Ten arguments for intelligent design

[sjastro]

It took 3.7 or more billion years for an intelligent life to evolve on Earth.
Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Life first appeared on Earth 3.7 billion or more years ago.

Unless you believe in non mainstream science such as panspermia where the creation of life on Earth was independent of the Earth’s environment, one cannot discount the formative years in Earth’s geological history in the creation of life, like the production of the complex molecules such as amino acids.

Humans have had satellite technology since 1957 (62 years ago). It looks like we will devastate our planet through global warming or war in the not too distant future. Maybe 100 year or more, but very unlikely for us to be around for another 1,000 years.
Consider 1,000 years in the context of 13.8 billion years.
And also consider the size of our universe and the time it takes light (and anything) to travel across space.
If intelligent life is out there at a specific place in the universe and for a specific short time frame (lets say 1,000 years) what are the chances that people on Earth will discover it in our life times when we are capable of discovering that (i.e. we have capable technology)

It doesn’t matter how quickly a technological evolution occurred, it still took an extra 4.5 billion years or so before a life form was able to initiate a technological evolution.

We know for a fact it doesn't take longer than the age of the universe itself to evolve intelligent life.
Because we are here.

Scientists recently discovered the decay of a ¹²⁴Xe atom in a dark matter detector.
The half life of ¹²⁴Xe is around 18 sextillion years, far older than the age of the Universe.
Half life is a statistical average with the observed decay being a statistical outlier which I was alluding to for the time it took for intelligent life on Earth to develop.
It may very well be the average time for intelligent life to evolve in the Universe is older than the age of the Universe itself making intelligent life a very rare occurrence like the decay of a ¹²⁴Xe atom.
Once again let me emphasise this is speculation as is every other argument on the subject.

 

[SelfSim]

Hello Ophiolite. The reference to mathematical probability is part of the argument against I.D. It's part of science's argument. Not mine. I was comparing their stance to the stance of I.D.

You say that argument is from the drake equation...ok. Is that the only probability they use?

Instead of saying according to math probability, replace that with according to every astronomer ever interviewed, whatever their reasons. Have you ever met an astronomer who believes in I.D.?

They believe in natural life. Self-life. This is why probability is a sensible possibility for them.

I believe every aspect of our reality was designed.

The notion of ID is untestable in the absence of direct objectively, independently verifiable test evidence of 'design'. It is based on a belief, without this.

The Drake Equation only has validity in the immediate context of earth-life (only). Assuming it applies to the existence of 'alien intelligent life', (in the absence of objective evidence for this), makes its statistical inferences beliefs also .. even though it looks 'sciencey'.

So all we have here is a: 'My opinion is better than your opinion argument'.

 

[Mule Train]

"So all we have here is a: 'My opinion is better than your opinion argument'."

This is true. But, that is the other side too. What would convince anyone this ID is correct?

Science uses mass and energy and velocity to explain reality. What if the secret to understanding and relating ALL(gravity and EM) of nature is..........structure.

Modern science denies structure on the small scale. What if small structure and large structure were very similar?

No matter what you use for the argument.......what would one use for settlement?

If all the small scale "stuff" had the same structure, in all states......would that convince anyone?

 

[SelfSim]

What would convince anyone this ID is correct?

The only way I'd accept ID as having any scientific merit would be direct evidence of design. Eg: in order to accept that a human designed something, I'd typically request to see a design document or direct (objective) observations of the design proceeding.

Pointing to any hypothesised existence of some untestable concept, (eg: the existence of some untestable instance of hypothesised intelligence), is useless in the purpose of swaying me.

Science uses mass and energy and velocity to explain reality. What if the secret to understanding and relating ALL(gravity and EM) of nature is..........structure.

Modern science denies structure on the small scale. What if small structure and large structure were very similar?

The same principle in my above response applies for your 'structure'. (You'd need to define 'structure' for me such that I could test for it objectively, too).

No matter what you use for the argument.......what would one use for settlement?

See above responses

If all the small scale "stuff" had the same structure, in all states......would that convince anyone?

I don't see why that would be necessary.

 

[Mule Train]

Wait a second. You mean that for ID......a human had to design it?

