Intelligent Designer? Not yet.

At the bottom I posted the video "Unlocking the Mystery of Life". It is a set of 12 clips ranging in time from five minutes to about 12. This series takes the viewer on a slow journey into why Intelligent Design is plausible. I have to say that there is some logic to it. The information in our DNA is mind blowing, but I'd like to offer a few reasons why we can't just jump to the idea that a design must have a designer.



The video explains that each bit of DNA has to be arranged in perfect order or it will all fall apart. Well, where could we find information in nature that does not have a designer and would fall apart if not in perfect order? That would be the Earth itself. How could we build the earth as we know it? Answer: Layer by layer, and in perfect sequence.



If we were to look at a slice of the earth we would see layer upon layer of information, and if one layer was out of sequence then the whole earth would tell a completely different story, a story that would fall apart every time we tried to read it. Pull one layer out of the Paleozoic Era, slip it into the Cenozoic Era and it wouldn't make any sense. The creatures in the early periods had to come first or else we wouldn't be here right now. So, the information within the layers of earth HAVE to be in perfect order, just like in our DNA.

My point is that even if the universe had a designer, we still aren't ready to make that claim. There are still observable wonders that scream Intelligent Design even though no one will dispute that these things occur quite naturally.

Snowflakes. Their structures are a perfect example of information forming without any designer whatsoever.




The following image was found at Beautiful Rock Formations



I don't know what these blocks are, but unless someone can tell me otherwise I'm assuming that they are a natural formation. Yet, I would swear that these blocks were built by man (an intelligent designer) and placed there.

What I'm saying is, it would be so easy to claim that an intelligent designer was behind everything, but we would be doing ourselves a great injustice by allowing our awe to jump to this conclusion. Our work isn't done yet, so we shouldn't let our lack of understanding the mysteries of life send us down the wrong path. We aren't ready to throw in the towel and claim an Intelligent Designer. Not yet.

I think when looking at the sophistication of the world, intelligent design makes more sense than development by chance. The evidence in favor of God is stronger than the evidence against.

Great post, will watch the vids when I have some time.

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17


I never argue with evidence of an intelligent designer. I argue with claims that it absolutely has to be one in particular. Sure, all the signs indicate some sort of intelligence, but we really don't know a whole lot about that intelligence, do we?

It's the specifics I have contentions with.

reply to post by jiggerj


this is cool, really worthy post ! I hope it will bring some light into few minds here and teach them a little.
Nice work, thank you!

I'm afraid there still will be some members here who will try to debunk this with super powers and such

cool

reply to post by AfterInfinity


The intelligence argument goes well beyond Earth, to the structure of galaxies and atoms. It seems universally inherent, thus the monotheist argument.

reply to post by jiggerj


Many Kudos to you good sir, Im completely on the same level of thinking as you are, The problem with intelligent design is that we have a mixture of DNA sequences and Genome mappings that relate to each other chronologically, then on the other hand we have DNA sequences and Genome mappings that should relate to each other, but dont. The creator needs to have a creator right? But when if the creation is a mixture of evolution and intelligent design? then the link is broken until the creator is found.

PEACE

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17


I don't follow the monotheist argument, because it begs the assumption that the universal force is conscious and has something comparable to a 'personality'. I myself lean more towards a 'principle', a law similar to gravity. It doesn't require variation, because nothing exists without its influence and therefore nothing develops BEYOND its influence.

Great thread from reading it.,no i'm not one of them,i'm just on a quick break at work so will come back n watch the vids later.

Just wanted to say i agree with your premise,just cos something looks incredibly complex,intricate and appears to show a sense of design,,doesnt demand a designer.

Here,here,

Bob

en.wikipedia.org...

That's a link to the rocks.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Yeah, I generally disagree with the common interpretation of what the one God is. But I do think there is some fundamental element to the universe which is conducive to life and from which everything else follows. I think gravity is analogous, but more specific to how biology develops not how matter acts. Because of the way the universe appears to be intelligent, I think biology drives the universe and is not the result of good conditions of matter.

You think an 'intelligent designer' has to mean a guy sitting up in the clouds that moulded the entire cosmos as a potter moulds clay. Fair enough, that's how Abrahamic religions put it. Truth be told, it may not be 'designed,' but it's intelligent. More accurately, I say it designs itself, or more precisely, improvises as it goes along, with no thought or main purpose behind any of it -- because it can, and has been -- which, up till now, lead to beings like us which can actively question their surroundings, cut it up, try to see how it works, and put meaning behind it all.

But of course, anything we say or do is our interpretations of that 'improvised dance' we call the cosmos and reality. You can call it God, or made by a God(s), or a fluke, or the product of nothing, or whatever else, but that doesn't change what it is, which is everything.

Personally, that makes the most sense.

Snowflakes are not information. They are H2O droplets frozen while moving through the air. The problem with intelligent design is that it takes something we do not fully understand and inserts a designer there BECAUSE we don't understand. The one argument they use is the complexity of cells. I think we should let the scientist do their thing and learn more about the cells before jumping to any conclusions. There's also no reason to assume that DNA today is as complex as it was originally 3 billion or so years ago.

