The flaws in Intelligent design

[A Vestigial Mote]

He has interacted with me, and will do the same for anyone, as I said earlier "who seeks him with a sincere heart and receptive mind."

That seems rather arbitrary criteria. One would hope you could grasp why that has been selected/developed as the criteria by Christians. Hint: it's the same reason behind the fact that God is only credited with healing completely invisible maladies - not amputees, nor severe burn victims, nor people with severed spinal cords.

But more on-topic - ever read any of the research into Endogenous Retroviruses? It's, quite honestly, my favorite piece of evidence supporting evolution. If you understand the mechanisms behind the appearance of these viral components within our DNA, and then read up on the similarities in exact virus genes and exact placement within the human and ape genomes... well... to deny that apes are part of our ancestry at that point (and to therefore deny our evolution from apes) is just blatantly dishonest.

 

[Audie]

Yes, it is very hard to figure. Practically impossible. Why would they and so many just make it up?



That bate and switch dont work on me. Weather mormanism is true or false has to be looked at on its own merits.



Same thing, bait and switch. Ill let the mormons defend there religion and ill let the muslims defend theres. Ill defend mine.



I dont think its naive. We see design in the world. Even mike shermer and richard dawkins, atheist scientists, ADMIT that things LOOK designed, but the design is illusion they say. And this is coming from leading atheistic scientists.

Audie, come over to our camp, join forces with the God group and help me refute all the rest of these posts, because im outnumbered, lol.

I do not do "bait and switch". I gave several examples of
religions, there are more. At the very best, all but one are
simply phony, made up.


It is a simple idea, and obvious. Rather than finding a phony
way to find fault, see if you can understand an idea offered
in good faith. I dont do things in bad faith, and its a bit
unkind to just say (repeatedly) that I do!

Each person / religion tends to think it is the real deal,
THEIR guys did not just make it up, their god is real.
Apparently that is your belief, about your belief. Like
everyone elsd, about theirs, nonkey god, sacred rock,
or whatever. Kind of naive, no?

Of course you do not think your question is naive.
The very nature of being naive keeps a person from
seeing it. Try seeing why I said it is;

Your confusion about what "Dawkins" (as if I care what
he says) is saying, is also naive. Likewise your use of the
word "admit" (reluctantly confess), which is far far
from an accurate description, the opposite actually.
Think about that, see where you went wrong.

I wont be able to help you refute, unless subzie or
someone says something nonsensical. I dont
pick sides, in that sort of thing. Nonsense is nonsense.


Even I am not good at refuting things that are factual
and make sense, so I cannot help you there.

Rather, I'd suggest you consider listening to voices
of those who know things you do not, and set about
to improve your understanding.

As for joining "your side", not one of the "goddies" here,
as I betimes call them, has ever presented as remotely
resembling anything I would care to emulate. Quite
the opposite.

Out there in "real life", that is different. I have met
Christians for whom I have the utmost respect and
I have at times modeled my behaviour and thoughts
after what I've learned from them.

There's things you can learn from us awful atheists,
if you will allow yourself.

 

[Audie]

So, atheists have no faith in anything? Lol

The blindness runs deep.

No, it means that you were playing equivocation
with the word "faith", and now you are still doing
it, and compounding the silliness,

I suppose you do not know what "equivocation"
means, or what is the problem with it, why it is
an eye-roll when you keep doing it.

Look at it this way. The word "frog" has a lot of
meanings It might mean a Frenchman, a bayonet
thingy, a hoppy amphibian, part of a violin bow.

One might possibly make a low joke about
eating frogs, but it is hardly a worthy thing to bring
into some sort of debate.

Mixing up the meanings of a word is the
equivocation fallacy. You keep doing it. Plz
stop.

If you cannot recognize, or wont, the difference between
a bayonet thingy and a Frenchman, or between the
"faith" that your fork wont suddenly turn into a
Frenchman and "faith" in an undetectable sky-god
that runs everything, you are somewhere beyond
hopeless.

Please give us assurance that this is not so.

 

[dianaiad]

No, the objection to a designer is that there is no reliable evidence for one. That is all. Once again substitute Pixies for designer.



When they cannot provide any after being asked countless time that strongly implies that they do not have any reliable evidence



Yes, it is. And there is no evidence of any of those.



That is very poor reasoning on your part. I am merely asking people to use the same rational thought processes that they use for other parts of their lives.



That does not work. You are now using an equivocation fallacy. You claim creator and design. Attempts to sneak God in the back door.



Then drop the abused term.

