Intelligence Inquiry

[AV1611VET]

If evidence can point to evolution, with all its discrepancies, why can’t it point to intelligent design?

Intelligent Design can take a hike.

 

[pitabread]

Sure it would.

Absolutely it would. I don't think you realize the sheer implications there would be for industries like medical research, pharmaceuticals, agriculture, etc.

These are industries that currently utilize evolutionary theory especially in light of modern genomics; a superior alternative would be a huge breakthrough.

 

[AV1611VET]

Absolutely it would. I don't think you realize the sheer implications there would be for industries like medical research, pharmaceuticals, agriculture, etc.

These are industries that currently utilize evolutionary theory especially in light of modern genomics; a superior alternative would be a huge breakthrough.

Then why is my ophthalmologist a YEC?

How'd that happen!?

 

[pitabread]

I'm just saying Evolutionists should accept evidence from qualified experts that doesn't line-up with their claim, welcome an alternative explanation, and be open with what TOE can and can't answer in that regard.

The problem is that ID isn't currently an "alternative explanation". It doesn't offer any sort of explanatory power.

Thus far the science end of ID sits at a couple failed attempts to formulate methodologies for detecting design and... that's about it as far as I've come across.

If you know something about ID as science that the rest of us aren't privy to, then by all means share it.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you know something about ID as science that the rest of us aren't privy to, then by all means share it.

Are shuttle parts intelligently designed?

 

[St. Helens]

MOD HAT ON
Creation & Evolution Statement of Purpose
Discussions here should be on the nature of creation and evolution, not focused on bashing or uplifting those who are proponents of these beliefs.
When you disagree, address the content of the post and not the poster.
MOD HAT OFF

 

[The Righterzpen]

I've read through this whole thread and much of what's here on both sides of the argument; I've heard before.

Both TOE and ID are based on "hypothesis" of origin.

TOE proponents want to argue that what appears to be "random sequence of DNA" proves their theory simply based on the innumerable possibilities of DNA sequence and given enough time those DNA sequences will "organize" into some sort of life form.

Yet the chance of this happening according to mathematical probability make this assumption impossible.

So we come to the conclusion that because the probability factors are not there mathematically; any DNA sequences has to fall within a formulaic perimeter. If all is based on chance than two cats breeding together could theoretically create an elephant. Yet, we never see that happen. All biological DNA sequences have perimeters for specific organisms.

Now on top of this; we can not demonstrably prove that "mutations" are beneficial to the organism. Matter of fact, more times than not, the opposite is proven. Yet changes in a DNA sequence that affect the appearance and function of organisms across generations can not automatically be assumed to be random. That is a product of the belief bias of the scientist and practically speaking; he who does not believe that particular bias is not going to be vocal about it, on account of the fact that he wants to keep his job. Regardless though; it is still demonstrable, that those changes still fall within specific parameters. Evidence being here that if they are too far outside of those parameters the organism does not survive.

Even just the simplest organization of any type of elemental structure (regardless of if your talking nature or man made mechanisms) inherently points to intelligent design, because random possibilities mathematically don't create organization of elemental structures, because if every time one "rolls the dice" is a billion to one probability of an organized structural outcome - it just never happens. And since we know that life is obviously elementally structured, it makes the TOE argument of "random chance" a moot point.

Now as to the OP's question of ID being presented as the alternative in the public square? I think you rather answered your own question on that. The inevitable conclusion that life is intelligently designed makes that life accountable to who or what ever designed it. Which also inevitably forces the definition of a Deity. And this is the real issue with ID being relegated to the margins of "science".

Now the TOE proponent argues that if ID were a "legitimate alternative" than industries such as medicine, agriculture, pharmaceutical etc. would "accept it".

Yet what that argument fails to see is the reality that all those industries depend on, is the predictability of the expected outcome. This is not foundational to TOE to begin with because the "predictability of the expected outcome" is anathema to a theory that's strictly based on chance to begin with. LOL. So strictly by default; in the realm of practical "predictability" all these industries demonstrate a reliance on the idea of intelligent design.

