Intelligent Design

[Nathan Poe]

Intelligent Design, as a scientific theory, is agnostic as to the identity of the designer. The "entity" need not be a supernatural being but only an intelligent being. For all we know, the source of intelligent design could be intergalactic space aliens.

And this is exactly what Creationist institutions such as the Discovery Institute had in mind when they threw their support behind the ID movement.

Really, Matthew, you don't have to pretend to fall for the "ID is not Creationism" facade -- clearly nobody else does anymore.

 

[Matthew777]

Really, Matthew, you don't have to pretend to fall for the "ID is not Creationism" facade -- clearly nobody else does anymore.

I do not even believe in Intelligent Design and yet I am able to acknowledge it as not being a "backdoor creationism".

 

[LogicChristian]

Given that design theorists follow the scientific method, it deserves to be acknowledged as an alternative scientific theory or perhaps even one that supplements and complements evolutionary theory.

Care to show me how ID uses the scientific method?

Care to show me a single Intelligent Design Experiment? Remember, experimentation is an integral and necessary part of the scientific method.

Would you like to show me a prominent ID proponent that is performing actual research and observation in the field regarding ID? Every ID paper I've ever read or have ever been presented with has been nothing but a critique of various quotes cherry-picked from other biology papers.


____________________________________________________

 

[Nathan Poe]

I do not even believe in Intelligent Design and yet I am able to acknowledge it as not being a "backdoor creationism".

If you could explain that, I'd be most grateful.

 

[LogicChristian]

Anyone care to show me a single ID experiment?

You've got to have a hypothesis you can experiment with.

 

[nvxplorer]

Anyone care to show me a single ID experiment?

You've got to have a hypothesis you can experiment with.

Here’s an experiment I performed on this forum.

Designed or naturally occurring?

Only two members responded, and they both failed miserably.

 

[Smidlee]

Anyone care to show me a single ID experiment?

You've got to have a hypothesis you can experiment with.

If scientist found a Stargate (for example) on Mars then what kind of experiment you you have to performed to see what's very obvious? If we find any odd object on Mars, the object itself could identify if it's intelligent designed or not. So you don't need a hypothesis or experiment to prove ID for the living cells can speak for itself just as a Stargate on Mars would. We know something in ID by learning the limits of what nature can produce. Also something which is design has a lot more ways of breaking than building. Man can shout as loud as he wants to claiming that a cell isn't design or ID isn't science but this would do nothing to quiet the voice and testimony of a living cell in action.

Now if you going to use to "life is different than a designed machines" argument then this means life has supernatural properties that dead machines don't have which would also points to an supernatural designer. I've notice evolutionists like to have it boths way when it comes to life. They say out of one side of the mouth that life is nothing but a natural process yet when someone point to ID, they will speak out the other side claiming life has supernatural-selection powers which make it different than non-living objects.

 

[notto]

We know something in ID by learning the limits of what nature can produce.

And those limits of nature can produce irreducibly complex molecular machines.

That is why the argument is bunk. Comparing the natural process of evolution and biochemical reproduction to static, non reproducing physical manufactured structures is a poor analogy.

 

[Smidlee]

Here’s an experiment I performed on this forum.

Designed or naturally occurring?

Only two members responded, and they both failed miserably.

These example doesn't fit a living cell. We know now that a living cell isn't made out of Jell-o or chocolate pudding. In Darwin's day people saw cells as something very simple which helps Darwin's case againest William Paley's design argument. Darwin had an example in nature that something very simple can produced something very complex to form all life. Because Darwin had an example of simple to complex he didn't have to deal with the origins of life.
Today evolutionist has lost their simple to complexes example since we now know that cells are complex and contain the body plan and information from the start. Now evolutionist has to rely on abiogenesis, which doesn't look so good for all those paradox, for their hope of finding a new simple to complexes example. So all all they seem the best they can come up with it the snowflake example. So far we haven't found any life made out of something as simple as a snowflake.

 

[notto]

So far we haven't found any life made out of something as simple as a snowflake.

But yet you compare a cell to manufactured objects of steel that have none of the characteristics of organic molecules or cells (catalystic reactions, governed by rules of chemistry, reproducing naturally, etc). You just shot down your own analogy.

 

[ebia]

If scientist found a Stargate (for example) on Mars then what kind of experiment you you have to performed to see what's very obvious?

You've tried this one before, but didn't answer my question that time. I wonder if you will this time.

How do you know there isn't a stargate at the bottom of your garden.

If we find any odd object on Mars, the object itself could identify if it's intelligent designed or not.

How do you know? You are making a huge range of assumptions about the object.

 

[Smidlee]

And those limits of nature can produce irreducibly complex molecular machines.

That is why the argument is bunk. Comparing the natural process of evolution and biochemical reproduction to static, non reproducing physical manufactured structures is a poor analogy.

Cells reproduces because of the information (hardware and software) build into them. We can and do build machines to build other machines.We have even learn how to build computer programs to make write a program. Of course the program-building program is a lot complex than a normal program.So no the argument isn't bunk. You are still speaking out of both sides of your mouth in saying life is natural on one side and claiming it supernatural out the other.