I have been misinformed. If ID is human......No way would I believe that.

That is the first time I had heard that context.

 

[Speedwell]

Wait a second. You mean that for ID......a human had to design it?

No necessarily, but so far that's the only ID we have any evidence of.

 

[Mule Train]

Ok....well pardon me gentlemen......I had no idea it was looked at in that manner.

If that is the case, this conversation is useless. Please disregard my comments.

Have a good weekend.

 

[SelfSim]

Wait a second. You mean that for ID......a human had to design it?

I have been misinformed. If ID is human......No way would I believe that.

That is the first time I had heard that context.

The meanings of 'intelligent' and 'design' are human assigned meanings .. So what is believed to be recognised in some object, is a pattern match which corresponds with these human assigned meanings.
The observer is also a human, so unless the observer can actually exclude (or discount) all this human-ness, the determination of ID is really quite mundane ...

 

[SelfSim]

If that is the case, this conversation is useless.

On the contrary, its a very practical insight into what is actually going on with the whole ID topic.

 

[Ophiolite]

The DE is a discussion guide only. There is no objective evidence that its terms necessarily apply, (ie: are true), outside the context of Earth's life. In fact, one can go on adding or modifying the terms at a whim, ad nauseum, in order to produce the outcome one believes is true.

I am on record, on several science forums, for pointing out that Drake constructed the equation to set the agenda for the meeting at Greenbank Observatory in 1960 or '61, so no news on that front. The equation has been manipulated, as you suggest (and as I hinted at earlier), to generate the "desired" result. However, that does not detract from its value, when used honestly and objectively, of providing a range of probable values for the existence of alien life under a set of stipulated conditions.

However, that is all wholly irrelevant to the point made here. Mule Train, whether he intended to or not, spoke of probability. He now appears to be attempting to clarify and correct that impression, though I fear all he has done is to add confusion to the picture for me.

Aside: You suggest functions are added to the Drake equation willy-nilly in order to achieve the desired result. That sounds like the claim of someone who neither likes, nor understands the scientific method.
This would obviously be a pointless exercise if they were seeking to prove alien life more likely. If their aim was to prove it less likely, then the validity of their proposed function would be subject to objective examination by their peers, with summary rejection if it was found wanting.

If you wish to discuss this point further start a new thread. the subject is not relevant to this one,

 

[SelfSim]

... However, that is all wholly irrelevant to the point made here. Mule Train, whether he intended to or not, spoke of probability. He now appears to be attempting to clarify and correct that impression, though I fear all he has done is to add confusion to the picture for me.

Why would you say that?
(I don't personally see any confusion in the picture now).
Can you clarify what you mean by that? Ie: what aspect of alluding to 'probability' is of any concern now? (You have previously argued, (in the roulette wheel scenario used as an example in an exo-life discussion context), that the probability of an outcome is an objective reality ... Do you see this as having relevancy to the (potential) 'confusion' you mention above?)

You suggest functions are added to the Drake equation willy-nilly in order to achieve the desired result. That sounds like the claim of someone who neither likes, nor understands the scientific method.
This would obviously be a pointless exercise if they were seeking to prove alien life more likely. If their aim was to prove it less likely, then the validity of their proposed function would be subject to objective examination by their peers, with summary rejection if it was found wanting.

I don't think the Drake Equation has ever been subjected to peer-review(?)
I'd agree that even if it has been mentioned in peer-reviewed studies, it can't be legitimately used as a basis for establishing some firm claim concerning objective reality (due to its uncertainties).

 

[Ophiolite]

Why would you say that?
(I don't personally see any confusion in the picture now).
Can you clarify what you mean by that? Ie: what aspect of alluding to 'probability' is of any concern now?

In his original post, as it was written, probability was an essential part of his argument. Now, he says is isn't. His remaining argument seems to contain factual errors, ambiguities and possibly logical flaws. And he packs all that into just a handful of words! Anyway, all is moot, as he has left the discussion because he thought members were claiming ID argues for a human designer.

Re-the Drake equation - if you want to discuss that, I repeat, start a new thread.

