Evolution via random mutations is impossible

[Steve Petersen]

Hugh? Show me an atheist who doesn't believe in naturalism. Religion by definition is a person who believes the universe was caused by a superhuman entity. Atheism likewise is at the other end of the spectrum and believes the universe was ultimately formed by natural causes. Therefore it is impossible to show you a non-religious person who believes in intelligent design...unless he or she is bat axe crazy.

One hypotheis makes predictions and is testable; the other is not.

 

[BradB]

I prefer the opening lines of the 19th Psalm myself, but neither one tells me that Intelligent Design must be demonstrable by the scientific method.

Please tell me what Romans 1:20 means then? What does God mean here when He says He is clearly seen by studying His creation? Did He just mean it would be an undeniable gut feeling? Or did He mean that by looking at the things He made we would know that He is? So much so that we would be without excuse? What does the scriptures tell us He made? Is it the natural world and universe? What is the term for knowledge obtained through the study of the natural world and universe with observation and experimentation? Isn't this how we define science? So summed up isn't God saying we can know He exists through the study of science? If so then when you say we can't know He exists through the study of science... are you in agreement or disagreement with Him?

 

[BradB]

One hypotheis makes predictions and is testable; the other is not.

I would disagree. I believe any hypothesis is testable, and both make predictions.

 

[Speedwell]

Please tell me what Romans 1:20 means then? What does God mean here when He says He is clearly seen by studying His creation? Did He just mean it would be an undeniable gut feeling?

He might well have. But apparently you're not satisfied with that and want to prove it with science--which lacks the epistemological tools to do it.

Or did He mean that by looking at the things He made we would know that He is? So much so that we would be without excuse? What does the scriptures tell us He made? Is it the natural world and universe? What is the term for knowledge obtained through the study of the natural world and universe with observation and experimentation? Isn't this how we define science?

Yes, a science which you deny because it does not lead to a literal Genesis.

So summed up isn't God saying we can know He exists through the study of science? If so then when you say we can't know He exists through the study of science... are you in agreement or disagreement with Him?

All science does is give us a sharper vision of things we see already. It's just a tool, like a magnifying glass. If we don't know that God exists through the glory of His creation as we already perceive it directly, then science won't tell us so.

 

[Tayla]

The kicker is that every last bit of it...relies on similarity arguments. All of it.

I am currently studying a 4 inch thick 20 pound biology textbook and I don't feel they are using similarity arguments to the degree you claim.

 

[Tayla]

Another example would be the way astronomers with SETI institute search for specific compressed light or radio signals coming from deep space. Such signals are very specified and would suggest an intelligent source.

Yes, this is a good example of how to detect intelligence. I'm surprised I so infrequently hear of it.

 

[Tayla]

So if specificity suggests strong evidence for design in these cases then why would it not suggest design when we observe it in things like DNA code? This code is so specified that it warps our most intricate and sophisticated computer software codes by comparison.

Sadly, the biological designs are very poorly designed, only just barely good enough to survive to mate and pass on some DNA.

 

[Tayla]

There really are only two possible explanations for the existence of complex life. Just natural unguided processes, or there's this ancient book claiming some great intelligent being designed life.

Actually there is a third way: Intelligent design as inferred from the fact that the physical constants of the universe are so incredibly fine-tuned as to strongly imply someone tuned them. No ancient book needed for this one.

 

[pitabread]

Actually there is a third way: Intelligent design as inferred from the fact that the physical constants of the universe are so incredibly fine-tuned as to strongly imply someone tuned them.

Why?

(Given we've literally got a sample size of 1, it seems a bit premature to conclude anything about the "design" of the universe requiring intelligence.)

 

[pitabread]

Another example would be the way astronomers with SETI institute search for specific compressed light or radio signals coming from deep space. Such signals are very specified and would suggest an intelligent source. So if specificity suggests strong evidence for design in these cases then why would it not suggest design when we observe it in things like DNA code?

What they are trying to detect with SETI is narrow-band radio waves; i.e. the type of radio waves that would come from a manufactured transmitter if aliens happened to have invented something similar to what we invented.

Not sure what you mean by the signals being "specified", but this is just a case of looking for evidence of something which does not have a known, naturally occurring source and then inferring a manufactured source.

Given that we have naturally occurring sources of DNA (namely biological reproduction) as opposed to it being artificially manufactured, there is no reason to make the same inference.

 

[Speedwell]

Yes, this is a good example of how to detect intelligence. I'm surprised I so infrequently hear of it.