Very interesting. Thank you for sharing. Looking forward to watching the videos.

Originally posted by Barcs
Snowflakes are not information. They are H2O droplets frozen while moving through the air. The problem with intelligent design is that it takes something we do not fully understand and inserts a designer there BECAUSE we don't understand. The one argument they use is the complexity of cells. I think we should let the scientist do their thing and learn more about the cells before jumping to any conclusions. There's also no reason to assume that DNA today is as complex as it was originally 3 billion or so years ago.

edit on 11-12-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

That's right. Snowflakes are not information. They are data. Snowflakes do not follow any decoding or encoding. DNA however, is prescriptive information, because it is decoded and encoded constantly, and describing a specific function, pretty much like a recipe. Any meaningful information is independent of matter. That's why you can store the same data on a cd, on a hard drive, a usb stick and so on. It's the same reason we can extract the DNA code and store it in any way we want. That's leaving out the fact that it has semantics blah blah.

You people should start separating between random data, functional information and prescriptive information. But people love to pretend that only random data exists when it comes to anything regarding biology or evolution.


On another note, OP, strata can also form sideways, so not everything that's deeper down is necessarily older. And I'm gonna leave this here...



Starting from 4 minutes in:

reply to post by jiggerj


Explain if you can, why we're conscious, not how, I want a why. Then we can stop looking for purpose. You're problem is you cannot find purpose, so, like all sciences, you discard what you cannot explain.

It's as if you set out to figure out why we are conscious, but you got sooooo lost while looking for purpose, that forgot what you were searching for to begin with.

We are conscious and that is the only miracle one needs to seek purpose.

Originally posted by AdamsMurmur
You think an 'intelligent designer' has to mean a guy sitting up in the clouds that moulded the entire cosmos as a potter moulds clay. Fair enough, that's how Abrahamic religions put it. Truth be told, it may not be 'designed,' but it's intelligent. More accurately, I say it designs itself, or more precisely, improvises as it goes along, with no thought or main purpose behind any of it -- because it can, and has been -- which, up till now, lead to beings like us which can actively question their surroundings, cut it up, try to see how it works, and put meaning behind it all.

But of course, anything we say or do is our interpretations of that 'improvised dance' we call the cosmos and reality. You can call it God, or made by a God(s), or a fluke, or the product of nothing, or whatever else, but that doesn't change what it is, which is everything.

Personally, that makes the most sense.

Exactly. That's the biggest issue people have here.. They are so hateful towards religion that they fail to see that the 'designer' doesn't even have to be a religious God. One could also simply conclude that nature itself is intelligent. Or it could lead to a perspective of the biocentric universe, and there are more possibilities. People's grudges towards religion blind them from the possibilities.

Not only do the same shapes reoccur here on earth, they seem to be doing the same things everywhere. Spirals appear in space, in sun tornadoes, in tornadoes, and in seashells. Seems like minerals form in flower like patterns, not just in crystal shapes. What we see replicates everywhere if the same elements are present. Chances are aliens could look just like us somewhere in the universe if the conditions are right. Going onto a planet far away might seem as going onto our own planet with trees that could look similar, trees and leaves are formed from the same reoccurring shapes found everywhere.

Do we need proof to know that life exists out there somewhere when we look in the sky. I don't, i never did. Maybe they live on a beautiful world not full of plastic, Maybe they are smart enough to take good care of their planet and just settle for what their planet provides them with. We look for radio frequencies that would show advanced life not realizing advanced life would not be using such a primitive form of communication as we use.

What designed this life. I don't know, some call it god. I doubt if god looks like a human, god would need to be some sort of structured energy or frequency, maybe that is why they said "God is the word". I guess It is not really that important to believe I know what is going on. Keeping the mind open means you need to understand you know nothing at all but are just learning to assemble the pieces of the puzzle.

reply to post by jiggerj


I really have to say I like your thread Jigger ! The effort you put into being as unbiased as a fairly opinionated person can be is obvious. And I think it testifies that you a are man of caliber, when it comes to truth and honesty
meaning more to you than what you believe or disbelieve.

SnF

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17

I think gravity is analogous, but more specific to how biology develops not how matter acts. Because of the way the universe appears to be intelligent, I think biology drives the universe and is not the result of good conditions of matter.

When I said gravity, I was using the word as an example of the word "law", so as to show exactly what sort of natural principle I was referring to.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by PatrickGarrow17

 

I don't follow the monotheist argument, because it begs the assumption that the universal force is conscious and has something comparable to a 'personality'. I myself lean more towards a 'principle', a law similar to gravity. It doesn't require variation, because nothing exists without its influence and therefore nothing develops BEYOND its influence.

A 'universal principal or law' cannot design because it has no intelligence. Intelligence designs but laws operate and produce expected results. Intelligence designed those principals and laws, not the other way around. This is how easy it is to understand that this entire universe was created by a Creator and that it operates according to His Design, His Authority and His Laws regardless of how often His creation, man, denies His presence or seeks to call something evil, good - It will still produce the same consequences. It's why creation is declared self evident and that those who purposely deny Him are called fools. I say this kindly because I used to be one of them.