 

[pitabread]

Now as to the OP's question of ID being presented as the alternative in the public square? I think you rather answered your own question on that. The inevitable conclusion that life is intelligently designed makes that life accountable to who or what ever designed it. Which also inevitably forces the definition of a Deity. And this is the real issue with ID being relegated to the margins of "science".

This is incorrect. There is no reason to assume that intelligent design would imply any sort of accountability nor any religious overtones.

Certainty it would fuel the debate, but it's not implicit to ID itself. That is jumping several steps beyond the mere detection of ID in organisms.

This is not foundational to TOE to begin with because the "predictability of the expected outcome" is anathema to a theory that's strictly based on chance to begin with. LOL. So strictly by default; in the realm of practical "predictability" all these industries demonstrate a reliance on the idea of intelligent design.

This is also incorrect. The reference to evolution with respect to biology is due to evolution's explanatory power regarding biology. In other words, evolution offers an understanding of how biological organisms change over time and how various biological features came to be (including genomes). Knowledge of how such features form is leveraged in being to answer questions about biology.

For example, evolution is used as a basis for comparative genomics based on common ancestry of species and knowledge of a singular genomic starting point for any common ancestor of any extant species. This knowledge directly informs how comparative genomics are performed in the identification of things like functional regions of the genome.

Right now there is zero application of ID as put forth by ID proponents (insofar as detecting design in biological organisms). ID is currently stuck at the "how do we even detect design in biology" stage. It has yet to solve that problem.

 

[HitchSlap]

I've read through this whole thread and much of what's here on both sides of the argument; I've heard before.

Both TOE and ID are based on "hypothesis" of origin.

TOE proponents want to argue that what appears to be "random sequence of DNA" proves their theory simply based on the innumerable possibilities of DNA sequence and given enough time those DNA sequences will "organize" into some sort of life form.

Yet the chance of this happening according to mathematical probability make this assumption impossible.

So we come to the conclusion that because the probability factors are not there mathematically; any DNA sequences has to fall within a formulaic perimeter. If all is based on chance than two cats breeding together could theoretically create an elephant. Yet, we never see that happen. All biological DNA sequences have perimeters for specific organisms.

Now on top of this; we can not demonstrably prove that "mutations" are beneficial to the organism. Matter of fact, more times than not, the opposite is proven. Yet changes in a DNA sequence that affect the appearance and function of organisms across generations can not automatically be assumed to be random. That is a product of the belief bias of the scientist and practically speaking; he who does not believe that particular bias is not going to be vocal about it, on account of the fact that he wants to keep his job. Regardless though; it is still demonstrable, that those changes still fall within specific parameters. Evidence being here that if they are too far outside of those parameters the organism does not survive.

Even just the simplest organization of any type of elemental structure (regardless of if your talking nature or man made mechanisms) inherently points to intelligent design, because random possibilities mathematically don't create organization of elemental structures, because if every time one "rolls the dice" is a billion to one probability of an organized structural outcome - it just never happens. And since we know that life is obviously elementally structured, it makes the TOE argument of "random chance" a moot point.

Now as to the OP's question of ID being presented as the alternative in the public square? I think you rather answered your own question on that. The inevitable conclusion that life is intelligently designed makes that life accountable to who or what ever designed it. Which also inevitably forces the definition of a Deity. And this is the real issue with ID being relegated to the margins of "science".

Now the TOE proponent argues that if ID were a "legitimate alternative" than industries such as medicine, agriculture, pharmaceutical etc. would "accept it".

Yet what that argument fails to see is the reality that all those industries depend on, is the predictability of the expected outcome. This is not foundational to TOE to begin with because the "predictability of the expected outcome" is anathema to a theory that's strictly based on chance to begin with. LOL. So strictly by default; in the realm of practical "predictability" all these industries demonstrate a reliance on the idea of intelligent design.

Lol

Is this Eric Hovind?

 

[The Righterzpen]

Lol

Is this Eric Hovind?

Not unless your Steven Hawking?