It is a good example of how we detect "intelligent design" in any object, man-made or otherwise. Not by looking for functionality or complexity, but by looking for signs of intelligent manufacture. In earthly objects it can be tool or mold marks, refined metals or non-natural materials like plastics, etc. What the SETI scientists are looking for is not the will-o'-the-wisp of "specified complexity" but narrow-band microwave signals of a kind not thought to be produced naturally.

 

[tas8831]

This video I made on the validity of intelligent design may help.

18 seconds in and I was done.

You are just parroting DI talking points.

You mention "specificity" - how does one determine the specificity of something BEFORE knowing what it does?

One does not.

That is, the whole "specification" thing is post-hoc rationalization.

On numerous occasions, I have presented DNA sequences to IDcreationists that are busily hawking Dembski's wares ( as you are doing) and asked them to determine the specification of this sequence. When this request is not ignored completely, the first thing they respond with is "What does it do?" or "what is it?"

 

[VirOptimus]

This video I made on the validity of intelligent design may help.

Are you serious?

 

[BradB]

Yes, a science which you deny because it does not lead to a literal Genesis.

I have seen no reason to believe it is not intended to be literal and have presented you with plenty of reasons why it must be taken literal. Also I deny assumptions drawn from the observable science, not the observable science. Big dif. It is only those assumptions that conflict with a literal Genesis not the actual observations.

If we don't know that God exists through the glory of His creation as we already perceive it directly, then science won't tell us so.

That isn't what Romans 1:20 says. It tells us that through studying His creation (science) we can know that He exists so much so that we have no excuse to deny it.

 

[BradB]

I am currently studying a 4 inch thick 20 pound biology textbook and I don't feel they are using similarity arguments to the degree you claim.

Then you wouldn't mind just giving one good example of an evolutionary evidence that does not require an argument from similarity.

 

[BradB]

Sadly, the biological designs are very poorly designed, only just barely good enough to survive to mate and pass on some DNA.

Don't confuse your opinions with good design. This in effect makes you a god after your own image. You have no idea for the reasoning the Designer made things thus. That's why God created the woman after he created the man...He didn't want someone standing around telling Him how to do His job...

Also don't forget that the scriptures teach all creation fell because of sin. So don't confuse a broken thing with a poorly designed thing.

 

[BradB]

Actually there is a third way: Intelligent design as inferred from the fact that the physical constants of the universe are so incredibly fine-tuned as to strongly imply someone tuned them. No ancient book needed for this one.

Yes but in this discussion we were just talking about how it is observed in life. I'll be happy to discuss how it is also observed in non life if you like.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Please tell me what Romans 1:20 means then? What does God mean here when He says He is clearly seen by studying His creation? Did He just mean it would be an undeniable gut feeling? Or did He mean that by looking at the things He made we would know that He is? So much so that we would be without excuse? What does the scriptures tell us He made? Is it the natural world and universe? What is the term for knowledge obtained through the study of the natural world and universe with observation and experimentation? Isn't this how we define science? So summed up isn't God saying we can know He exists through the study of science? If so then when you say we can't know He exists through the study of science... are you in agreement or disagreement with Him?

Wholeheartedly agree, just as we are beginning to understand that Energy makes up all things, so we are beginning to understand it is energy that makes us capable of thought. So understanding that invisible Energy/Mind is the ultimate goal of science. Once we do, there will be no more excuses.

 

[BradB]

What they are trying to detect with SETI is narrow-band radio waves; i.e. the type of radio waves that would come from a manufactured transmitter if aliens happened to have invented something similar to what we invented.

Yeeeah... that's kinda what I said.

Given that we have naturally occurring sources of DNA (namely biological reproduction) as opposed to it being artificially manufactured, there is no reason to make the same inference.

So the designed biological organisms were "designed" to reproduce after there own kind. That's what the book says. If a hacker designs a computer virus to reproduce itself on new computers it doesn't mean the virus several generations later was not originally designed by an intelligent source.

 

[Speedwell]

I have seen no reason to believe it is not intended to be literal and have presented you with plenty of reasons why it must be taken literal. Also I deny assumptions drawn from the observable science, not the observable science. Big dif. It is only those assumptions that conflict with a literal Genesis not the actual observations.

I have considered your reasons and find them unconvincing, but you can take Genesis as literal history if you want, it's no skin off my nose. The only problem I have with it is when creationists assert literalism as an essential Christian doctrine or deny the faith of other Christians who have a different opinion.