The flaws in Intelligent design

[Polymath257]

many creationists have an all or nothing to anything that they have a problem with.

To be fair, many have an all-or-nothing issue for things they *don't* have problems with also.

 

[Audie]

Wow this looks rather biased

I can offer a criticism. We have a good but broken world. Intelligent design doesn't grapple with the brokenness sin and suffering in the world.

Creationism does offer explanation for brokenness sin and suffering

[A]

Children offer explanations for where the cookies went

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It isn't just the difference in weight. Coins are big enough that quantum randomness is minimal. That means that a *sufficiently accurate* initial condition can give rise to a pre-determined outcome.

Of course, things like air currents have to be controlled also.

Do you know of a review or an article explaining quantum randomness? Especially for the non-physicist.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Children offer explanations for where the cookies went

That can work both ways I suppose

 

[Subduction Zone]

I never said evolution is false. So, for the clear record, no evolution is not false.

Do you think that God had to have a hand in it? That would be ID, a variation on creationism. That is not Collins beliefs. He seems to think that it is a natural process. Perhaps he believes it was nudged by God, but he has no evidence for that and he knows it.

 

[Polymath257]

Do you know of a review or an article explaining quantum randomness? Especially for the non-physicist.

I know a decent one for non-realism. It was written by the author of one of the standard books on solid state theory and someone who has done a lot of thinking about the basis of QM: https://faculty1.coloradocollege.edu/~sburns/Courses/17-18/PC251/mermin_moon.pdf

The example given is well worth working through.

 

[Jollybear]

Once again, information comes from every causal interaction. So any causal interaction not involving an intelligence (which is most of them) produces information that did not come from an intelligence.

Ok, interesting point and this leads me to state that there are two KINDS of information. For instance:

If i go outside to get the mail in the box and i happen to see that its cloudy outside and then return into the house and my wife asks "whats it like outside?" I could say "its cloudy".

Now, from this simple example we see two kinds of information.

First, theres the kind that ill call GATHERED information. It dont mean it comes from intelligence. I SAW it was cloudy outside, so i gathered that information.

But, the other kind of information is what ill call CONVEYED information. When i returned into the house, i conveyed the information to my wife that it is cloudy out. So, this kind of information came in the form of words, not gathered sight.

And those words came from me (a.k.a intelligence).

That means that DNA is NOT the only exception. If anything, the exceptions are the times when information *does* come from an intelligence.

Let me ask you how intelligence arose?

Yes, coins are classical items. They generally obey causality, although with sensitive dependence on initial conditions.

Agreed. See that? Something we agree on. We have something in common. How about that, huh? Lol.

But, in the quantum world, there are actually, legitimately, uncaused events and randomness.

I dont think in the quantum world there are uncaused things. Do you have a source for that?

Once again, intelligence isn't necessarily involved. Most life is not intelligent at all (plants, fungi, most invertebrates, etc).

What about the bird nest? Birds have intelligence. Yes, tgey have instinct, but they also have intelligence too.

Matter *can* and *does* often self-organize. Life is a good example of that.

The organization is due to the code of life, DNA.

It carries information. That is enough for it to be a code according to information theory. It encodes information via reflection, refraction, and other interactions. The information *can* be decoded by optical devices.

Correct, its literally a code, not metaphor, just as hubert yokey states.

Or do you think that light doesn't carry information? And most of the information it carries information that is not the product of an intelligence?

Light does not cary a code LIKE DNA does in its 4 nucleotides.

Although, there was an article i read awhile ago that states information is behind the entire universe.

Is Information Fundamental?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, interesting point and this leads me to state that there are two KINDS of information. For instance:

If i go outside to get the mail in the box and i happen to see that its cloudy outside and then return into the house and my wife asks "whats it like outside?" I could say "its cloudy".

Now, from this simple example we see two kinds of information.

First, theres the kind that ill call GATHERED information. It dont mean it comes from intelligence. I SAW it was cloudy outside, so i gathered that information.

But, the other kind of information is what ill call CONVEYED information. When i returned into the house, i conveyed the information to my wife that it is cloudy out. So, this kind of information came in the form of words, not gathered sight.

And those words came from me (a.k.a intelligence).



Let me ask you how intelligence arose?



Agreed. See that? Something we agree on. We have something in common. How about that, huh? Lol.



I dont think in the quantum world there are uncaused things. Do you have a source for that?



What about the bird nest? Birds have intelligence. Yes, tgey have instinct, but they also have intelligence too.



The organization is due to the code of life, DNA.



Correct, its literally a code, not metaphor, just as hubert yokey states.



Light does not cary a code LIKE DNA does in its 4 nucleotides.

Although, there was an article i read awhile ago that states information is behind the entire universe.

Is Information Fundamental?

There are no "words" in DNA. That is only man's attempt to make complex chemical reactions easier to understand. The so called words are man's invention. No intelligence needed for their formation.