In other words, I'm correct about your insistence that no believer in a deity should be a scientist...because s/he doesn't agree with you about this issue.

Again, not what I claim, unless you agree that there is no evidence for a god.

You really need to read my posts once in awhile. I have said, several times now, that there is no empirical or objective proof that any deity exists. This belief is subjective and personal. ...and not 'transferable.' That is, one comes to a belief in God by oneself; nobody can prove the existence of God to you, and you (something you seem to be forgetting here) cannot prove His nonexistence to anybody else. Not logically possible.

The rational approach is to withhold belief in anything until one has sufficient evidence.

In other words, the rational approach is that everybody else withhold belief in anything until there is enough evidence of the correct sort to convince you. Sorry, but I will believe because of evidence (purely subjective) that is good enough for me. Your opinions don't enter into the equation.

That's about the existence of God. On the other hand, I require objective, empirical evidence to prove to me that a meteor strike caused the extinction of the dinosaurs. There seems to be quite a bit of that, so I'll consider that to be 'the cause' until and unless something more compelling comes along. If God had anything to do with that, fine....but science isn't about how that meteor came to exist. It's about what the trajectory was, what the results of the strike were, how it affected the planet and the life upon it, the methods by which certain mammals (our genetic ancestors) survived and eventually thrived, stuff like that. If you cannot see that there is a very big difference between the two fields of study, you are committing precisely the same error you claim that theistic scientists do. You are allowing your beliefs about God to interfere with your science.

That is because he would realize that belief is not supported by evidence.

.....Fred Hoyle. Look him up sometime. Here is a man who, very much like you, allowed his belief that no God can possibly exist interfere with his science. He held to the 'steady state' theory of the universe until the day he died....and in great part because he thought that the "Big Bang" (he named it that, in mockery), if true, would indicate the possibility of a Creator. Therefore, he decided, it couldn't possibly be true.

No, you would be inconsistent in your logic if you made that claim. And when used strawman arguments it indicates he knows that he is losing. Once again,rational thought involves not believing something without sufficient reliable evidence.

For one thing, you need to look up the definition of 'strawman.' You don't seem to understand what one is.

As for whether any scientist can be rational in one field, and irrational in another....goodness. There's not a whole lot one can say in the face of that level of irrational optimism.

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

I don't know.

I do have to ask what level of 'reveal' you are asking for. I have asked atheists many times if having God appear personally to them would be sufficient, and the answer is almost always 'no. it would not,' for some reason or other, generally having to do with hallucinations.

When I repeated...no, not a hallucination, but God Himself, appearing to you....the answer was still no. the reasoning ended up being that SINCE there is no God THEN He cannot appear to prove Himself, THEREFORE any appearance by God would have to be explained away in some other way.

Very circular.

If God reveal itself to me in front of other people, then I would know God was real. Then I would no longer be an Atheist to that god.

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

A lack of faith in God IS an active faith in an unintelligent forces having created the universe.

This is a fact whether you admit it or not.

I see that you have failed to provide objective evidence of a god.

I don't have faith in unintelligent forced creating the universe. I can say I don't know what created the universe. You're the trying to say god did it without evidence.

 

[dianaiad]

Same way that every other phony "god". They
made it up. Like, is that really so hard to figure?

You think Joseph Smith REALLY found the Book of Mormon
written in an unknown language on gold pages, in a cave in
Upstate New York?

No. I don't think so, and I'm a TBM (that's True Believing Mormon, in case you are curious).

If you are going to make fun of other beliefs, you should at least try to get those beliefs right.

According to our beliefs, JS did not 'find' the plates. He was shown them. They were not in a cave. The only thing you got right was the 'upstate New York" part. If we are wrong, and he did NOT find/was shown, those plates, then they simply did not exist to BE found. Either way, they weren't in any cave and he didn't 'find' them.

Mohammed really got his book from god?

Well, Muslims think so. A lot of them.

Your question is as naive as your little bunny "evator"!!

Well, one learns of God very personally. Those who believe in Him also do so personally.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In other words, I'm correct about your insistence that no believer in a deity should be a scientist...because s/he doesn't agree with you about this issue.

No, but you are showing an amazing resistance to logical reasoning. Once again leave "god" out of it. If a person believes in "Pixies" without sufficient reasons you should be able to see that is irrational. If a person tries to claim that unanswered questions justify a belief in "Pixies" did it you would see that as irrational. One more time one should not believe in something without sufficient evidence.

