Intelligent Design isn’t intelligent

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I disagree that the solution are not made from scratch, evolution can't choose from a piece of liver and other of brain, it has to came up with them.

If you spent just a little time to understand how evolution works, you wouldn't be wasting your and everyone else's time with statements like that.

 

[NBB]

If you spent just a little time to understand how evolution works, you wouldn't be wasting your and everyone else's time with statements like that.

What i mean is that evolution can't choose from already determined solutions unlike those simulations.

 

[Speedwell]

What i mean is that evolution can't choose from already determined solutions unlike those simulations.

In fact it does. The distribution of variation in each generation has relatively narrow limits. It is natural selection which "chooses" from within that range.

 

[The Barbarian]

So, if God made us with evolution, should evolution be credited alone for us?

If a carpenter makes a table with his tools, should his tools be credited alone for it? Do you really not know the answer for that?

like every evolutionist does

C'mon. You know better than that. Why pretend otherwise? Shame on you.

you don't have a bit of disagrenment with evolutionists that say evolution did it all alone?

You already know that isn't true. Shame on you.

I disagree that the solution are not made from scratch

Because you don't think God is powerful enough or wise enough to make such a world. You're underestimating God.

evolution can't choose from a piece of liver and other of brain, it has to came up with them.

That's what the evidence shows us. For example, all cells have a primitive ability to transmit signals. Hearts seem to have evolved before nervous tissue; a sort of proto-neuron exists in animal hearts in the form of Purkunje fibers that are not fully nervous tissue, but effectively send signals to control the heart's beating.

 

[The Barbarian]

What i mean is that evolution can't choose from already determined solutions unlike those simulations.

No, that's wrong, too. As you learned, evolutionary changes are all by modifying something already there.

Remember, evolution is about populations of living things changing, not the origin of life. It would work exactly the same way if God just poofed the first cells into existence.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What i mean is that evolution can't choose from already determined solutions unlike those simulations.

In both evolution and simulations, each new generation of the population is derived from the previous generation with random variations. Then the most successful individuals preferentially produce the next generation, passing their variations on, so that the most successful variants accumulate in subsequent generations.

In neither case are there pre-determined solutions, only variants that are more successful than others. The criteria for success in evolution is (roughly) number of viable offspring. In the simulations, it will be performance against the desired result.

 

[tas8831]

God: Master of the Universe
Satan: "God" of this world.

It all makes sense.

Satan: More powerful than God
God: Can't handle Satan, splits.
God worshippers: Blame things they claim not to believe in for the ills of the world rather than wonder why God abandoned them.

Makes sense.

 

[BradB]

TO ALL
I just happened to be scanning topics and this one caught my eye. I usually try not to jump in after a thread has been running for a while but just had some quick observations here. Sorry if I repeat anything that has already been said. I didn't have the time to go through and read every page here.

Firstly this kind of argumentation against intelligent design is hilariously dimwitted. That's because one has to "assume" they know what was in the designer’s head at the time. Sometimes design requires a tradeoff. Could Samsung build a completely indestructible cell phone that could survive being dropped out of an airplane and landing on a concrete pad? Could they make it completely water proof to survive the deepest depths of the ocean? Could they build it so that it could survive the hot temps of the desert and freezing temps of the Arctic? Could Samsung also while they are at it design it to never drop a call from anywhere in the world? Well sure they could. Except that no one could carry it because it is way too heavy and bulky, and no one could afford it because it is outrageously expensive. The point is that designers have to do tradeoffs for practicality reasons all the time.

The second issue is the assumption that because something in a biological system is not currently in use that it must have no use. Or that because you don’t know somethings function must mean it has no function. I have things on my six year old car that I still have to consult the owner’s manual to figure out what it does. Also I have holes drilled in along my vehicles frame in the steel that don’t seem to serve any purpose that I can see. Does that mean my car was poorly designed?

Thirdly you also cannot forget that the biblical text tells us that a curse came upon all creation because of man’s sin. We don’t know exactly what all that entails, but it would imply that a good many things will have stopped functioning the way in which they were originally designed.

So since none of us are God we don’t know what tradeoffs He went with, there are a good many of thing we just don’t know what they are for, and there are also many things that are not functioning as originally designed. None of this is evidence that there is no intelligent designer.

I once saw a rock in my rock garden in front of my house that looked a little out of place from the others. When I picked it up I discovered it was made of plastic, had a flat back with a slide off compartment door. I realized instantly that it was an intelligently designed key hiding box made to look like a rock. Likewise we may look at something day after day and not notice design, but just picking it up and looking closer might reveal what we missed.

The question shouldn’t be “does most of this object look poorly designed?” It should be “is there even one thing that undoubtedly show it was designed? That’s really all it takes to reveal design. Just one thing. Not a list of things that don’t look designed. Just one thing that must be designed.

