The Primary Axiom or Evolution is just a lie and should be replaced by Intelligent Design

What Is the Science Behind Intelligent Design?

Staff
Discovery Institute
May 1, 2009

"What Is the Science Behind Intelligent Design? Staff Discovery Institute May 1, 2009 Print Article Intelligent design (ID) is a scientific theory that employs the methods commonly used by other historical sciences to conclude that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. ID theorists argue that design can be inferred by studying the informational properties of natural objects to determine if they bear the type of information that in our experience arise from an intelligent cause. The form of information which we observe is produced by intelligent action, and thus reliably indicates design, is generally called “specified complexity” or “complex and specified information” (CSI). An object or event is complex if it is unlikely, and specified if it matches some independent pattern.

Contrary to what many people suppose, the debate over intelligent design is much broader than the debate over Darwin’s theory of evolution. That’s because much of the scientific evidence for intelligent design comes from areas that Darwin’s theory doesn’t even address. In fact, the evidence for intelligent design comes from three main areas: Physics and Cosmology, the Origin of Life, and the Development of Biological Complexity. Evidence for Design in Physics and Cosmology The fine-tuning of the laws of physics and chemistry to allow for advanced life is an example of extremely high levels of CSI in nature. The laws of the universe are complex because they are highly unlikely. Cosmologists have calculated the odds of a life-friendly universe appearing by chance are less than one part in 1010^123. That’s ten raised to a power of 10 with 123 zeros after it! The laws of the universe are specified in that they match the narrow band of parameters required for the existence of advanced life. As an atheist cosmologist Fred Hoyle observed, “[a] common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology.” The universe itself shows strong evidence of having been designed. To find out more, read Jay Richards, “Is There Merit for ID in Cosmology, Physics, and Astronomy?” and Stephen Meyer,

“Evidence of Design in Physics and Biology.” Evidence for Design in the Origin of Life Bernd-Olaf Kuppers has pointed out in his book Information and the Origin of Life that “[t]he problem of the origin of life is clearly basically equivalent to the problem of the origin of biological information.” As noted previously, intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents generate large quantities of complex and specified information (CSI). Studies of the cell reveal vast quantities of biochemical information stored in our DNA in the sequence of nucleotides. No physical or chemical law dictates the order of the nucleotide bases in our DNA, and the sequences are highly improbable and complex. Moreover, the coding regions of DNA exhibit sequential arrangements of bases that are necessary to produce functional proteins. In other words, they are highly specified with respect to the independent requirements of protein function and protein synthesis. Thus, as nearly all molecular biologists now recognize, the coding regions of DNA possess a high “information content”—where “information content” in a biological context means precisely “complexity and specificity.” Even atheist zoologist Richard Dawkins concedes that “iology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” Atheists like Dawkins believe that unguided natural processes did all the “designing” but intelligent design theorist Stephen C. Meyer notes, “in all cases where we know the causal origin of ‘high information content,’ experience has shown that intelligent design played a causal role.” To find out more, read Stephen Meyer, “DNA and Other Designs” or “DNA and the Origin of Life.”

Evidence for Design in the Development of Biological Complexity The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. In this regard, ID uses the scientific method to claim that many features of life are designed—not just the information in DNA. After starting with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information...........

See whole article here:
www.discovery.org...

TzarChasm wrote:

quotes are useless. we want data, reproducible data that demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that intelligent design is the superior theory. substantiate or suffocate, publish or perish. and posting other peoples opinions doesnt count as data.

Don't know what you are talking about - Data on philosophical concepts

Don't like quotes - I love to see what others, often more knowledgeale about a subject have to say - You don't ?
Then keep your opinions coming - maybe one day they will quote you - Just don't bet on it

“The controversy between Darwinism and intelligent design has the characteristics of major scientific revolutions in the past. Darwinists are losing power because they treat with contempt the very people on whom they depend the most: American taxpayers. The outcome of this scientific revolution will be decided by young people who have the courage to question dogmatism and follow the evidence wherever it leads.”
― Jonathan Wells, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism And Intelligent Design

a reply to: AlienView

By chance, can you link one of discovery institutes peer reviewed research papers that show the objective science behind ID? No offense but their entire organization is a sham. They don't do any science that doesn't already fit their preconceived notion of creation, which directly counters science itself. Anybody can talk about complexity. But can they actually prove a valid tangible connection to a creator or designer? That is the huge problem with calling ID science. It relies on primarily on what science hasn't yet discovered about DNA, rather than what it has.

But science itself evolves and what is true one day may not be true in the future. In Galileo's time it was considered true that the sun revolved around the Earth - not true now.

Just an FYI, geocentrism was never a scientific view, it was a religious one. There were no experiments or tests that demonstrated this. People just believed it because of the bible.

a reply to: AlienView

You have been deceived, ID is a proven fraud. It's a religion that's pretending to be science in order to try and force it's dogmatic delusion into the science class and mislead the public about the reality of nature.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: AlienView
That is the huge problem with calling ID science. It relies on primarily on what science hasn't yet discovered about DNA, rather than what it has.

