Evolution requires intelligent design

[Tayla]

Evolution requires intelligent design.

The fine-tuning of the fundamental constants of nature allow for the existence of chemical biological life of the kind we have on earth. This means, if you can somehow construct these living systems, the laws of physics allows for it.

But I'm starting to hear from evolutionist physicists that the laws of physics do more; they are set up in such a way as to guarantee that life develops. They participate in the development of chemical biological life.

Why don't they just come right out and say it: evolution requires intelligent design.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

Evolution requires intelligent design.

The fine-tuning of the fundamental constants of nature allow for the existence of chemical biological life of the kind we have on earth. This means, if you can somehow construct these living systems, the laws of physics allows for it.

But I'm starting to hear from evolutionist physicists that the laws of physics do more; they are set up in such a way as to guarantee that life develops. They participate in the development of chemical biological life.

Why don't they just come right out and say it: evolution requires intelligent design.

Two problems;

1. There is zero evidence of one species evolving into another.
2. Any acknowledgement of intelligent design implies there is a God

 

[Greg Merrill]

Evolution might require I.D., but I.D. isn't required to produce evolution, and did not produce evolution. I.D. is a label given to explain a source of what produced what exists materially. I.D. is not a confession that the God of the Bible is that source, though He is. The material universe abounds with evidence of I.D., but it does not specifically reveal the many things that the Bible reveals about God, about mankind, about history... past, present, and future, about God's laws upon man's behavior in relationship to a responsibility to God, or the consequences of breaking God's moral laws. It is the Bible that God has provided for us to know all that He would have us know, and the Bible that will contain that which we will be judged by.

 

[sfs]

The fine-tuning of the fundamental constants of nature allow for the existence of chemical biological life of the kind we have on earth. This means, if you can somehow construct these living systems, the laws of physics allows for it.

Your second sentence is certainly correct: the existence of living systems must be consistent with the laws of physics, since they in fact exist. It's not clear what that has to do with intelligent design. Precisely nothing is known about how the laws of physics came to be, or whether fine tuning (in the physics sense) requires intelligence.

But I'm starting to hear from evolutionist physicists that the laws of physics do more; they are set up in such a way as to guarantee that life develops. They participate in the development of chemical biological life.

What physicist says that? (And what's an evolutionist physicist?)

Why don't they just come right out and say it: evolution requires intelligent design.

They don't say it because none of your claims here have anything to do with intelligent design.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Maybe in a zillion years I will win a lottery, even though I do not play it, because you never know anything can happen in a random purposeless unguided chaotic universe right? One problem though, at that point in time, I would lack any meaningful existence assuming the former. *sigh* Bummers. Seems to me the laws of physics especially causality leaves little wiggle room for random chaos.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Evolution requires intelligent design.

That or one heck of a wild imagination.

 

[sfs]

Maybe in a zillion years I will win a lottery, even though I do not play it, because you never know anything can happen in a random purposeless unguided chaotic universe right?

What does that have to do with the question?

Seems to me the laws of physics especially causality leaves little wiggle room for random chaos.

Again, not clear what this has to do with the OP. Also, chaos (in the scientific sense) is fully consistent with the laws of physics, and is in fact an inevitable result of them. I don't know what you mean by "random" here. In physics, "random" just means that we don't know precisely what an outcome will be -- it can only be described by a probability distribution. ("Random" means something quite different in evolutionary biology.)

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Evolution requires intelligent design.

The fine-tuning of the fundamental constants of nature allow for the existence of chemical biological life of the kind we have on earth. This means, if you can somehow construct these living systems, the laws of physics allows for it.

But I'm starting to hear from evolutionist physicists that the laws of physics do more; they are set up in such a way as to guarantee that life develops. They participate in the development of chemical biological life.

Why don't they just come right out and say it: evolution requires intelligent design.

If you wish to make a fine-tuning argument, you have to explain how the fundamental constants of the universe (e.g.) could have been different from what they are now.

I.e. before you can claim that the constants were set up in a particular way, you'd have to show that there was a 'set up'. I.e. there must have been a non-zero probability that the values of the constants could have been different. How?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

What does that have to do with the question?

Mainstream ToE depends on random chance, zillions upon zillions of them through processes of mutation and adaption.

Again, not clear what this has to do with the OP. Also, chaos (in the scientific sense) is fully consistent with the laws of physics, and is in fact an inevitable result of them. I don't know what you mean by "random" here. In physics, "random" just means that we don't know precisely what an outcome will be -- it can only be described by a probability distribution. ("Random" means something quite different in evolutionary biology.)

