A simple case for intelligent design

[leroy]

Emphasis changed by ecco...
By your definitions, the "intelligent designer" of all earthly living things is an example of something designed.

So, let's compare the two concepts:

• What is the origin of the natural universe? Answer: Don't know.
• What is the origin of the designed universe? Answer: A "designer" who must have been designed by an even greater "intelligent designer" who must have been designed by an even greater "intelligent designer" who must have been designed by an even greater "intelligent designer" who must have been designed by an even greater "intelligent designer" who must have been designed by an even greater "intelligent designer" who ∞

ETA: Obviously your simple case for intelligent design isn't so simple. I would refer to it as simplistic.

The difference is that we know (at least with a high degree of confidence) that the natural universe had a cause we know that the universe is not causeless.

While the case of the designer of the universe, we wouldnt know if it is causeless or not, there would at least be a possibility that the designer is causless.

 

[leroy]

The OP never actually claimed that pyramids can pop out of no where, to be clear. His claim was very much the opposite of that. He was saying that if we found a pyramid like structure on another planet, we could reasonably assume that it was designed. It was actually I who argued that it wasn't necessarily a reasonable assumption, as any other planet we found ourselves on would almost certainly have different "rules" if you will that apply to it. Not rules as in universal rules, but rules like what's the gravity, what's the magnetic field level, if it has any at all, what kind of environment does it have, how much sun is it getting. These things changing could potentially result in a large pyramid like structure. Or not, lol. Perhaps we'll hit a point where we can be absolutely certain no such thing would happen, in any circumstance, but until we hit such a level of understanding, simply pointing at something that we understood to be designed as designed, without being sure of all of the extenuating factors, just seems like anti science.

Well if we find a pyramid- like structure in an other planet, we might be skeptical on whether if it was designed or not but if this pyramid- looks like the pyramids in Egypt nobody would dispute the design hypothesis.

The pyramids in Egypt have thausands of cubic bricks, the pyramids are symmetrical, with very presice geometry, with Chambers, tombs and artworks inside, ......something like this would obviously indicate the existence of a designer, even if we can't tell who the designer is not where did it come from.

 

[leroy]

However the original post is about how the earth is created intelligent design would mean God created the earth and they are talking about creationism or am way way off base? If I'm not right I am ignorant when it comes to science, so fill me in on what this thread is about.

If I'm right it would not make sense they were speaking about pyramids that had been built by men what does that have to do with creationism?

It is an analogy, the claim is that design is detectable, there are objective ways to detect design. If we go to an other planet and find "something" there would be an objective method to determine it it was designed or not. Even if we can't tell who the designer is, or where did it come from

 

[Polymath257]

The difference is that we know (at least with a high degree of confidence) that the natural universe had a cause we know that the universe is not causeless.

Source?

From my studies of physics, we know no such thing. In fact, the current evidence is toward there NOT being a cause.

 

[Polymath257]

When one looks at the actual experiments with real organisms, one finds that the vast majority of examples of evolution are exoles of a decrease of complexity.

Source?

 

[ecco]

This is a problem with false pagan religions but not with the true God. God has always been.

Genesis 1:1
[1]In the beginning God...

There was nothing before Him.

Wow, seven posts in and already you have to twist scripture to try to defend your views.

Let's look at all of G1:

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
​

How does stating what he did describe his own beginnings?

If you want to equate the creation of the heavens and the earth with god's existence, then god has only existed 6000 years.

Conversely, if you want to argue that god has always existed and...
if you want to equate the creation of the heavens and the earth with gods existence, then the heavens and the earth have always existed.

So, which is it or is it something else?

 

[ecco]

The difference is that we know (at least with a high degree of confidence) that the natural universe had a cause we know that the universe is not causeless.

You asserting that the universe has a cause is just that - an assertion.

If you have any evidence that the universe is "caused" then you are free to present it.

While the case of the designer of the universe, we wouldnt know if it is causeless or not, there would at least be a possibility that the designer is causless.