 

[xianghua]

The paper I discussed I mentioned on opsins discussed the particular molecular mechanisms for the evolution of opsins. From what I recall it was only a couple of mutations.

how many mutations to evolve the first eyespot that used for a minimal vision? a simple answer please.

 

[The Righterzpen]

This is incorrect. There is no reason to assume that intelligent design would imply any sort of accountability nor any religious overtones.

Certainty it would fuel the debate, but it's not implicit to ID itself. That is jumping several steps beyond the mere detection of ID in organisms.



This is also incorrect. The reference to evolution with respect to biology is due to evolution's explanatory power regarding biology. In other words, evolution offers an understanding of how biological organisms change over time and how various biological features came to be (including genomes). Knowledge of how such features form is leveraged in being to answer questions about biology.

For example, evolution is used as a basis for comparative genomics based on common ancestry of species and knowledge of a singular genomic starting point for any common ancestor of any extant species. This knowledge directly informs how comparative genomics are performed in the identification of things like functional regions of the genome.

Right now there is zero application of ID as put forth by ID proponents (insofar as detecting design in biological organisms). ID is currently stuck at the "how do we even detect design in biology" stage. It has yet to solve that problem.

Technically yes, one could argue that ID does not necessarily lead to questions of accountability. That does become more an issue of philosophy as it relates to human reason and scientific inquiry.

Evolution does not "explain biology" though. It makes an assumption about biology that is only observable and not provable (i.e. you have no "missing links" - in the "Cambrian explosion" life appears fully formed). Again, individual belief bias.

 

[xianghua]

Probability calculations aren't relevant here. Post-hoc probabilities of something that has already happened is always equal to 1.

probability is actually everything here. this is why even evolutionists dont believe that a whole eye can evolve in a single step. its just too complex from a probability perspective.

 

[TBDude65]

If evidence can point to evolution, with all its discrepancies, why can’t it point to intelligent design? With the theory of evolution having so much questionable evidence, which falls short of an actual explanation, what keeps the scientific community so locked into and protective of that rationality?

Why wouldn’t it be better for education to present accurately, and in detail, what the theory of evolution can and can’t show with a comparison to Intelligent Design, instead of just presenting their dogma? Wouldn’t an opposing theory be good for education?

The dogma of ID is not scientific. Evolution is a scientific theory and as such, remains the only thing necessary to teach about the diversity of life on Earth as it has a plethora of evidence that has failed to be falsified. While ID has a dearth of evidence and is falsified via the evidence for evolution

 

[The Righterzpen]

probability is actually everything here. this is why even evolutionists dont believe that a whole eye can evolve in a single step. its just too complex from a probability perspective.

Intelligent design is the proverbial elephant in the Darwinian evolutionist's living room!

 

[TBDude65]

Intelligent design is the proverbial elephant in the Darwinian evolutionist's living room!

Meaning it's not really there, you just think it is

 

[The Righterzpen]

Meaning it's not really there, you just think it is

No the elephant is very much there. The evolutionists don't want to acknowledge it's presence.

"Theory" is defined as a conclusion based on observations. A "scientific law" is an outcome that can be consistently observed every time the experiment is performed. It is a "scientific law" that all life forms have DNA. How they got it, or why it's there is the basis of "theory". Evolutionists have the same issue they accuse adherents of ID of - they have to prove a theory is "law". Neither can do so.

So actually this debate is not an issue of scientific law; it's a philosophical one. And which theory someone choses to believe is based on their own individual biases.

 

[pitabread]

Evolution does not "explain biology" though. It makes an assumption about biology that is only observable and not provable.

It's not an assumption. The conclusion of the evolutionary history of life is based on direct investigation, empirical testing and observation from various independent lines of evidence.

It is the explanatory power of evolution (eg understanding how organisms evolve and the mechanisms involved in that process) which gives it its application.

 

[inquiring mind]

No the elephant is very much there. The evolutionists don't want to acknowledge it's presence.

And that despite seeing its tracks.

 

[pitabread]

Intelligent design is the proverbial elephant in the Darwinian evolutionist's living room!

Right now the state of ID is a failed scientific hypothesis and equally failed political movement.

The current state of ID isn't pretty.