Probability without cause is the kind stuff you read about in comic books. Take the big bang theory for example, the probability of it occurring is zero without a cause, the probability of the necessary circumstances required without causes are equally zero. The slightest mutation or change, requires cause, and it cannot arrive through probability, only after the fact, after a cause, can the issue of probability even be considered.

 

[mark kennedy]

I've always thought that evolution was the result of divine providence, resulting in molecular mechanisms that produce adaptive traits. In that sense, I agree with the OP.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

I've always thought that evolution was the result of divine providence, resulting in molecular mechanisms that produce adaptive traits. In that sense, I agree with the OP.

But, neither you nor the OP provide a reason for intelligent design being necessary. How would the absence of an intelligent designer mean that the constants of the universe would not have their present values?

 

[Strathos]

Am I the only one here who sees the topic of biological evolution and the topic of the nature and origin of the universe as completely unrelated?

 

[sfs]

Mainstream ToE depends on random chance, zillions upon zillions of them through processes of mutation and adaption.

Every breath you take also depends on random chance -- zillions upon zillions of random collisions to propel oxygen and nitrogen molecules into your lungs. The fact that a process involves random events tells us nothing about how likely the process is.

Probability without cause is the kind stuff you read about in comic books.

So are you reading about it in comic books? You certainly didn't read it in anything I wrote. I said nothing about random events being withou cause. So again -- what do your comments have to do with the discussion going on here?

Take the big bang theory for example, the probability of it occurring is zero without a cause, the probability of the necessary circumstances required without causes are equally zero.

We're talking about evolution, which is a process in biology.

The slightest mutation or change, requires cause, and it cannot arrive through probability, only after the fact, after a cause, can the issue of probability even be considered.

Um, what? Of course mutations have physical causes, causes that we largely understand. In physics, as I already suggested, "randomness" is a description of our knowledge of outcomes , not a claim that events have no cause. In evolutionary biology, though, it means something different: it means that mutations occur without regard for the well-being of the organism, i.e. both helpful and harmful mutations occur. This is demonstrably true.

 

[mark kennedy]

But, neither you nor the OP provide a reason for intelligent design being necessary. How would the absence of an intelligent designer mean that the constants of the universe would not have their present values?

Cause and effect, that would be my response. We do know there are internal mechanisms that are responsible for adaptive evolution. My view is simply that they were a part of the originally created genomes, thus providence. Now if you somehow reason that natural law is somehow sufficient to explain the cause of evolution as it unfolds I say go in peace, I have no problem with you. If however you consider that God at the point of origin does raise the issue of what was included you might start to understand why this is an issue.

 

[Sorn]

Evolution requires intelligent design.

The fine-tuning of the fundamental constants of nature allow for the existence of chemical biological life of the kind we have on earth. This means, if you can somehow construct these living systems, the laws of physics allows for it.

ID is generally meant to refer to the process of how evolution is (or appears to be to some) controlled or directed. It is not really about how the universe came to be but more about the "given life has started, how do all the different species arise" problem.

God may have created the universe and its laws but then He might have let those laws play out on their own and whatever life resulted He was fine with OR after setting up the universe He still partially or fully directed the course of life developing.

If He partially influenced life then evolution would be happening doing its thing but then God might come along and say I want Giraffes to develop so he makes an alteration here and there and giraffes result.
To us, we can't distinguish his actions (or God caused mutations) from those other mutations that may have produced other animals purely by chance, they all just look like mutations.

If He fully directed the course of life then He would have caused each species to come to be by performing the needed mutations at the needed time.

Of course the above assumes some sort of gradual creation process, as opposed to a short instant one (ie standard creationist viewpoint), which God could also do.
I'm also more of the opinion that if the 'Gap theory of creation' is correct then there may be a lot more as to how life got started than we think, but that's another topic entirely.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

I've always thought that evolution was the result of divine providence, resulting in molecular mechanisms that produce adaptive traits. In that sense, I agree with the OP.

Adaptation is not evolution. Evolution claims that one species turns or "evolves" into another entirely different species to which there is zero evidence. Adaptation is observed but that is not the result of adding entirely new DNA or removing DNA, both to which is frankly impossible outside a lab.....which could lead one to Genesis 6....then to modern day transhumanism....I will leave it at that.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Cause and effect, that would be my response. We do know there are internal mechanisms that are responsible for adaptive evolution. My view is simply that they were a part of the originally created genomes, thus providence. Now if you somehow reason that natural law is somehow sufficient to explain the cause of evolution as it unfolds I say go in peace, I have no problem with you. If however you consider that God at the point of origin does raise the issue of what was included you might start to understand why this is an issue.