You really need to read my posts once in awhile. I have said, several times now, that there is no empirical or objective proof that any deity exists. This belief is subjective and personal. ...and not 'transferable.' That is, one comes to a belief in God by oneself; nobody can prove the existence of God to you, and you (something you seem to be forgetting here) cannot prove His nonexistence to anybody else. Not logically possible.

I think that you are projecting again.

In other words, the rational approach is that everybody else withhold belief in anything until there is enough evidence of the correct sort to convince you. Sorry, but I will believe because of evidence (purely subjective) that is good enough for me. Your opinions don't enter into the equation.
That's about the existence of God. On the other hand, I require objective, empirical evidence to prove to me that a meteor strike caused the extinction of the dinosaurs. There seems to be quite a bit of that, so I'll consider that to be 'the cause' until and unless something more compelling comes along. If God had anything to do with that, fine....but science isn't about how that meteor came to exist. It's about what the trajectory was, what the results of the strike were, how it affected the planet and the life upon it, the methods by which certain mammals (our genetic ancestors) survived and eventually thrived, stuff like that. If you cannot see that there is a very big difference between the two fields of study, you are committing precisely the same error you claim that theistic scientists do. You are allowing your beliefs about God to interfere with your science.

No, leave me out of it. But you have just admitted that your beliefs are irrational. The supposed evidence may be enough to convince you, but that does not make it rational. Here is an interesting thought experiment, just for yourself write down "I believe in God because of . . . " and write down all of your reasons. Then change the heading of that to "I believe in Pixies" followed by the same reasons. Are they enough to make you believe in Pixies? If not then your beliefs are irrational.

As to the meteor strike that killed off most of the dinosaurs, some have survived to today, that is well supported by evidence. I can provide that upon demand. As I pointed out when scientists believe something they need sufficient evidence for that belief.

.....Fred Hoyle. Look him up sometime. Here is a man who, very much like you, allowed his belief that no God can possibly exist interfere with his science. He held to the 'steady state' theory of the universe until the day he died....and in great part because he thought that the "Big Bang" (he named it that, in mockery), if true, would indicate the possibility of a Creator. Therefore, he decided, it couldn't possibly be true.

Yep, being an atheist does not make one immune to irrational thought. So what?

For one thing, you need to look up the definition of 'strawman.' You don't seem to understand what one is.

No, I understand quite well. The next time you make such an error I will explain why it is a strawman. How does that sound?

As for whether any scientist can be rational in one field, and irrational in another....goodness. There's not a whole lot one can say in the face of that level of irrational optimism.

It took you no time at all to spin another strawman, I am truly amazed. I never claimed that this was not possible. Since I did not claim that or even imply that that makes your argument a strawman. Try to respond to what the person posts, not what you want them to have posted. Perhaps the most famous example was Isaac Newton who used the scientific method in an amazingly successful way when it came to physics and yet he believed in alchemy. A person should strive to reason rationally, but that does not mean he is always going to succeed. Now excuse me I have to switch feet for my lucky socks.

 

[dianaiad]

If God reveal itself to me in front of other people, then I would know God was real. Then I would no longer be an Atheist to that god.

....so....God would not only have to prove Himself to you, but to others so that you wouldn't have to be alone?

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

....so....God would not only have to prove Himself to you, but to others so that you wouldn't have to be alone?

Surely god is not afraid to reveal itself in front of me and few other people. If other people see god too, then I would know I wasn't see things that wasn't real.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Surely god is not afraid to reveal itself in front of me and few other people. If other people see god too, then I would know I wasn't see things that wasn't real.

Shared experiences make them more believable. And most claim that God is omnipotent and omniscient. That means that not only that he could convince everyone, it would take no effort for God to do so.

 

[Bear Wild]

And how do you know that?

Also do you have a PROVEN example where information does NOT come from intelligence? Just ONE example?



No, it comes from there minds (a.k.a intelligence)



How did the information originate?



You got no evidence of how DNA code originated. No you dont.



Its not based on a desire, its based on evidence and logical inference to that evidence.

You have a desire NOT to believe.



After an engineer builds a watch, the watch can run and tick on its own.

What we call intelligence comes from the natural evolution of the brain and was not designed but evolved. As for the evidence we have geologic strata showing gradually increasingly complex organisms, embryonic and comparative anatomy showing the relationships between evolutionary link between animals, actual examples of natural selection working to change phenotypic presentations and we have extensive evidence of mutations causing changes in appearance and physiology. Example the effect of a mutation in the foxp2 gene.
There is evidence already that pyrimidine ribonucleotides could form in the prolife conditions on earth. They showed that using hydrogen sulfide as a reluctant and ultraviolent light that precursors of ribonucleotides, amino acids, and lipids can be formed with a reductive homologation of hydrogen cyanide. This is increased using Cu photoredox cycling.
What evidence does intelligent design have - human centered magical thinking therefore no evidence. Give one single undisputable evidence that is not just opinion or an overriding desire to believe to support your religious beliefs which is driving the intelligent design misinformation.

