Proof of Intelligent Design

Hi everyone... new poster here.

I'm sure this has been addressed before, but I was wondering if you all had any input.

I am participating in an evolutionary debate, and, though I am agnostic, was given the creationist side. I'm genuinely interested in the subject. Here's my problem: while I understand there is a wealth of criticism on evolution, I can't find ANY proof or evidence of intelligent design. The debate is being run by a logic professor, so I know I'll get nailed if I don't have any evidence; I can't just say evolution is wrong so creation must be right (false dichotomy).

Any help would be appreciated.
 

Mike Flynn

Well-Known Member
Sep 19, 2003
1,728
35
✟2,069.00
Faith
Christian
Mallberta said:
Hi everyone... new poster here.

I'm sure this has been addressed before, but I was wondering if you all had any input.



Any help would be appreciated.
ID? You have been given a tough assignment. Check www.reasons.org. This is an old earth creationism site that supports ID. Most people around here havn't been able to come up with good arguments for it (neither has the web site, really...but what can you do?)

And say a prayer that you won't be debating against lucaspa on the evolution side. :)
 
Upvote 0

Arikay

HI
Jan 23, 2003
12,674
207
40
Visit site
✟21,317.00
Faith
Taoist
One thing with reasons to be carefull with, is that although they do get some of their science right, they get some wrong (like evolution) so I would say double check each thing you find there. But like Mike said, thats some of the best you can find.

One argument that I can think of is that there is possibly a very small chance that we could have beat all the odds and gotten here, and that an Inteligent designer was responsible. I wouldn't trust most of the calculations of the odds though. There is a counter argument to this, but its the best I can think of that doesn't include bad evidence, im not really good at this, am I. :)
 
Upvote 0

OneLargeToe

Mister Boisei to you!
May 30, 2002
155
5
Visit site
✟381.00
Faith
Atheist
I don't think you'll be able to make a convincing arguement for ID by citing biological examples (i.e. the eye, brain, etc.)

I would think you're best bet would be on the atomic and molecular level. Life wouldn't be possible at all if it weren't for the precise behavior of, say, carbon and oxygen. I really don't know any particulars, but I'm sure there's a wealth of information on the net.

Good luck.
 
Upvote 0

David Gould

Pearl Harbor sucked. WinAce didn't.
May 28, 2002
16,931
514
53
Canberra, Australia
Visit site
✟29,118.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
AU-Labor
You could resort to the bad logic of the strong anthropic principle.

And you could work up to that by using the good logic of the weak anthropic principle.

This involves the oxygen and carbon stuff mentioned above.
 
Upvote 0

OneLargeToe

Mister Boisei to you!
May 30, 2002
155
5
Visit site
✟381.00
Faith
Atheist
revolutio said:
You can go with stuff about morphic resonance. It doesn't so much point to a Creator as it does point to flaws and glaring inadequacies in the world-view of science.

I may do a post on this if people show any interest.
I'd like to know more about it. Post away.
 
Upvote 0

Mike Flynn

Well-Known Member
Sep 19, 2003
1,728
35
✟2,069.00
Faith
Christian
David Gould said:
I am interested in the flaws and glaring inadequacies in the world-view of science.
Morphic Resonance is a meta-physical principle proposed by someone called Rupert Sheldrake. A quick google came up with this:

www.sheldrake.org/books said:
Why do many phenomena defy the explanations of conventional biology and physics? For instance, when laboratory rats in one place have learned how to navigate a new maze, why do rats elsewhere in the world seem to learn it more easily? Rupert Sheldrake describes this process as morphic resonance: the past forms and behaviors of organisms, he argues, influence organisms in the present through direct connections across time and space. Calling into question many of our fundamental concepts about life and consciousness, Sheldrake reinterprets the regularities of nature as being more like habits than immutable laws.
Among other things, he argues that DNA and protein systhesis cannot account for the fully formed shape (appendages, etc) of a complete organism. :scratch:

I wonder if he has studied embryological development and cellular differentiation?

Anyway, sounds like purely anecdotal and speculative arguments to me (typical meta-physics). Nevertheless, I'd still be interested in hearing about some of the glaring inadequacies in science as well.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

David Gould

Pearl Harbor sucked. WinAce didn't.
May 28, 2002
16,931
514
53
Canberra, Australia
Visit site
✟29,118.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
AU-Labor
Is there any actual evidence that rats learning how to navigate in a laboratory in China somehoe assists rats learning how to navigate the same maze elsewhere?

I would certainly love to see that! Weird.

I have to say that it also sounds like more New Age c r a p. I have a number of friends who subscribe to this sort of thing and it drives me nuts. (It did so when I was a Christian, too - not because it was 'Satanic' or anything like that but because it was just poor science.)
 
Upvote 0
J

Jet Black

Guest
Mallberta said:
I am participating in an evolutionary debate, and, though I am agnostic, was given the creationist side. I'm genuinely interested in the subject. Here's my problem: while I understand there is a wealth of criticism on evolution, I can't find ANY proof or evidence of intelligent design. The debate is being run by a logic professor, so I know I'll get nailed if I don't have any evidence; I can't just say evolution is wrong so creation must be right (false dichotomy).
I think about the only thing that you can focus on is the physical constants. the problem is that they can come back with the anthropic principle. To cut it short, you have been given an indefensible position, since anyone with the relevant information can slay a creationist argument. Try argueing from the POV of a solipsist or something just to make it interesting. then they will have more trouble.
 