Design is typically detected by looking for signs that something was “engineered.” Engineering is detected when we observe that something was formed for a specific intent or purpose. Kind of like how archaeologists look for recognizable design features in objects that tell them they were engineered rather than naturally formed. Or how marine biologists trying to detect intelligence in dolphins look for specific sound patterns to match up with certain behaviors would tell them they are communicating with intelligent language. Even SETI astronomers search the skies for specific narrow band radio signals coming from deep space. They tell us that if they were to ever find one it would be evidence it was engineered… meaning it had an intelligent source.

When we apply these principles to our observations of the universe we find that it does indeed display evidence of engineering in its laws of physics, its systems, and its life. That’s pretty much everything. I’ll be happy to discuss these with anyone who is interested.

Thanks
Brad

 

[RealityCheck01]

What i mean is that evolution can't choose from already determined solutions unlike those simulations.

This is a misunderstanding of the simulations and evolution, NBB.
There are no already determined solutions in either. A hypothetical genetic algorithm that ends up with an eye does not start with solutions that include an eye. The evolution of the eye did not start with solutions that included an eye. They are definitely not the selection of a solution from a set of already determined solutions as the post implies.

ETA: Read Evolved antenna and see that the resulting antenna is not present at the start.

 

[pitabread]

When we apply these principles to our observations of the universe we find that it does indeed display evidence of engineering in its laws of physics, its systems, and its life. That’s pretty much everything.

The whole problem with everything being evidence for design is that you have no basis for comparison. It's not a conclusion; it's just an an untestable, unfalsifiable belief.

 

[pitabread]

When we apply these principles to our observations of the universe we find that it does indeed display evidence of engineering in its laws of physics, its systems, and its life. That’s pretty much everything.

The whole problem with "everything" being evidence for design is that you now have no basis for comparison. It's a dead-end argument.

 

[tas8831]

Firstly this kind of argumentation against intelligent design is hilariously dimwitted.

Perhaps, but it is not nearly as dimwitted as proclaiming 'intelligent design (creation)' to be real or true despite the fact that advocates of such can present, literally, nothing in terms of supporting evidence for such a belief.

Of note - I do not consider making analogies to human activity or to declaring X cannot have evolved to be evidence for IDC, and no sensible, honest, intelligent person should.

 

[BradB]

The whole problem with everything being evidence for design is that you have no basis for comparison. It's not a conclusion; it's just an an untestable, unfalsifiable belief.

To the contrary I gave three examples of how science tries to detect design and how it works quite well. Also before you say it...I will point out that two of my examples were not even human design. The problem is that militant atheists start drooling over this when they realize these same principles are applied to the observations of the universe itself and demonstrate engineering. Again if something is found to perform a very specific function with no observable evidence it formed through random processes then the typical conclusion is that it was engineered. Something like a hollow spherical clay formation with intricate patterns around its outer surface area in the shapes of animals is easily spotted by an archaeologist as an ancient artifact rather than a weird randomly formed clay anomaly. When a dolphin consistently emits a specific sound pattern and his friends all in turn behave in a very specific way (like dive deep or break the surface) marine biologists can be certain that they have a sophisticated (intelligent) form of communication. Even though they don't know exactly what is being said. Likewise SETI astronomers know that a very narrow radio band signal or bright pulsating light in millisecond range is evidence of engineering.

So yes there is a clear basis for making the claim that we observe design in the make up of the universe. I know that troubles you but its a scientific fact nonetheless.

 

[Speedwell]

TO ALL
I just happened to be scanning topics and this one caught my eye. I usually try not to jump in after a thread has been running for a while but just had some quick observations here. Sorry if I repeat anything that has already been said. I didn't have the time to go through and read every page here.

Firstly this kind of argumentation against intelligent design is hilariously dimwitted. That's because one has to "assume" they know what was in the designer’s head at the time. Sometimes design requires a tradeoff. Could Samsung build a completely indestructible cell phone that could survive being dropped out of an airplane and landing on a concrete pad? Could they make it completely water proof to survive the deepest depths of the ocean? Could they build it so that it could survive the hot temps of the desert and freezing temps of the Arctic? Could Samsung also while they are at it design it to never drop a call from anywhere in the world? Well sure they could. Except that no one could carry it because it is way too heavy and bulky, and no one could afford it because it is outrageously expensive. The point is that designers have to do tradeoffs for practicality reasons all the time.

The second issue is the assumption that because something in a biological system is not currently in use that it must have no use. Or that because you don’t know somethings function must mean it has no function. I have things on my six year old car that I still have to consult the owner’s manual to figure out what it does. Also I have holes drilled in along my vehicles frame in the steel that don’t seem to serve any purpose that I can see. Does that mean my car was poorly designed?

