Scientists speak out about evidence of Intelligent Design in nature..

[Joseph G]

Description:

Scientists from around the world speak out about the convincing evidence of purpose and intelligent design they see in nature. Explore more at Intelligent Design

God bless!

Isaiah 48:13 NIV
"My own hand laid the foundations of the earth,
and my right hand spread out the heavens;
when I summon them,
they all stand up together."

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Wow. They SEE evidence of intelligent design in the universe! Good for them!

Now let's see the evidence and the tests.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And do actually make the attempt to stick around this time, Joey.

 

[Shemjaza]

But are any of them named Steve?

 

[Joseph G]

But are any of them named Steve?

How dare you ridicule a scientist! Don't you know that all scientists are infallible and all agree? *smile*

 

[BCP1928]

How dare you ridicule a scientist! Don't you know that all scientists are infallible and all agree? *smile*

If you actually stick around, this will be a routine discussion which we have all had before. You have to allow us to have a little fun.

 

[Shemjaza]

How dare you ridicule a scientist! Don't you know that all scientists are infallible and all agree? *smile*

In all seriousness, many of these people have been presented here before... and when the specifics of what they accept as "evidence" is actually examined it has been profoundly unconvincing.

In particular the definitions of "information" promoted by Intelligent Design accepting Creationists are missing several vital features they need to ever examine it scientifically.

They don't have a metric for measuring information and don't have a objective method for measuring information. Lacking these two traits it's impossible to claim that information has increased or decreased.

In addition the claims about increased variation and complexity can only be caused by intelligent agents is their conclusion... adding it as an assumed axiom is a logical fallacy.

 

[Paulos23]

Oh, the Discovery Institute.

Up to their old tricks, I see.

 

[awstar]

In addition the claims about increased variation and complexity can only be caused by intelligent agents is their conclusion... adding it as an assumed axiom is a logical fallacy.

... the aim of physics is to account for all we observe in physical terms. The striking success of this physics programme so far has shown that one can go a long way in understanding nature without invoking supra-physical agencies. Of course, in the end one may find that this programme has its limits, but the aim of physics remains to push these limits further out. ... we do not know whether there is a creator who is capable of interfering with the universe. Of course there may be, but i take it that the aim of physics is to attempt to account for all we observe without appealing to outside interference. i want to make clear that i’m only against God as an explanation, in a limited sense. it may be in the end that God exists and takes the decision of fine tuning, because in the end you’ve got to be open minded about reality. But, by definition, Physics is the activity of trying to explain things without appealing to God.

Dennis Sciama 1998 Questo bizzarro Universo. Rome: Di Renzo editore

If Dennis Sciama is right when he says “Physics is the activity of trying to explain things without appealing to God.” — in your view, is “intelligence” a divine phenomena and not a natural one? Are you saying it should be disallowed in science arguments on that basis?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If Dennis Sciama is right when he says “Physics is the activity of trying to explain things without appealing to God.” — in your view, is “intelligence” a divine phenomena and not a natural one? Are you saying it should be disallowed in science arguments on that basis?

How can one measure intelligence?

 

[BCP1928]

If Dennis Sciama is right when he says “Physics is the activity of trying to explain things without appealing to God.” — in your view, is “intelligence” a divine phenomena and not a natural one? Are you saying it should be disallowed in science arguments on that basis?

Physics is the activity of trying to explain things. Period. So far physicists have not investigated any phenomena which require the intervention of a supernatural intelligence as part of the explanation.

 

[Shemjaza]

If Dennis Sciama is right when he says “Physics is the activity of trying to explain things without appealing to God.” — in your view, is “intelligence” a divine phenomena and not a natural one? Are you saying it should be disallowed in science arguments on that basis?

The issue is that appealing to God as a flat explanation removes utility from the process. There is literally no event that can't be explained by the intervention of an omnipotent God... and if all events can be explained by something, then effectively nothing is explained by it.

Science is a process not a belief system aside from the the axioms of the effectiveness of examining evidence to determine facts.

 

[awstar]

Physics is the activity of trying to explain things. Period. So far physicists have not investigated any phenomena which require the intervention of a supernatural intelligence as part of the explanation.

so if I understand you correctly, you are saying intelligence emerges from nature and there is no need to say it comes from a supernatural source? So what is physicists best try at explaining intelligence in nature?

Intelligence has been defined in many ways: the capacity for abstraction, logic, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, reasoning, planning, creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving. It can be further described as the ability to perceive or infer information; and to retain it as knowledge to be applied to adaptive behaviors within an environment or context. Wikipedia

 

[awstar]

Science is a process not a belief system aside from the the axioms of the effectiveness of examining evidence to determine facts.