 

[IBdaMann]

During my interaction on the forum with reference to evolution I keep coming across what I thought were odd responses when the argument went to intelligent design.

I'll give you the correct and complete answer.

There are no flaws in Intelligent Design. It is an unfalsifiable religious belief that simply assumes what it concludes. Whereas Christianity simply assumes God is the Creator, Intelligent Design is the name for the "logical argument" many Christians use to "prove" the existence of God. Unfortunately, the argument starts by stating that "Creation exists" and the word "Creation" implies a creator. The argument ends with "If there is a Creator then it must be God." Of course none of this is supported and there isn't much rigor to the "proof" but that's OK; it's just a religion and it's all assumed belief.

Meaning, there are no problems with Intelligent Design. All the believers consider all the arguments to be TRUE which makes it a sound argument to them.

I think we're done here.

 

[IBdaMann]

There are no "words" in DNA.

Is there information in DNA? Could some of that information be conveyed in words? If so, what might some of those words be?

 

[IBdaMann]

ID is not even a hypothesis, and evolution is a full fledged theory.

The correct answer is that both Intelligent Design and Evolution are theories.

Let's remember that you haven't the vaguest idea of what an hypothesis is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is there information in DNA? Could some of that information be conveyed in words? If so, what might some of those words be?

We are waiting for a working definition of "information" from the supporters of ID.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The correct answer is that both Intelligent Design and Evolution are theories.

Let's remember that you haven't the vaguest idea of what an hypothesis is.

Nope, in fact you just confirmed it a couple of posts ago. By definition a scientific theory has to be falsifiable. You said that ID was not falsifiable.

And since you do not know what a theory is I doubt if you know what a hypothesis is either.

 

[IBdaMann]

.The closest might have been Francis Bacon who did no work in evolution, but was key in developing the scientific method, which the theory of evolution is based upon.

Let me catch my breath, I'm laughing too hard. The scientific method only applies to falsifiable models that predict nature. There is no such thing as applying the scientific method to speculations about the past or on anything that is not falsifiable.

Lastly, there is no such thing as a theory that is based on the future tests of its validity.

Hey professor, let's build a theory!
Sure, Watkins, on what shall this theory be based?
Professor, let's base it on the tests we will apply to it! ... you know, the scientific method.
OK, Watkins, well what tests will those be?
Well Professor, I'm guessing that will depend on our theory.
Watkins, how will we build a theory about those tests if we don't know what those tests will be?
Ummm, Professor, we could make a theory about what those tests should be!

 

[IBdaMann]

We are waiting for a working definition of "information" from the supporters of ID.

We are waiting for a falsifiable definition of Climate from the Church of Global Warming.

 

[IBdaMann]

Nope, in fact you just confirmed it a couple of posts ago. By definition a scientific theory has to be falsifiable. You said that ID was not falsifiable.

Correct. Both Intelligent Design and Evolution and Greenhouse Effect are theories. None are falsifiable. None are science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let me catch my breath, I'm laughing too hard. The scientific method only applies to falsifiable models that predict nature. There is no such thing as applying the scientific method to speculations about the past or on anything that is not falsifiable.

Lastly, there is no such thing as a theory that is based on the future tests of its validity.

Hey professor, let's build a theory!
Sure, Watkins, on what shall this theory be based?
Professor, let's base it on the tests we will apply to it! ... you know, the scientific method.
OK, Watkins, well what tests will those be?
Well Professor, I'm guessing that will depend on our theory.
Watkins, how will we build a theory about those tests if we don't know what those tests will be?
Ummm, Professor, we could make a theory about what those tests should be!

Your laughter only tells us that you still do not understand the scientific method. First off all events that we observe are in the past. Let me find something for you, it is at the high school level so you may be able to understand it:

Do you see anything in that limiting it to the present? Just because you do not know how to test a theory does not mean that others do not understand. The theory of evolution is testable. It is falsifiable by quite a few tests. It has not been falsified yet which is why it still is a theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We are waiting for a falsifiable definition of Climate from the Church of Global Warming.

Rude questions do not get any answers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Correct. Both Intelligent Design and Evolution and Greenhouse Effect are theories. None are falsifiable. None are science.

No no no. ID is not a theory. You yourself said that it was not falsifiable. The Greenhouse Effect is a theory. It is falsifiable but to understand it you would need to understand the Stefan Boltzmann law at the very least. And of course evolution is falsifiable.

One more time, just because you do not understand how a concept can be falsified that does not mean that others do not know how to do this. Just because something is far beyond your understanding does not mean that it is not science.

 

[IBdaMann]

No no no. ID is not a theory.

It's quite the shame you can't ever pay science a visit, that you feel obligated to make everything up as you go.

Intelligent Design, Evolution, Creationism and Greenhouse Effect are all unfalsifiable theories. The scientific method applies to none of them.