Uh huh. Things you deem to be caused are caused; things you deem to be causeless are uncaused.

So what we are dealing with here is "The theory of Everything according to leroy" and nothing more.



You also failed to address:
What is the origin of the designed universe? Answer: A "designer" who must have been designed by an even greater "intelligent designer" who must have been designed by an even greater "intelligent designer" who must have been designed by an even greater "intelligent designer" who must have been designed by an even greater "intelligent designer" who must have been designed by an even greater "intelligent designer" who ∞

 

[ecco]

Well even if we make the generous and unrealistic assumption that all you need is a simple protein with 100 nucleotides to produce a self replicating protein. The probability of getting such protein would be 1 in 10^60.

Even assuming that there are trillions of possible paths that would produce such protein, you would still have a number with more that 50 digits.

I think that you would agree that you are a very specific individual. You are the result of one specific sperm in 150,000,000 sperm fertilizing one specific egg. If it was any other sperm, you would not be you. Someone close, maybe. But not you. Yet, you do exist.

That sperm came from your father who, I'm sure you would agree is a very specific individual. He is the result of one specific sperm in 150,000,000 sperm fertilizing one specific egg. If it was any other sperm, He would not be him. Someone close, maybe. But not Him. Yet, He does/did exist.

So, in just two generations the odds of you existing are one in 150,000,000 x 150,000,000.

How many generations back to Adam? 6000 x 5 = 30,000 generations. You do the math. But the odds against YOU existing are far greater than "1 in 10^60." And yet, here you are.

 

[Jose Fly]

Source ?

How Did Life Begin? RNA That Replicates Itself Indefinitely Developed For First Time

Highly efficient self-replicating RNA enzymes. - PubMed - NCBI

Well even if we make the generous and unrealistic assumption that all you need is a simple protein with 100 nucleotides to produce a self replicating protein. The probability of getting such protein would be 1 in 10^60.

Please show your calculations.

You think is a strawman? Ok feel free to provide the accidente model with the accurate calculations.

Again, the reason it's a straw man is because you're arguing against proteins forming independently all on their own, rather than being formed by nucleotides. I have a feeling there's another straw man built into your appeal to probability, but we'll have to wait until you show your math.

Maybe there is a natural principle that "tries" to produce the specific path that would produce this self replicating protein.

The formation of nucleotide strings is catalyzed by clays that were likely abundant on the pre-biotic earth.

Prebiotic RNA Synthesis by Montmorillonite Catalysis

These are all possible and realistic scenarios that could falsify ID.

Are you saying the only thing that would falsify ID creationism is a complete natural scenario for the origin of life?

Is there anything that would falsify naturalism? Is there anything that would falsify the idea that life had a natural origin?

Let's stay on topic. You're attempting to make a positive case for ID creationism, right?

That is a strawman, I never said that arrising outside nature is a criteria for specified complexity .

I think you did. Your OP lists three criteria for "specified complexity", with the third being: "the pattern is independent from the forces of nature: …. For example there is no a law (or principle) in nature that forces “ink” and “paper” to produce meaningful letters words and sentences."

Note your analogy to the production of words and sentences.

My claim is that if a complex system with many parts is organized in a pattern and this pattern is not imposed (independent) by the laws of nature, one can proclaim "specified complexity"

If the pattern is independent but simple, one can not proclaim specified complexity.

Given the OP, this isn't making sense. You stated that if the pattern is produced "independent from the forces of nature", it is "specified complexity". What exactly did you mean by that specific criterion?

 

[Bear Wild]

When one looks at the actual experiments with real organisms, one finds that the vast majority of examples of evolution are exoles of a decrease of complexity.
.......
Imagine the ancient world full of relatively simple unicelular organisms, that had access to an unlimited source of e energy (the sun) ..... My argument is that natural selection would tend to keap things as good as they are, with only small variations .
Why would natural selection "whant" to build complexity ?