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

Shared experiences make them more believable. And most claim that God is omnipotent and omniscient. That means that not only that he could convince everyone, it would take no effort for God to do so.

It should be no effort for god to reveal itself, that is if God is real.

 

[loverofhumanity]

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. After asking for evidence that clearly shows intelligent design as apposed to the natural creative forces of nature, I finally looked at length at the arguments on the sites dedicated to intelligent design. Despite extensive articles with drawn out scientific jargon I could not find the evidence to overcome two unescapable flaws with intelligent design which are clearly never addressed. First I have included sections from two web sites that describe the argument for intelligent design which seem to be representative to be clear about the argument. Then I list two flaws I see for feedback on this concept.

1. From the Intelligent design and evolution awareness center - ideacenter.org.

By Casey Luskin

“Ways Designers Act When Designing (Observations):"

(1) " Intelligent agents think with an "end goal" in mind, allowing them to solve complex problems by taking many parts and arranging them in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information):"

(2) "Intelligent agents can rapidly infuse large amounts of information into systems:"

(3) "Intelligent agents re-use functional components that work over and over in different systems (e.g., wheels for cars and airplanes):"

(4) " Intelligent agents typically create functional things (although we may sometimes think something is functionless, not realizing its true function):"

"Predictions of Design (Hypothesis):"

(1) " Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information)"

(2) "Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors."

(3) "Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in different and unrelated organisms."

(4) " Much so-called "junk DNA" will turn out to perform valuable functions."

"Examining the Evidence (Experiment and Conclusion):"

(1) " Language-based codes can be revealed by seeking to understand the workings of genetics and inheritance. High levels of specified complexity and irreducibly complexity are detected in biological systems through theoretical analysis, computer simulations and calculations"

(2) "The fossil record shows that species often appear abruptly without similar precursors".

(3) "Similar parts are commonly found in widely different organisms. Many genes and functional parts not distributed in a manner predicted by ancestry, and are often found in clearly unrelated organisms."

(4) " There have been numerous discoveries of functionality for "junk-DNA." Examples include recently discovered surprised functionality in some pseudogenes, microRNAs, introns, LINE and ALU elements.”

From evolutionnews.org

1. “ID is not merely a negative argument against evolution"

"The fires problem with the critics definition is that it frames ID as meagerly a negative argument against evolution. In fact, ID offers a strong positive argument based on findings in nature the type of information and complexity that, in our experience, comes from intelligence alone."

2. “ID is not a theory about the designer or the supernatural”

"The second problem with the critics definition of ID is that it suggests the theory is focus on studying the designer. The claim is that it specifically invokes supernatural forces or a deity. But Id is not focused on studying the actual intelligent cause responsible for life, but rather studies natural objects to determine whether they bear an informational signature indicating an intelligent cause. All ID does is infer an intelligent cause behind the origins of life and of the cosmos. Id does not seek to determine the nature of identity of that cause. “


The two flaws that I see in the argument

1. Despite the clear attempts to separate the study of “intelligent design” from the “intelligent designer”, you still cannot escape from the problem of the existence of the intelligent designer so no wonder all the argument avoids this primary aspect of their argument. Just because something is complex does not mean it has to be made by an intelligent designer nor is there clearly any goal orientation in our universe that can be proven. These two aspects are aspects of human behavior which we are imposing on the natural world.

2. The second flaw has to do with the change in life over time. This requires two possibilities with an intelligent design. 1. All of the necessary genetic information for all forms of life and all complex proteins and their activity was present in the first form of life thus all life has this information available and only uses aspects of it or 2. The intelligent designer must be actively involved with rearranging the genetic material all of the time to create the new complex proteins that could not form naturally according to intelligent design experts. Ironically even Darwin realized (even without all of our current knowledge) that it would be hard for people to accept that god would be present in our world creating new species or even new variations.

Would like thoughts about the arguments for intelligent design and what flaws exist in the argument.

Complexity.

Just my views.

I firmly believe that to discount a God is both a myth and superstition. Signs of Intelligent Design are reflected in every atom. Science itself proves to me the undoubted existence of a Designer.

