It is documented in many scientific papers. To deny this has occurred is to wallow in willfull ignorance shouting at the sun for not orbiting the earth.I also noted several things that need to be done to demonstrate that "intelligent design" offers any kind of explanation - the erstwhile topic of this thread you started (and have failed to substantiate in any way) - and I note a complete dearth of any attempt to answer those issues, or in fact any attempt to pursue the original topic at all.Instead it appears that you are more willing to dodge the failings of your own arguments by trying to take this thread into other topics.This is usually taken as a sign that (a) you have nothing further to say on the original topic, (b) you are abandoning it due to a complete inability to support it further while (c) not admitting it is a failed topic (not even to yourself, so you can repeat the same fallacious argument later elsewhere) and (d) are pretending to argue points instead of just making unfounded assertions as dogmatically as possible.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

(1) Discreet Label wrote,"How is to believe that organisms reproduce is unscientific."There is a big difference between studing organisms that reproduce when they are able to do so, and determining how organisms became able to reproduce in the first place. The former is science, the latter is not.(2) Christopher writes,"As far as i know, it is only Biblical literalists who claim to know precisely how the universe and inorganic matter came to be."Reverend DG claimed in post # 66 that "we do have answers." This was in reference to my posts # 63 where I said it's "folly to believe that intricately complex inorganic matter, organic matter, and the universe came to be without ID." Many would like to hear the answer how intricately complex inorganic matter and the universe came to be without ID.(3) Is there any comparison in complexity between a natural stone arch that developed over time by wind, rain, floods, etc; and the complexity of the matter that makes up the stone arch?(4) No, DNA does not copy itself perfectly all the time. That's why there are imperfections as organisms reproduce. To rest one's case on adaptation and imperfections as the reasons how organisms evolve is pure folly.(5) Bits and pieces of how organisms adapt and mutate is not scientific evidence that organisms can actually transform themselves from a spark of life to a living organism, and then on to millions and millions of living organisms.(6) How did ID come to be then? Scientifically, one starts with the knowledge that "design" exists. Then one considers the possibilities of how "design" exists. Evolution is the answer for evolutionists. ID is the answer for people of faith. It's as simple and as difficult as that.Blessings

---

The evil one comes to steal, kill and destroy; but I Jesus have come that you might have eternal Life and have eternal Life more abundantly - John 10:10

John 10:10Intelligent design holds that the world is too complex to have come about naturally in the first place. Therefore the intelligent design hypothesis holds that such complexity could not have come about by chance {which is a faulty understanding of how chance generates the world we see} but necessitates that an intelligence of greater complexity than the design {as is exemplefied in the many references to machinery or computer programs that could not have just happened} itself must exist.The difficulty then comes when you apply the principle of the hypothesis to the intelligent designer you used to explain the complexity of the world. Since the intelligent designer is more complex than the world before us{as per your arguement} we need to invoke the ID hypothesis to explain where that intelligent designer came from since we cannot say that such complexity simply happened. {because that is the naturalistic stance}You therefore run afoul of the fallacy of ad infinitum.This message has been edited by sidelined, Mon, 2006-03-20 10:35 AM

Yes. Why? What makes you think anyone does that anyway? Why not? Well, that kinda shows that you don't understand how science works. When you begin with a statement like 'Scientifically, one starts with the knowledge that "design" exists.', then you have already lost your way beyond any hope. For science to work, you cannot begin with a conclusion.An idea like 'one starts with the knowledge that "design" exists' is pure folly.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I agree with the 'why' question, Jar, but your second question has me worried. I think adaptation and imperfection are indeed the basic things that evolution is built on. Perhaps you could point out how you think this might not be the case. It all depends on how you define 'design' of course, but if you call the relation that exists between form and function in many structures in living nature 'design', then I think John 10:10 has a point. We see that there is such a relation, so, in a way, we do "start with the knowledge that 'design' exists", just as we start with the knowledge that gravity exists when we try to theorize an explanation for it.I hope I didn't totally derail your argument, but I thought that, for the sake of fairness, this needed to be said.In the mean time, John 10:10, if you read this, I'd appreciate a reaction to my post to you in which I mentioned London, remember?

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

what biological system is 'irreducibly complex'?

But they are not the only things. He (or she) tends to leave out the filtering part of the equation. That variable filter, one that changes with time, location, and circumstance is as important as the changes in the critters themselves. I think the key here is that first sentence. If some IDer can one day come up with a definition of design that is applicable to what is seen, they might be able to, at the least, begin a discussion and debate. But so far that has not happened.Take for example the stone arches or rock bridges. They serve no function. A man made bridge is designed to cross an obstacle to allow folk, critters and things to get from one side to another. The rock bridge though serves no function. It just is.But I don't agree that we start from a knowledge that design exists. There is a reason that we find natural bridges wonderous, and that is precisely because they are unusual, out of the ordinary.To look at your example of gravity, it is something we know because we can observe it. It's a word we invented to explain what we see. It's not a preconception, but rather a result.If IDers could first come up with some definition of what design is similar to the definition we use for gravity, "The thing that makes things fall down", then we could begin. The simplistic working definition of gravity above is still specific enough that all of us can then test it, and at the least, agree that is a working definition of the word, but not an explanation of the phenomina.Right now we have no such definition for design. We could make one that is really broad, and say "Design is that thing that gives things form or makes them work or determines how they will react with other things." The problem is that such a definition is so broad as to be meaningless.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Thanks for giving me a fair shake concerning what I've said. You're the first one to do so with deprecating what I've said.You have written,"Is an old city, like, say London, an intricately complex man-made thing? I'd say it is.But has it been designed? Hardly, it seems. A city like London is an almost organic, living thing that has taken centuries to grow into what it is now. No single human being is responsible for its plan, no one person designed it the way it is. Some aspects of it could be called really stupid, from a design point-of-view. Yet, it is very complex and unmistakably man-made.Is this the kind of example you were after?"No, this is not the kind of example I'm looking. There is a difference between matter evolving deterministically, and matter that exists evolving over time and space.Cities do evolve over time and space. Some are designed very well, and some are not. The fact that cities exist is proof that man's involvment participated in the process. How well they were designed and built is not the issue.

---

The evil one comes to steal, kill and destroy; but I Jesus have come that you might have eternal Life and have eternal Life more abundantly - John 10:10