Theory of Intelligent Design

ID has none of those things....maybe peer review if by peer you mean other Christians that believe in creation.

 

And even then, peer review of what? Show me the math. Show me the predictions, the testing methods, and the data. ID has none of these.

 

Here is the crux of the problem. People who aren't educated in science believe that because scientific theories can be translated into philosophical explanations that humans can understand, philosophical explanations ARE scientific. They're not! They are only approximations of the science.

ID is pure philosophy. That doesn't mean that hard evidence can't emerge that raises it to the level of a scientific theory. But we have no such evidence.

 

DNA and the genetic code is an example of something with high levels of CSI. Is it designed? Possibly, I am not a scientist, and don't have access to many of the tools, but reverse engineering and measurement of CSI can tell you something regarding that.

 

So is the idea of chance being involved in the creation of life. A philosophical position, for that assertion cannot be tested. In philosophical materialism the idea of something outside of matter being fundamental is discounted and discarded by the assumption matter is the fundamental of reality. So if there is only dumb matter, the only way for life to be created, has to be chance. No other explanation. Yet it cannot be replicated, nor tested.

 

It makes testable predictions, I will list three:
1. Natural structures containing many parts with intricate patterns that perform specific functions.
2. Convergence will routinely occur.
3. "Junk-DNA" will actually perform valuable functions.

 

Then you lack understanding of what intelligent design is.

 

If I say F = ma - Force equals mass times accelerations, did I say anything?

What is force?
What is mass
What is acceleration?

These are mathematical concepts that we translate in our minds to something that we think we understand. But in the end they are just words. We can't really conceptualize what they mean. They are mathematical constructs.

 

I'm not sure if you are playing a game here, Zero...or if we are just not communicating.

I have suggested that the notion "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection" is absurd because it is gratuitous and self-serving.

You disagreed.

I asked you for an example of something from nature that fits that scenario...a feature this is best explained by an intelligent cause.

Now you have come up with one neither of us knows to be that...WHICH IS WHAT I PREDICTED.

Do you have an example of anything from nature that actually is "best" explained by intelligent design over all other possible explanations...and how so

I cannot even imagine you having such an example. I cannot imagine ANYONE having one.

 

Those are observations made after the fact.

Show me a prediction made that we didn't already observe and can't arbitrarily observe - something we don't know, that ID predicts, that we can test. That is science.

Just stating that junk DNA might be useful is speculation. Tell me exactly how it can be useful. Tell me the specific physiology and then the test design and results.

 

I gave you one and I gave you a prediction and way to test ID, if you refuse to acknowledge, then I am wasting my time by responding to you.

 

If I punched you in the face you'd probably understand.

 

Perhaps not what is called ID today, given it originates from the religious. But IF, some creative force was involved in the creation of that first self replicating molecule that contained the information which led to the next phase, an then to the next phase, it could be said that the intelligent design was there in the first self replicating molecule. With the information which would eventually be utilized to give us humans.

 

Of course, same is true with Darwinism and other theories regarding "after the fact" observations.
What do you mean by "that we didn't already observe"? It has to be observed before it can be put into a hypothesis. I already gave you three, read it again. Intelligent Design makes these predictions and we can examine life forms to see if they fit these predictions.

 

ID is what I quoted in the OP, and is consistent with the first cell being the product of an intelligence.

 

What have you given me that is best explained by intelligent design?

Name it.

The only thing you have offered so far is DNA and the genetic code...which even you indicated cannot be thought of something that is BEST explained by intelligent design.


I'm saying you have nothing...in fact, I'm saying nobody does, because the assertion is nothing more than a self-serving bit of fluff.

 

We don't need to accept any explanation until/unless one is proven. "We don't know" is a perfectly viable answer to this kind of question.

It still seems fairly pointless to talk about the existence of an intelligent creator without expressing any interest what-so-ever in the nature of that intelligence (not to mention those who assert that the nature of that intelligence can't be known).