Upvote 0

Ben_Hur

Me at the Races...
Oct 26, 2003
916
48
60
Northwest
✟9,019.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
I don't know the non-creationist sides of the following arguments, but hey, you never know. Since the task is requires evidence, these are the closest I can come. Some of the evolutionists can go ahead and give you a glimpse of the counter arguemens that you might be dealing with....

1. DNA is information, a digital language of sorts. If you have studied computer theory, you know that any langauge has an alphabet and can consist of only 2 characters. But the alphabet needs a "key" or a pre-arranged understanding of what each character means. The cells operate off of the information - or the language provided, but the existance of the language implies intelligent design. [see, I said "implies," which I don't think can be called "evidence"].

2. I was going to give you the "eye" argument, but I can't remember it exactly. It has to do with the eye requiring 5 fully functional systems to work. The evolutionists may counter with the eye of a certain crab...grrrr....my memory is gone. Maybe someone else can help you with the details. Again, ID here will only be implied, not evidenced, I don't think.

I think the bottom line is you will need to define what "evidence" of design should look like. If I were to find a chair in a building, then compared to the building construction, there is nothing special about it, but if I found a chair in the desert, then it differs greatly from its surroundings and there is an implication that it was placed there by something other than the natural surroundings. Still, this is implied ID.

Now, if I find a chair in the desert, and the blueprints, material specifications, stress calculations, and so forth laying next to it, then I have indeed found evidence of intelligent design. I think there is a way to related this to DNA in combination with a complex organism, but I'm not sure how...

Well, hopefully you at least have a spring board.....
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
J

Jet Black

Guest
Ben_Hur said:
I don't know the non-creationist sides of the following arguments, but hey, you never know. Since the task is requires evidence, these are the closest I can come. Some of the evolutionists can go ahead and give you a glimpse of the counter arguemens that you might be dealing with....

1. DNA is information, a digital language of sorts. If you have studied computer theory, you know that any langauge has an alphabet and can consist of only 2 characters. But the alphabet needs a "key" or a pre-arranged understanding of what each character means. The cells operate off of the information - or the language provided, but the existance of the language implies intelligent design. [see, I said "implies," which I don't think can be called "evidence"].
this doesn't work though, since the emergence of a language from simple self replicating chemicals can be explained.
2. I was going to give you the "eye" argument, but I can't remember it exactly. It has to do with the eye requiring 5 fully functional systems to work. The evolutionists may counter with the eye of a certain crab...grrrr....my memory is gone. Maybe someone else can help you with the details. Again, ID here will only be implied, not evidenced, I don't think.
again, this doesn't work either, Darwin went over it.
 
Upvote 0

Yobi

Atheist to be saved...
Oct 16, 2003
619
18
46
Visit site
✟854.00
Faith
Atheist
Jet Black said:
I think about the only thing that you can focus on is the physical constants. the problem is that they can come back with the anthropic principle.

Oh, the weak anthropic principle and it's own non-explainatory power. It merely says that the existence of carbon based life is an observed fact, so that the universe must have properties which make such life a possibility. (if the universe weren't so then we wouldn't be here to discuss it)

It may explain, for example, that the universe has to be large even if the Earth is the only planet containing life (to have expanded for long enough for galaxies to form and supernovae to occur to create some of the elements we require), but not why the universe happens to be this large.

So I guess you can focus on how they will explain the all the different variaties of anthropic coincedences (knowing these facts will help), besides just stating that since we are here then it must had be so.

I guess another thing that can come into the debate can be that, so far there has been no observed evidence of any extra-terrestrial intelligence. Suppose a more advance race might not want to directly contact other forms of life, a society only slightly more advanced than we are would have attempted to contacted us or the others. And this idea that we are alone in the galaxy contradicts the equally convincing "Copernican Principle", that there should not be anything particularly special about the Earth - we are just a small planet orbiting a typical star in a typical part of the galaxy.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Phred

Junior Mint
Aug 12, 2003
5,373
998
✟22,717.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Here's the problem you face... while on the surface it seems easy to debate these two "sides" once you get into the details it becomes painfully apparent that the creationist side relies upon one and only one thing. Belief in God and the Biblical description of creation.

So simply agree with everthing the other side says and then tag on, "Well done, you understand God's work very well."

You didn't say if you were being required to argue a Young Earth or an Old Earth, so take the simpler of the two to defend. If you have to argue Young Earth, then you'll have to quote the Bible and refuse to accept any contradiction.

Points:

God exists
God is perfect
A perfect being can commit no error
The Bible exists
The Bible is inspired by God
The Bible is therefore perfect and inerrant
Genesis is part of the Bible
Genesis is therefore perfect and inerrant
The world was created in 6 days.

Disputing evolutionary claims:

Dinosaurs - fossils were buried by God to test our faith
Apparent old age of the Earth - Tests inaccurate. Evidence left by God to test our faith.

You get the idea. The universe could have been created 5 minutes ago and everyone was created complete with memories.
 
Upvote 0