 

[notto]

Cells reproduces because of the information (hardware and sofeware) build into them. We can and do build machines to build other machines.We are even learn how to build computer programs to make write a program. Of course the program-building program is a lot complex than a normal program.So no the argument isn't bunk. You are still speaking out of both sides of your mouth in saying life is natural on one side and claiming it supernatural out the other.

Where have I claimed it was supernatural? Govered by chemistry and physics is not supernatural. Reproduction is not supernatural.

Computer programs and machines by necessity are manufactured. There is no natural process that forms them. The analogy is a poor one.

By your analogy, any chemical reaction that forms through a catalyst is intelligently designed.

All of your analogies are lacking because they don't have the same characteristics of naturally reproducing biological entities or reactions.

 

[Smidlee]

You've tried this one before, but didn't answer my question that time. I wonder if you will this time.

How do you know there isn't a stargate at the bottom of your garden.

If there is a Stargate at the bottom of my garden there still wouldn't be a problem to identify it as intelligent designed.

 

[notto]

If there is a Stargate at the bottom of my garden there still wouldn't be a problem to identify it as intelligent designed.

Is it because of the design itself or because we know of no naturally occuring process that can build something out of steel and brick?

If it is because of the design alone then I fail to see how we could use this argument alone to distinquish the design of a stargate from the design of a snowflake.

How do we know that snowflakes are not designed? Is it because we know of a natural process that produces them? Can we determine that they are not designed by the design alone?

Is the process of forming crystals designed or not? Why or why not?

 

[Smidlee]

Where have I claimed it was supernatural? Govered by chemistry and physics is not supernatural. Reproduction is not supernatural.

All material things works this way. My PC runs on the same bases. Here you are claiming life governed just like a man-design computer.

Computer programs and machines by necessity are manufactured. There is no natural process that forms them. The analogy is a poor one.

same with life. A living cell are made by another living cell by it's information built into it. There is also no known natural process to form them outside a cell. More scientist try the more paradoxes they run into. there is no know natural process to build life while we know a lot of processes to destroy it and works againest life.

All of your analogies are lacking because they don't have the same characteristics of naturally reproducing biological entities or reactions.

So does life runs on the same laws as machines or are they supernatural? Even time destroys the building blocks of life just like any man-made object or any wall.
I know I won't change any minds but atleast I try my best to make my case for ID. So I'll rest my case.

 

[ebia]

If there is a Stargate at the bottom of my garden there still wouldn't be a problem to identify it as intelligent designed.

How do you know there isn't?

 

[notto]

All material things works this way. My PC runs on the same bases.

PC's don't reproduce and are not powered nor built by chemical reactions (unlike life or cells)

Here you are claiming life governed just like a man-design computer. same with life. A living cell are made by another living cell by it's information built into it. There is also no known natural process to form them outside a cell. More scientist try the more paradoxes they run into.

So why do we find organic molecules in space? What paradoxes do scientists run into?

So does life runs on the same laws as machines or are they supernatural. Even time destroys the building blocks of life just like any man-made object or any wall.

Life and reproduction runs on chemistry. Manufactured machines don't. Nothing supernatural, just different physical processes.

Is chemistry supernatural to you? That seems to be what you are arguing.

Is the formation of organic compounds from inorganic compounds supernatural?

You are building a strawman of what is being claimed. I have seen nobody claim that life is somehow supernatural. What is being claimed is that your analogies to manufacturing processes or processes that are not governed by chemistry or that don't have a process of reproduction in them are poor analogies.

Name 3 things that this stargate you keep talking about have in common with the process of reproduction and organic processes. Is reproduction and development due to chemistry and natural processes one of them? If they are not, how does the analogy hold?

 

[biochemrex]

Natural is that which we can directly observe. But our knowledge of God does not come from Nature. It comes from a direct experience of God and that is why we call it supernatural. If we were to find a Geological strata marked with the registered trademerk of God then that would be it, but it is pointless looking to nature for a faith. That is not where faith in God comes from.
Darwin started off as a Christian, but when he lost his children he lost his faith. He could not believe in a God that would take his children. Now that shows just how stupid he was. He imagined he was special . It meant nothing to him that countless millions had suffered such personal tragedies, but when it happened to him he lost his faith and Rejected God. It is a bit like believing in cancer so long as it happens to other people then refusing to believe in it when it happens to you. That is just rejecting reality. Keith

 

[raphael_aa]

Natural is that which we can directly observe. But our knowledge of God does not come from Nature. It comes from a direct experience of God and that is why we call it supernatural. If we were to find a Geological strata marked with the registered trademerk of God then that would be it, but it is pointless looking to nature for a faith. That is not where faith in God comes from.
Darwin started off as a Christian, but when he lost his children he lost his faith. He could not believe in a God that would take his children. Now that shows just how stupid he was. He imagined he was special . It meant nothing to him that countless millions had suffered such personal tragedies, but when it happened to him he lost his faith and Rejected God. It is a bit like believing in cancer so long as it happens to other people then refusing to believe in it when it happens to you. That is just rejecting reality. Keith

If the natural world is not a valid way to meet God then why is scripture full of exhortations for us to examine it?