Exactly! Science is not a belief system. The self-evident principle promoted by the Intelligent Design camp is that intelligence — as far as they can tell using the science process only emerges from intelligence. Just as life — as far as all of science can tell using the science process — only emerges from life. No one has a problem with the second axiom. Why so much opposition towards those who are postulating the first axiom?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Exactly! Science is not a belief system. The self-evident principle promoted by the Intelligent Design camp is that intelligence — as far as they can tell using the science process only emerges from intelligence. Just as life — as far as all of science can tell using the science process — only emerges from life. No one has a problem with the second axiom. Why so much opposition towards those who are postulating the first axiom?

Because the Intelligent Design camp starts with the conclusion FIRST then tries to work backwards to show that the conclusion is correct. It's bad science.

 

[Shemjaza]

Exactly! Science is not a belief system. The self-evident principle promoted by the Intelligent Design camp is that intelligence — as far as they can tell using the science process only emerges from intelligence. Just as life — as far as all of science can tell using the science process — only emerges from life. No one has a problem with the second axiom. Why so much opposition towards those who are postulating the first axiom?

You can't demonstrate something and also claim it's an axiom.

The emergence of complexity and order from chaos is trivially demonstrated in nature... and the processes of mutation and selection have been demonstrated to increase function and fitness in organisms as well as increasing the information content of their genomes. (For example gene duplication followed by point mutation on part of the duplicated genetic material allows for the addition of new genetic possibilities for selection and reproduction).

The only intelligence we have ever studied scientifically is human beings and to a lesser extent some animals... and every single example was a biological organism with a, very physical, complicated nervous system. I doubt you are going to use your logic to assume the intelligent designer happens to be biological and think with a brain.

However the life from non life is considerably less distinct. The processes of life have been studied and ultimately break down to chemical reactions... typically it comes down to plants and animals converting inorganic chemicals into organic ones that work together in a living system. There's never been a "life" particle discovered just incredibly complicated structures of organic chemicals, but on an individual basis it's much the same as the reactions and polymerisation that we use to build plastics.

 

[BCP1928]

so if I understand you correctly, you are saying intelligence emerges from nature and there is no need to say it comes from a supernatural source? So what is physicists best try at explaining intelligence in nature?

I am not saying anything remotely like that. What I am saying is that so far physicists have not investigated any phenomena which require the intervention of a supernatural agency, intelligent or otherwise, as part of the explanation. The study of intelligent creatures and explanations as to the origin of their intelligence is another field of study altogether, one which I wouldn't expect a physicist to offer an opinion about.

 

[awstar]

You can't demonstrate something and also claim it's an axiom.

You can't demonstrate something and also claim it's an axiom.

if it’s self-evident — therefore an axiom — it would be demonstrated every time you see it.

axiom /ăk′sē-əm/
noun
A self-evident or universally recognized truth; a maxim.
An established rule, principle, or law.
A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate

Shemjaza​

I doubt you are going to use your logic to assume the intelligent designer happens to be biological and think with a brain.

you’re right in doubting that. I use my logic to assume that what ever came up with the information system that is found in a single cell, which can replicate itself into trillions of cells that comprise a human being certainly must be very intelligent — it’s self-evident i.e. an axiom that needs no proof.

So let me ask my question more specifically: What is your best explanation of where “that” intelligence came from? (i.e. the intelligence that was needed to design what we see working in a single cell. )

 

[BCP1928]

You can't demonstrate something and also claim it's an axiom.

if it’s self-evident — therefore an axiom — it would be demonstrated every time you see it.






you’re right in doubting that. I use my logic to assume that what ever came up with the information system that is found in a single cell, which can replicate itself into trillions of cells that comprise a human being certainly must be very intelligent — it’s self-evident i.e. an axiom that needs no proof.

So let me ask my question more specifically: What is your best explanation of where “that” intelligence came from? (i.e. the intelligence that was needed to design what we see working in a single cell. )

You still haven't demonstrated that "intelligence," as in the Wikipedia definition you posted earlier, is required.

 

[SelfSim]

so if I understand you correctly, you are saying intelligence emerges from nature and there is no need to say it comes from a supernatural source? So what is physicists best try at explaining intelligence in nature?

Their own intelligence ... which conceives of the evolution of biology in nature .. and which also conceives of the belief in the existence of 'the supernatural'.

So which of those two options are you invoking when you cite 'axioms'?