Thirdly you also cannot forget that the biblical text tells us that a curse came upon all creation because of man’s sin. We don’t know exactly what all that entails, but it would imply that a good many things will have stopped functioning the way in which they were originally designed.

So since none of us are God we don’t know what tradeoffs He went with, there are a good many of thing we just don’t know what they are for, and there are also many things that are not functioning as originally designed. None of this is evidence that there is no intelligent designer.

I once saw a rock in my rock garden in front of my house that looked a little out of place from the others. When I picked it up I discovered it was made of plastic, had a flat back with a slide off compartment door. I realized instantly that it was an intelligently designed key hiding box made to look like a rock. Likewise we may look at something day after day and not notice design, but just picking it up and looking closer might reveal what we missed.

The question shouldn’t be “does most of this object look poorly designed?” It should be “is there even one thing that undoubtedly show it was designed? That’s really all it takes to reveal design. Just one thing. Not a list of things that don’t look designed. Just one thing that must be designed.

Design is typically detected by looking for signs that something was “engineered.” Engineering is detected when we observe that something was formed for a specific intent or purpose. Kind of like how archaeologists look for recognizable design features in objects that tell them they were engineered rather than naturally formed. Or how marine biologists trying to detect intelligence in dolphins look for specific sound patterns to match up with certain behaviors would tell them they are communicating with intelligent language. Even SETI astronomers search the skies for specific narrow band radio signals coming from deep space. They tell us that if they were to ever find one it would be evidence it was engineered… meaning it had an intelligent source.

When we apply these principles to our observations of the universe we find that it does indeed display evidence of engineering in its laws of physics, its systems, and its life. That’s pretty much everything. I’ll be happy to discuss these with anyone who is interested.

Thanks
Brad

So how does it work? How does what you call "design" get into natural objects? Science at least has an explanation, even if you don't buy it. What's yours?

 

[BradB]

Perhaps, but it is not nearly as dimwitted as proclaiming 'intelligent design (creation)' to be real or true despite the fact that advocates of such can present, literally, nothing in terms of supporting evidence for such a belief.

Of note - I do not consider making analogies to human activity or to declaring X cannot have evolved to be evidence for IDC, and no sensible, honest, intelligent person should.

Actually there are a good deal of scientific facts that point to an engineered universe. And if you would have read my first post here you would have seen that I presented two in which human activity was not a factor. I actually did that on purpose because I've seen that nonsensical comment before. As for X evolving into anything... it might shock you to learn I fully accept evolution. Let me clarify. I fully accept evolution as defined by mainstream biologists not the definition over popularized by todays media. What is the difference you might ask? Mainstream biologists typically define evolution as "The observed small changes in a population of an organism over time." -->PERIOD<-- end of definition. Interestingly we do observe small changes happen and we observe it happen all the time. So that means by that definition, evolution is a stone cold ironclad scientific fact. However nothing about that definition conflicts with ID and or creation. NOTHING. All knowledgeable creationists fully accept evolution when it is defined in this way. However the other popular definition is the theory that all life has a common ancestor. But here's the funny thing about that. That's not even really a definition for evolution. That's the definition of term scientists call Universal Common Descent. Militant atheists love to blur the lines between these two definitions. That's how they have been so successful at keeping their lies in the class room.

My point I was getting to here is that if you want to say that the DNA code found in all life "evolved" to a sophistication that warps our most advanced computer software programs by comparison (all by random processes), knock yourself out. You can believe whatever you want. But you my friend are the one who is lacking in evidence. And even if for the sake of argument I let you have that one, I'd love to see how evolution works to evolve non-biologic systems. How did it form all the laws of physics to be fine tuned to the exact parameters to permit life? How did evolution effect the literally hundreds of systems of our universe that all work in unison just to make life even possible? Systems that must exist at the same time, location, and specific parameters just for there to be life???

 

[BradB]

So how does it work? How does what you call "design" get into natural objects? Science at least has an explanation, even if you don't buy it. What's yours?

Science doesn't have an explanation for design...that's the problem. They have an unsupported hypothesis. I have a book that tells a tale about how it happened, and when I examine creation I find it remarkably agrees with the book. And that's actually what God wants us to do. (Rom. 1:20)

 

[Speedwell]

Actually there are a good deal of scientific facts that point to an engineered universe. And if you would have read my first post here you would have seen that I presented two in which human activity was not a factor. I actually did that on purpose because I've seen that nonsensical comment before. As for X evolving into anything... it might shock you to learn I fully accept evolution. Let me clarify. I fully accept evolution as defined by mainstream biologists not the definition over popularized by todays media. What is the difference you might ask? Mainstream biologists typically define evolution as "The observed small changes in a population of an organism over time." -->PERIOD<-- end of definition. Interestingly we do observe small changes happen and we observe it happen all the time. So that means by that definition, evolution is a stone cold ironclad scientific fact. However nothing about that definition conflicts with ID and or creation. NOTHING.