 

[stevevw]

This relates to another post which made a good argument for design by an intelligent agent. It was basically that science has shown that the natural laws for the universe and life can be predicted through some specific mathematical equations, the laws of physics. A mathematical equation cannot exist by itself because it is an abstract concept and it may exist only as a thought in a conscious and intelligent mind.
Scientific Argument for God's existence

I would like to add to this that in biology and genetics we see similar codes and laws. All living things conform to the same 20 amino acids that code for life.
However, in the case of one class of very important organic forms-the basic protein folds-advances in protein chemistry since the early 1970s have revealed that they represent a finite set of natural forms, determined by a number of generative constructional rules, like those which govern the formation of atoms or crystals, in which functional adaptations are clearly secondary modifications of primary "givens of physics." The folds are evidently determined by natural law, not natural selection, and are "lawful forms" in the Platonic and pre-Darwinian sense of the word, which are bound to occur everywhere in the universe where the same 20 amino acids are used for their construction.
The protein folds as platonic forms: new support for the pre-Darwinian conception of evolution by natural law. - PubMed - NCBI

 

[stevevw]

The specifics of creation....

1. The human brain contains 100 billion brain cells
2. The mysteries of warmth (E) and radiation (c2) in mass, the mind, and the heart.
3. The mysteries of organic chemistry and its workings in animals.
4. The brain has top priority for blood, just like RAM memory needs electricity in a computer.
5. The blood needs to be cleansed by organs like the liver and kidneys so glucose and oxygen can keep the brain going. Loose the liver and kidneys and you will get very sick real fast.
6. The eyes need to stay clear. Tears need to secrete via the lacrimal gland a clear lubricating chemistry to the eye. The eye needs the desired image to arrive at the correct place so the retina can process the image in full color to the brain.
7. The body needs to regulate the correct levels of glucose and oxygen at the correct temperature. Too much or too little sugar can quickly destroy the human organs causing all kinds of problems, including blindness. The pancreas has two main functions: an exocrine function that helps in digestion and an endocrine function that regulates blood sugar.
8. The body needs a male sperm to connect with a female egg to reform the human in a womb and put all these complexities together again.
9. Putting everything together and the human body contains about 40 trillion living cells, all with some kind of function to contribute to a healthy human body.
10. All these cells need the correct chemistry from planet earth to stay alive.

All of which came together by intelligent design.

This relates to another thread I was reading about how the natural laws for the universe and life can be understood as mathematical equations and that a mathematical equation cannot exist by itself because it is an abstract concept and it may exist only as a thought in a conscious and intelligent mind.
Scientific Argument for God's existence

I would like to add to this that genetics and biology have similar natural laws where all life is made up from 20 basic amino acids.
Before the Darwinian revolution many biologists considered organic forms to be determined by natural law like atoms or crystals and therefore necessary, intrinsic and immutable features of the world order, which will occur throughout the cosmos wherever there is life. The search for the natural determinants of organic form the celebrated "Laws of Form" - -was seen as one of the major tasks of biology. After Darwin, this Platonic conception of form was abandoned and natural selection, not natural law, was increasingly seen to be the main, if not the exclusive, determinant of organic form. However, in the case of one class of very important organic forms-the basic protein folds- advances in protein chemistry since the early 1970s have revealed that they represent a finite set of natural forms, determined by a number of generative constructional rules, like those which govern the formation of atoms or crystals, in which functional adaptations are clearly secondary modifications of primary "givens of physics." The folds are evidently determined by natural law, not natural selection, and are "lawful forms" in the Platonic and pre-Darwinian sense of the word, which are bound to occur everywhere in the universe where the same 20 amino acids are used for their construction.
The protein folds as platonic forms: new support for the pre-Darwinian conception of evolution by natural law. - PubMed - NCBI

 

[Ophiolite]

A mathematical equation cannot exist by itself because it is an abstract concept and it may exist only as a thought in a conscious and intelligent mind.