The environment with its variation is what would build complexity. The earth has never been uniform. Barriers between organisms leads to genetic drift in different directions. As the mutation continue and the complexity of the genetic code changes the complexity of the organisms change. Yes it is slow, but with some periods of rapid diversification. You need to think beyond human life times to understand how the process can bring about amazing diversity.

 

[houseofcantor]

Oh my Gwynnies, there's no argument.
Intelligent Design neither shows design nor intelligence.

Every "point" made by IDiots exemplifies conformation bias. If we were actual black holes arguing this, then you might have a point. But the last time I checked, I happened to reflect light.

 

[blü 2]

So what would falsify the assertion that life had a natural origin?

The satisfactory demonstration of a real alternative origin would be a good start.

provide an example on how real science is falsifiable

One famous example of falsifying was with the lumeniferous ether, the medium 19th century scientists thought would be essential to explain the ability of photons. with their associated wave-like phenomena, to move through empty space. The famous experiment of Michelson and Morley showed that the hypothesis of such a medium was not compatible with the actual results.

Any hypothesis about reality succeeds or fails according to how exactly it can be shown to correspond to reality.

This is why the failure of the ID people to express their claims in falsifiable terms means that their claims can't be regarded as useful statements about reality, even potentially. The whole ID notion is away with the pixies, not back here where the real work gets done.

Of course that would be easily fixed if the ID people were actually talking about something real. But as far as I'm aware, the only place gods have been detected is in the imaginations of individuals ─ though please feel free to correct me on that point if you have handy a satisfactory demonstration to the contrary.

 

[Brickjectivity]

1 Intelligent design is detectable: there are objective ways to detect design, this is uncontroversial;

Have you excluded Evolution as intelligent design?

2 if we apply those objective methods to living things, we would infer design:

Do you believe it is possible for any design to be perfect?

 

[Valjean]

When one looks at the actual experiments with real organisms, one finds that the vast majority of examples of evolution are exoles of a decrease of complexity.

I'm skeptical. Source?

Imagine the ancient world full of relatively simple unicelular organisms, that had access to an unlimited source of e energy (the sun) ..... My argument is that natural selection would tend to keap things as good as they are, with only small variations .
Why would natural selection "whant" to build complexity ?

It doesn't "want" anything. Mutations, replications, fusions, &c increased the complexity of some of these organisms, perhaps enabling some to better utilize this solar energy, increasing reproductive success. The environment is always changing, as well, rendering old 'designs' maladaptive and favoring new, more complex ones.

The difference is that we know (at least with a high degree of confidence) that the natural universe had a cause we know that the universe is not causeless.

I'm not aware we knew this. Evidence? Source?

While the case of the designer of the universe, we wouldnt know if it is causeless or not, there would at least be a possibility that the designer is causless.

But you're presupposing this 'designer'.
Evidence?

Well if we find a pyramid- like structure in an other planet, we might be skeptical on whether if it was designed or not but if this pyramid- looks like the pyramids in Egypt nobody would dispute the design hypothesis.

If I landed on mars and found a pyramid or pocket watch, I'd hypothesize a designer. If I found a Kangaroo I would not, since an alternative creative mechanism for living things is well known.

The pyramids in Egypt have thausands of cubic bricks, the pyramids are symmetrical, with very presice geometry, with Chambers, tombs and artworks inside, ......something like this would obviously indicate the existence of a designer, even if we can't tell who the designer is not where did it come from.

But pyramids don't reproduce with variation, which is what drives change. They're an undeveloped one-off.

Have you excluded Evolution as intelligent design?

If by "intelligent" you mean intentional, then yes.

 

[exchemist]

The satisfactory demonstration of a real alternative origin would be a good start.
One famous example of falsifying was with the lumeniferous ether, the medium 19th century scientists thought would be essential to explain the ability of photons. with their associated wave-like phenomena, to move through empty space. The famous experiment of Michelson and Morley showed that the hypothesis of such a medium was not compatible with the actual results.

Any hypothesis about reality succeeds or fails according to how exactly it can be shown to correspond to reality.