I believe that's the first correct thing you said. Design is unfalsifiable. It can sometimes be detected but never ruled out, and nobody tries to. The difficulty comes from those who are trying to prove the presence of design on dubious grounds in aid of promoting some religion or other.

All knowledgeable creationists fully accept evolution when it is defined in this way. However the other popular definition is the theory that all life has a common ancestor. But here's the funny thing about that. That's not ever really a definition for evolution. That's the definition of term scientists call Universal Common Descent. Militant atheists love to blur the lines between these two definitions. That's how they have been so successful at keeping their lies in the class room.

"Militant atheists" (and I assume you mean by that anybody who is not a biblical creationist) know the difference and don't try to fool anybody with it.

My point I was getting to here is that if you want to say that the DNA code found in all life "evolved" to a sophistication that warps our most advanced computer software programs by comparison (all by random processes), knock yourself out. You can believe whatever you want. But you my friend are the one who is lacking in evidence.

Biological evolution is not a random process.

And even if for the sake of argument I let you have that one, I'd love to see how evolution works to evolve non-biologic systems. How did it form all the laws of physics to be fine tuned to the exact parameters to permit life? How did evolution effect the literally hundreds of systems of our universe that all work in unison just to make life even possible? Systems that must exist at the same time, location, and specific parameters just for there to be life???

Evolution had nothing to do with it.

 

[Speedwell]

Science doesn't have an explanation for design...that's the problem.

If science has no explanation, why do you trouble to discredit that which you don't think exists?

They have an unsupported hypothesis.

Or deny the evidence which supports it?

I have a book that tells a tale about how it happened, and when I examine creation I find it remarkably agrees with the book. And that's actually what God wants us to do. (Rom. 1:20)

Romans 1:20 says nothing one way or the other about biblical creationism. It is just as true for those of us who accept biological evolution.
BTW, you will get nowhere at all in this forum if you try to make the creationism/evolution debate into a cosmic struggle between theism and atheism. That is the "big lie" of creationism and the reason many of us find biblical creationism disgusting. Be honest: it's about the Bible, not God.

 

[pitabread]

To the contrary I gave three examples of how science tries to detect design and how it works quite well.

I'll run with your SETI example both to affirm some of things you are suggesting, but also where you are going wrong when talking about the universe as a whole.

You're essentially correct in that looking for design involves looking for examples of engineering (or deliberate manufacture). Taking a more reductionist view, the actual detection of design is a form of pattern recognition and pre-existing knowledge. In order to recognize something as engineered you need first a base line with which to make that determination. Often times that baseline involves comparison to other things.

In the case of SETI, astronomers do look for narrow band signals. The reason they do so is because the only known source of narrow band signals are artificially manufactured radio transmitters; e.g. the kind humans make. So they search for narrow band signals (in comparison to other types of signals) based pre-existing knowledge of human radio technology and what those signals would look like. The assumption being that wide-band signals are natural and therefore not a product of intelligence.

Now if I said to you,*all* signals are the result of deliberate design, suddenly SETI has no basis for signal detection any more.

This is the problem with applying this thinking to the universe as a whole. If everything related to the universe is a product of design, what are you comparing it to? The answer... is nothing.

Consequently, when you say this:

So yes there is a clear basis for making the claim that we observe design in the make up of the universe. I know that troubles you but its a scientific fact nonetheless.

Not only is it not a scientific fact, but you have no fundamental claim on which to base that that follows your previous arguments for the detection of design.

The problem is that militant atheists

As an aside, this has absolutely nothing to do with atheism, militant or otherwise. That's a complete red herring on your part. This is simply about a fundamentally flawed argument.

 

[BradB]

I believe that's the first correct thing you said. Design is unfalsifiable. It can sometimes be detected but never ruled out, and nobody tries to. The difficulty comes from those who are trying to prove the presence of design on dubious grounds in aid of promoting some religion or other.
"Militant atheists" (and I assume you mean by that anybody who is not a biblical creationist) know the difference and don't try to fool anybody with it.
Biological evolution is not a random process.

Evolution had nothing to do with it.

A militant atheist is someone who not only says they don't believe in God, but also are hell bent on wiping out any and all expression of faith towards Him by others who do. They are determined not to allow any public expressions of Him at every turn possible. They want prayer out of sports events, public meetings, and schools. They go out of their way to try and cast people of faith in a negative light especially if that person can present reasonable evidence to believe in a designer. So no I don't care about atheists who just have never seen evidence to convince them there is a creator. I do however care about militant atheists who seem to have made it there mission to try and squash any and all belief in God. Especially the God of the Bible.

Not random??? So... you've never heard of "Random mutation coupled with natural selection?"