Unfounded assertion and even if demonstrated to be true this does not preclude the existence of the relationships described by the equation, independently of any mind. I understand that many (most?) mathematicians would argue the relationships are the maths, the equations simply a convenient way for humans to express them.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

This relates to another post which made a good argument for design by an intelligent agent. It was basically that science has shown that the natural laws for the universe and life can be predicted through some specific mathematical equations, the laws of physics. A mathematical equation cannot exist by itself because it is an abstract concept and it may exist only as a thought in a conscious and intelligent mind.

Mathematics is a formal axiomatic system that we have devised, and which we can use to describe the workings of the universe. The laws of physics are the concise mathematical descriptions we use for that. We devise these mathematical descriptions by observing and measuring how the universe behaves. We are able to do this because the universe displays regularities in its behaviour.

The universe doesn't follow physical laws, physical laws are approximate descriptions of the behaviour of the universe. The minds that devise these approximations are human.

So, no.

 

[SkyWriting]

The specifics of creation....

1. The human brain contains 100 billion brain cells
2. The mysteries of warmth (E) and radiation (c2) in mass, the mind, and the heart.
3. The mysteries of organic chemistry and its workings in animals.
4. The brain has top priority for blood, just like RAM memory needs electricity in a computer.
5. The blood needs to be cleansed by organs like the liver and kidneys so glucose and oxygen can keep the brain going. Loose the liver and kidneys and you will get very sick real fast.
6. The eyes need to stay clear. Tears need to secrete via the lacrimal gland a clear lubricating chemistry to the eye. The eye needs the desired image to arrive at the correct place so the retina can process the image in full color to the brain.
7. The body needs to regulate the correct levels of glucose and oxygen at the correct temperature. Too much or too little sugar can quickly destroy the human organs causing all kinds of problems, including blindness. The pancreas has two main functions: an exocrine function that helps in digestion and an endocrine function that regulates blood sugar.
8. The body needs a male sperm to connect with a female egg to reform the human in a womb and put all these complexities together again.
9. Putting everything together and the human body contains about 40 trillion living cells, all with some kind of function to contribute to a healthy human body.
10. All these cells need the correct chemistry from planet earth to stay alive.

All of which came together by intelligent design.

11. There are not even any theories as to why life exists. The rest of the Cosmos seems to be doing fine without it.
12. The rest of the Cosmos seems to not consider it not of any natural value.
None can be found, anywhere.

 

[SkyWriting]

The universe doesn't follow physical laws, physical laws are approximate descriptions of the behaviour of the universe. The minds that devise these approximations are human.

The universe does follow physical laws. If fact, that why they are called laws.
There are usually exceptions and special cases, but we call them laws because they are considered universal and dependable.

nat·u·ral law
noun
plural noun: natural laws
1.
a body of unchanging moral principles regarded as a basis for all human conduct.
2.
an observable law relating to natural phenomena.
"the natural laws of perspective"

Scientific Laws and Theories You Really Should Know

The Big Bang Theory
Hubble's Law Of Cosmic Expansion
Kepler's Laws Of Planetary Motion
Newton's Law Of Universal Gravitation And Laws Of Motion
Laws Of Thermodynamics
Archimedes buoyancy principle
Einstein's Theory Of General Relativity
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle

 

[SkyWriting]

This relates to another post which made a good argument for design by an intelligent agent. It was basically that science has shown that the natural laws for the universe and life can be predicted through some specific mathematical equations, the laws of physics.

Not one has been found for "life".
Life poses no advantage for what is dead.

 

[SelfSim]

A mathematical equation cannot exist by itself because it is an abstract concept and it may exist only as a thought in a conscious and intelligent mind.

Unfounded assertion ...

Well, we may be able to get away with saying that a mathematical equation might 'exist by itself' in common language ... however, from a scientific thinking viewpoint, we could only ever consider it if someone could demonstrate some way of testing that .. So I'd agree with Ophiolite, in that there appears to be no support for completely ruling out the notion .. (other than by merely asserting it into 'existence').

.. and even if demonstrated to be true this does not preclude the existence of the relationships described by the equation, independently of any mind. I understand that many (most?) mathematicians would argue the relationships are the maths, the equations simply a convenient way for humans to express them.

The relationships are objectively testable and produce verifying evidence and the comparison with an equation 'existing by itself' hasn't even had an objective test cited for it yet ..