We're not just talking about 'cause and effect' but 'intelligent cause and effect'.

Yes, I say that natural law(s) are sufficient to explain evolution. And, in this I agree with the scientific community that have painstaking researched this, collected evidence, and scrutinised their theories over and over and again. And, everything they have found shows that natural laws are sufficient.

On what basis, other than preexisting belief, do you claim that there had to be an intelligence behind it all?

Adaptation is not evolution. Evolution claims that one species turns or "evolves" into another entirely different species to which there is zero evidence. Adaptation is observed but that is not the result of adding entirely new DNA or removing DNA, both to which is frankly impossible outside a lab.....which could lead one to Genesis 6....then to modern day transhumanism....I will leave it at that.

First, your terminology is wrong. Evolution does not claim that one species turns into another. It claims that one species can arise from another. Which is different. Remember that the tree of life is branching, not a straight line.

Adaptation claims BOTH adaption, and that new species can arise from existing species. Both are supported by large amounts of evidence, which includes evidence that new DNA can be added. See for example the duplication of genes and then modification of one copy for a new function. This happens in real evolution, not just in a lab.

I don't know where you get transhumanism from. We're talking about natural factors.

Am I the only one here who sees the topic of biological evolution and the topic of the nature and origin of the universe as completely unrelated?

No. That's why it's tricky when people just talk about 'origins' without saying exactly which origins they mean.

In reality, the topic of evolution and the origin of life are different topics. Evolution applies no matter how the first life came into being.

 

[mark kennedy]

We're not just talking about 'cause and effect' but 'intelligent cause and effect'.

Yes, I say that natural law(s) are sufficient to explain evolution. And, in this I agree with the scientific community that have painstaking researched this, collected evidence, and scrutinised their theories over and over and again. And, everything they have found shows that natural laws are sufficient.

On what basis, other than preexisting belief, do you claim that there had to be an intelligence behind it all?

I've spent a good deal of time on the theories and looking at the laws of science, like Mendelian laws of inheritance. There are limits beyond which things cannot evolve. When you think about how things evolve it's not the external forces that drive evolution, they do, but more importantly those living systems have molecular mechanisms that make those changes. Did you know that most of the molecular mechanisms are not for changing the genome but rather preserving it? Most of the adaptive evolution going on in the world isn't from a population stressed by scarcity but rather larger gene pools make variety possible. Those genes and molecular mechanisms are sufficient to explain evolutionary biology in all it's vast array, without resorting to some nebulous natural selection that has never qualified as a law of nature.

First, your terminology is wrong. Evolution does not claim that one species turns into another. It claims that one species can arise from another. Which is different. Remember that the tree of life is branching, not a straight line.

Yet populations do speciate. The tendency is to revert back the original form, that's the whole problem with hybrids. Did you know that the bananas you eat are infertile? In order for this to happen in nature there is a need for a bottleneck, certain traits have to be brought to bear. While it facilitates it limits future adaptive evolution, if only temporarily.

Adaptation claims BOTH adaption, and that new species can arise from existing species. Both are supported by large amounts of evidence, which includes evidence that new DNA can be added. See for example the duplication of genes and then modification of one copy for a new function. This happens in real evolution, not just in a lab.

Yes there is such a thing as gene duplication, I understand that. But it's relatively rare. Much more so de novo genes do happen, you can get brand new genes, it's actually been proven. What you don't get is an effect without a cause and internal molecular mechanisms must exist, even if we don't really know what they are or natural science is unable to determine how they work.

I don't know where you get transhumanism from. We're talking about natural factors.

I'm not clear what you mean by that term, 'transhumanism'.

No. That's why it's tricky when people just talk about 'origins' without saying exactly which origins they mean.

For me the subject of origins include the originally created kinds.

In reality, the topic of evolution and the origin of life are different topics. Evolution applies no matter how the first life came into being.

That much is true but evolution is a change is it not? Any time a population is undergoing a change, be it adaptive or deleterious, it can be evolution.

 

[sfs]

ID is generally meant to refer to the process of how evolution is (or appears to be to some) controlled or directed. It is not really about how the universe came to be but more about the "given life has started, how do all the different species arise" problem.

Not according to self-identified intelligent design proponents. They include physics and cosmology in their arguments.

 

[sfs]

First, your terminology is wrong. Evolution does not claim that one species turns into another. It claims that one species can arise from another. Which is different. Remember that the tree of life is branching, not a straight line.

Evolution includes both processes: one species turning into another without splitting, and one species splitting into two. They are referred to as anagenesis and cladogenesis, respectively.