 

I probably should have been more clear, what I meant was that whether it is designed will be dependent on the CSI in the system, and I don't quite know what the levels of CSI are, but from what I know, it contains very high levels of CSI, that like I said earlier, is only observed to occur by intelligent processes. DNA and the genetic code obviously needs to be tested before it can be concluded to be designed (we can't just assume it is designed because it may look designed), and has been, with conclusions that high levels of CSI exist in the system. So, yeah, intelligent design is the best explanation we know of, but I can't exactly tell you the borderline level of CSI reaching a point where no other explanation we know of is capable of explaining it. That has to be continually tested, and until that is concluded, intelligent design cannot count as a scientific theory, but a hypothesis.

My point here though is that design is testable and scientific, regardless of whether it actually is the best explanation as of now.

 

"Proof" doesn't exist in science, only in logic and mathematics.

Sure, and "maybe intelligent design" is also a perfectly viable answer as well, given that we follow the steps of the scientific method.

Design is a phenomena in itself that doesn't need a nature of the intelligence to be determined, and as you should notice, it is outside of the hypothesis I stated in the OP.

 

Why should I please Him?

 

So this is not about extraterrestrials, it is about God. Glad to get that cleared up. So no, ID is not a valid scientific anything since it requires a being whose existence cannot be proved or disproved, to make it work.

 

There are physicists who talk about the implications that they see, when it comes to QM. This began with its founders and has continued with those who are interested. Feinman was not interested, and told his students to forget about it and work the equations. Because it is in the philosophical realm. Yet these physicists who have thought about possible implications and they are numerous, have explained why they arrived at their take on possible implications. Whereas you call it WOO, my own mind is open to what all of these physicists from the founders until today, have said about those implications. Because this comes from the minds of rational , clear thinking human beings who are interested in the implications that they see. Now, you detest these people, or at least think they should stop thinking, for there is nothing there, which of course is just a philosophical opinion. Question. Will there ever be a way in the future to test what Campbell thinks or what others think who talk about implications? Possibly. You would have to maintain that it will never be possible. Right? Do you even know what Campbell thinks? What about Bohm and the Implicate Order? Schrodinger? The last is used in my signature that is self serving. As you said. ha ha And so sorry, but I will always give Bohm and Schrodinger much more mental credibility than you sir. I mean this an a not unkind way, just so you know. These were great minds. I tend to listen to some of them.




.

 

Design is a phenomena that can be determined independent of the identity of the actor, so no, that point is a fallacious objection.

It cannot be demonstrated that intelligence besides human beings exist? Are you claiming SETI is taking up an impossible mission?

 

I figured I should respond to this:
It has been demonstrated numerous times that "junk DNA" (part of the genome that lacks genes) serves its own function. Large amounts of "Junk DNA" serve to regulate many genes and controls the process of making proteins, it literally controls the process of making proteins like a switch panel.
As we have observed with intelligent phenomena, each part of specific systems that result from intelligent processes serves a function (microfunction) contributing to the overall function (macrofunction) of the system. This is a prediction of intelligent design, since designed systems contain functional parts that each add to the systems functional capacity. By reverse engineering DNA and the genetic code, examination concludes that this prediction is indeed met by the capacity of the part of the genome lacking genes being useful to the application that serves the system. This is part of the CSI levels of a system, nearly all parts themselves being conducive to the process of a system is needed, or design as an explanation is refuted. It needs to be stressed that certain features of a system may be designed but not other features, so just because one feature fails or succeeds, doesn't necessarily mean all the others in the same system go along with it.

I was actually surprised to learn about intelligent design as a scientific hypothesis being testable, I was previously skeptical that design could even be tested in any system, but then after figuring out the truth about intelligent design, I was quite excited with my discovery that design could be testable, after all, wouldn't that be great if we could figure out if there was actually purpose in our existence? or other systems that exist?

Instead, people have attacked it as unscientific and "only religious". I realized that there are biased reasons in many cases. I argued with someone about it before (I believe previously in this forum the last time I was on) and after giving them explanation, they refused to accept it even though they had no way to counter it, it is almost like they don't want it to be scientific (wishful thinking doesn't belong in science anyways).

 

Bleh!
And Campbell cannot show a single shred of evidence to support his idea. So....