Goal orientation can be proven it is my belief.. It can be proven for exiample by our inquisitiveness to know and learn. Nature and all existence has for its goal our learning for we study everything from cells to plants to minerals to nature to people to stars and planets. There is not one atom in existence that does not prompt us to study, to learn. So it can be said without any doubt whatsoever that the goal of existence is for us to learn from it which we most willingly oblige and fully comply with.

In the Hidden Words of Baha’u’llah it is written...

“Out of the wastes of nothingness, with the clay of My command I made thee to appear, and have ordained for thy training every atom in existence and the essence of all created things”

Thus the goal of existence is proven to be for us to learn.

Processes

Complexity in an ordered, structured form proves to me ther is an Organizer and Designer for complexity has no will, no consciousness yet we see complexity all around us resolve into highly intelligent combinations which fulfill a definite goal and purpose. For instance, the complexity in a grain of rice feeds billions. By chance? It was designed to do so for rice is sustenance for the human body. Just by chance we have oxygen on a planet inhabited by humans and life requiring it. And water.? It is more illogical and superstitious to say that these are mere ‘random coincidences’ when without them our very existence would be threatened.

Now to processes. Just like a cell is programmed to fulfil a certain function so too do processes set in motion things to evolve over periods of time. A human sperm and egg not only have generic instructions in built but also a latent process or program to perform complex mathematical and scientific formulas to gradually develop into a foetus then a human being yet the foetus has no conscious will of its own. If we say that all this is just random chance then the joining if a sperm and egg would not always result in a human but randomly into just about anything. Without order, structure, organization and processes built into atoms and cells life could not exist. Thus a Supreme Organizer in my opinion.

There is a definite pattern that can be seen and repeated because each thing has a set of instructions. Of itself a human cell or an atom cannot determine its future. An apple tree will never evolve into a human being because it has the purpose of feeding humans not being human. The Ordainer, God has instilled each atom with specific functions and laws from which it cannot deviate.

I believe there is overwhelming proof that this universe is not a random clashing of elements but a united and co operating masterpiece with each part structured in a way to complement another part painted by the Master Artist. The sun is the right distance from the earth for human life to exist. Coincidence? as the sun has no consciousness of its own? . The chance that there is not an Intelligent Designer, a Supreme Scientist we call God in my view is zilch. Its an absurdity & complete superstition to me that such order erected itself to be of use to human beings while it has no consciousness or will power of its own. A Will, a Divine Consciousness must exist for life to do what it does because life and nature doesn’t have a will of its own but obeys specific laws and instructions programmed into it by its Creator that it cannot deviate a hairbreadth from.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

It should be no effort for god to reveal itself, that is if God is real.

It would take no effort at all, but why would he bother? Would you expect God to show up and perform miracles for the amusement of a disrespectful disbeliever? He doesn't need your approval.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It would take no effort at all, but why would he bother? Would you expect God to show up and perform miracles for the amusement of a disrespectful disbeliever? He doesn't need your approval.

I don't know, is your version of God a just God?

 

[Forever_Catholic]

I firmly believe that to discount a God is both a myth and superstition. Signs of Intelligent Design are reflected in every atom. Science itself proves to me the undoubted existence of a Designer.

And the rest of your post expands on this and backs it up very nicely. Well said.

 

[Jose Fly]

I have read the material in the links you provided. I see that it deals with the natural hybridization of plants in the Tragopogon genus with a particular interest in the varying ploidy in generations of offspring, etc. I have no argument at all against where this research goes, including any cases where a new taxon may be established through the process of natural hybridization.

I agree that once a natural hybrid becomes genetically stable (usually after multiple generations) and reproduces in uniform populations, it meets the standard by definition for species status. So yes, it is a new species. Ya got me there.

I have not been arguing against things like this, and in fact, had not considered it as a form of evolution in my anti-evolution enthusiasm. I guess we could say it is. I'll concede on that.

Thanks for the info

You're welcome and I appreciate your honesty and openness. It's very refreshing.

So the next thing I'd like to cover is your earlier claim about a lack of species-species transitional fossils. However, since we've just established that the evolution of new species is actually an observed and documented event, perhaps we should look at the larger picture and whether or not there are transitional fossils between larger groups (e.g., reptiles-mammals, reptiles-birds, primates-humans). What do you prefer?

 

[Forever_Catholic]

I don't know, is your version of God a just God?

Not sure what you want to bait me into here, but I'll bite for now -- Yes, he is just. A just judge.

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

It would take no effort at all, but why would he bother? Would you expect God to show up and perform miracles for the amusement of a disrespectful disbeliever? He doesn't need your approval.

If God can't show up, then that God is not real.
If God is real and cared about me, then god would show up an make me a believer.