This is why the failure of the ID people to express their claims in falsifiable terms means that their claims can't be regarded as useful statements about reality, even potentially. The whole ID notion is away with the pixies, not back here where the real work gets done.

Of course that would be easily fixed if the ID people were actually talking about something real. But as far as I'm aware, the only place gods have been detected is in the imaginations of individuals ─ though please feel free to correct me on that point if you have handy a satisfactory demonstration to the contrary.

Leroy's question is itself a category mistake, I think.

It is not a theory of science that life arose naturally, any more than it is a theory of science that the rotation rates of galaxies can be naturally explained, rather than being a result of divine intervention. The same goes for any currently unsolved problem in science.

The search for natural explanations for phenomena in nature is the whole raison d'etre of science. It is a core principle of the scientific method: it is simply what science does. So Leroy's question is asking, not whether a hypothesis can be falsified but whether a methodology can be falsified. Obviously the answer to that is no: a methodology is not a claim or a hypothesis.

This insistence by ID on trying to introduce miraculous interventions by God into science is enough on its own to show ID is not science.

 

[gnostic]

People tend to complicate things, but the concept of inteligetn design (as proposed by Behe, Demski and many others) is very simple and easy to understand.

The theory of ID is based on 2 premises

Sorry, but ID have never achieved the status of being a falsifiable “hypothesis”, so how can it possibly be a “scientific theory”?

And as to Behe, his Irreducible Complexity (IC) also didn’t meet the requirements of being hypothesis, and IC certainly never the stage where it met requirements of Scientific Method and Peer Review.

Irreducible Complexity have not been tested, not by Behe, nor have he provided the process of how to test his claim that will allow any scientist to test IC for themselves, which is the requirement of formulating a hypothesis.

IC is much a joke as Intelligent Design.

 

[louie]

Causeless. You believe or you don’t. If you mentally favor a causeless creator/designer why put him between causeless
and the way it is? Most likely everything has always been,
now let’s deal with it, without someone upstairs waiting at the console for prayers to guide him to make decisions. To me you can’t have causeless or causeless creator without illogical
childhood mental programming. Your religious leader’s final line:
“cause i said so”.

 

[blü 2]

Leroy's question is asking, not whether a hypothesis can be falsified but whether a methodology can be falsified. Obviously the answer to that is no: a methodology is not a claim or a hypothesis.

It seems to me that any methodology of enquiry carries with it, explicitly or implicitly, a notion of truth. My own view, and a very usual one, is that a statement is true to the extent it corresponds with, conforms with, accurately reflects, reality. Thus 'truth' answers to an objective test.

It follows, I think, that religious people generally must use some other definition, though I don't know what it is beyond, 'It's true if I like it'. Perhaps @leroy could clarify his own position to us.

 

[exchemist]

It seems to me that any methodology of enquiry carries with it, explicitly or implicitly, a notion of truth. My own view, and a very usual one, is that a statement is true to the extent it corresponds with, conforms with, accurately reflects, reality. Thus 'truth' answers to an objective test.

It follows, I think, that religious people generally must use some other definition, though I don't know what it is beyond, 'It's true if I like it'. Perhaps @leroy could clarify his own position to us.

I'm sure that must be right. For instance, for science, it seems to me there must be a belief in the existence of an objective reality, to be modelled by the theories of science. There is also a belief, born of experience, that seeking explanations of nature in terms of nature (as opposed to the supernatural) is usually fruitful and therefore worthwhile.

Actually I suspect that "It's true if I like it" is more or less the test that religious people apply, though what is meant by "I like it" may be very complex, involving calls on reasoning, tradition, aesthetic appeal, community and subjective personal experience.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

The difference is that we know (at least with a high degree of confidence) that the natural universe had a cause we know that the universe is not causeless.

While the case of the designer of the universe, we wouldnt know if it is causeless or not, there would at least be a possibility that the designer is causless.

Then would you be willing to admit that there would at least be a possibility that the universe itself is causeless?