Discontinuing research about ID

This is what we call the Rube Goldberg paradox. Goldberg was an old cartoonist who "designed" insanely complicated gadgets for doing simple tasks; the humor came from the fact that these contraptions were unlike anything an intelligent agent would design. Michael Behe, in his ID manifesto Darwin's Black Box, reprinted a Goldberg cartoon to draw a parallel to the crazed, redundant complexity of biochemical processes. But he must have missed the joke, because he was trying to argue that such complexity is prima facie evidence of intentional design. The dizzying complexity of something like DNA or a protein cascade is more plausibly attributed to countless iterations of a mindless process than an intelligent designer.

I guess that's why no-one says it "created itself". So the fact that it is difficult to produce something by design proves that that's how it was produced? If no-one can make a tree, that proves that someone did? Whereas life complex enough to conceive, design and create DNA apparently doesn't require anything ... it "created itself", I suppose?

Either the original creator was always there, or was made from a less complicated substance than DNA, allowing for the possibility of self-generation from non-living matter. The possibility of DNA self generating is too far -fetched to be a plausible scientific argument for the appearance of matter. Could it be termed a hypothesis? On what scientific basis?Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.

ringo, I beg to differ. If mankind finds it difficult to copy something using intelligent minds its a little far fetched that nature can design the original spontaneously. Anyway if that's your proposed hypothesis for the origin of life, that's your call.

Interesting thoughts there MrHambre. I see DNA as highly integrated and functional, with far too many interrelationships between the genes to be a natural created process.But if you are correct, i look forward to mankind's improvements on DNA... interesting proposal of yours indeed!

That's an empty statement. Quantum mechanics was "far-fetched" until we began to understand it. We don't slam on the brakes just because somebody thinks an idea is "far-fetched".

I wasn't suggesting we slam on any brakes regarding trying to replicate DNA. I was merely pointing out the unlikelihood of the original design occurring spontaneously if intelligent minds battle to replicate it.

Not unless you can find someone who believes it.

Whereas biochemical processes replicate DNA all the time. So, we have something that you say can't be done by intelligent minds, but which we know can be done by unintelligent natural processes. And on this basis, we're meant to conclude that it was done by an intelligent mind?

You need to establish some connection between those two clauses. Why does difficulty in replicating the origin of DNA without access to the original conditions and over much smaller time periods than it is hypothesized to have taken place have any relationship to the difficulty (or lack thereof) in the original formation of DNA?

Firstly, I never said it cant be done by intelligent minds.Secondly, natural biochemical processes do not "replicate DNA". Please show me your evidence for your statement.

Then what was your point? Start here. DNA replication - WikipediaEdited by Admin, : Fix typo, "The" => "Then".

Dr Adequate, my point is that its difficult for humans to copy DNAI see what you mean by replication, I misunderstood you, i thought you meant natural processes are creating replicas from scratch, which of course isn't happening.

I disagree. I believe my point is easy to understand on its own, its a subjective argument. Conceptual. As is any argument for abiogenesis mere hopeful conjecture at best without any objective evidence in support.

How is your design hypothesis not pure conjecture?
Where is your objective evidence?
How is your hypothesis nothing more than an argument from ignorance?
How is the design hypothesis not abiogenesis anyway?

quote:

---

I was merely pointing out the unlikelihood of the original design occurring spontaneously if intelligent minds battle to replicate it

---

Why do creationists always put human intelligence over nature? Why be so self centered? Of course, we are intelligent, the universe can't live without intelligence. Well, breaking news, it did for billions of years and will do so once we're gone