Science has already discovered the irreducibly complex machinery involved in cells and the vast amounts of information held in the genetic code. What would you even consider proof?

Just an FYI, geocentrism was never a scientific view, it was a religious one. There were no experiments or tests that demonstrated this. People just believed it because of the bible.

From my reading, the Bible more so promotes biocentrism or consciocentrism - a universe revolving around the "I Am". Regardless, relativity posits that both heliocentrism and geocentrism are both equally true, depending on perspective.

a reply to: cooperton

There is no such thing as irreducibly complex machinery, that's just more debunked creationist nonsense.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: AlienView
That is the huge problem with calling ID science. It relies on primarily on what science hasn't yet discovered about DNA, rather than what it has.

Science has already discovered the irreducibly complex machinery involved in cells and the vast amounts of information held in the genetic code. What would you even consider proof?

Evidence of design would be:

- Tangible evidence of a designer

- Lab evidence that replicates the creation process or shows the mechanisms involved

- a god logo or design trademark

- evidence that DNA is digital and can be saved to a computer, edited and then uploaded back to the DNA molecule.

DNA complexity is not evidence of design, nor is it irreducibly complex. That has already been proven wrong based on the experiments that I and others have posted in the thread in regards to abiogenesis. If you believe it is IC, then that means it is impossible to arise in incremental stages, yet many scientists have shown how this can happen. To prove anything is IC, you'd need to prove that it absolutely cannot arise naturally in incremental stages. So far nobody has done that, they have only used the watchmaker fallacy to suggest taking a way an entire feature would result in failure. We're not talking about taking away entire features, we're talking about complex features becoming more simple the further back in time you go. It's not all or nothing.

To be fair, and from my eclectic views on this issue, which apparently are not popular here - I do see Intelligent Design as
more of a philosophical abstraction than a science - Evolution may be considered more of a science because of evidence it can show - But as a science it is very limited - pieces are missing, meanings are lacking.

So to me ID is more in the realm of Philosophy of Science - And Evolution is more in the realm of Scientific Observation.

And again, even if no one else wants to agree - these two philosophies/observations are not mutually contradictory.

I can see a process of creation without there being a need for 'a creator' - And I can see Evolution unfolding and still feel I have
the right to try to give it meaning, a purpose, and a direction - And state that it is evolving in a way that reinforces
the belief in intelligent design. True it is often random - but at the end of the day we can see some meaning to it all.
Isn't that what Humans try to do - give meaning to themselves and to existence

And for you who keep pounding on verifiable science, verifiable facts - How would Einstein ever have come up with
'Relativity' if not for his philosophical/mathematical imagination. And if one day we find, and can prove, that the
universe itself has not only an order and a design [which we already know] - but a deliberate purpose [which we do not
kinow] - Then the ID theorists of the day will be the first to tell you WE TOLD YOU SO




“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”
- Albert Einstein









"SCIENCEFICTIONALISM the Religion of the FUTURE"

a reply to: AlienView


The people who made up ID will not CANNOT accept anything that contradicts the bible. That's exactly the opposite of science.
Conclusions based on religious beliefs masquerading as science is not Philosophy of science. ID is pure apologetics, the Dover decision has made that clear.

originally posted by: flyingfish
a reply to: AlienView


The people who made up ID will not CANNOT accept anything that contradicts the bible. That's exactly the opposite of science.
Conclusions based on religious beliefs masquerading as science is not Philosophy of science. ID is pure apologetics, the Dover decision has made that clear.

I do not know the history of ID, and maybe you are right that it was started by Bible pounding theists to give them meaning.

But as you can see from my views and many of the quotes I have given, and from the fact that even some scientists like
some of its concepts - It has a lot more meaning today than just as a justification of Western religion.

I argue, and maintain, that if you keep an open mind and take a liberal view of ID concepts, you can see intelligent patterns of design 'built-in' to all that 'science' observes and verifies throughout the physical world - can you really argue wtih ID from that view? Isn't science based upon order and design - verifiable order and design




"The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation....His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. This feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work, in so far as he succeeds in keeping himself from the shackles of selfish desire."
- Albert Einstein

"To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I am a devoutly religious man"
- Albert Einstein






"SCIENCEFICTIONALISM the Religion of the FUTURE"

a reply to: AlienView

Quoting, and understanding what you are quoting, are two different things. How about you post a snippet then elaborate in your own words to demonstrate a grasp of the content and not just the copy and paste function?

originally posted by: AlienView
I argue, and maintain, that if you keep an open mind and take a liberal view of ID concepts, you can see intelligent patterns of design 'built-in' to all that 'science' observes and verifies throughout the physical world - can you really argue wtih ID from that view? Isn't science based upon order and design - verifiable order and design

Yes, you can argue that. Order and design is based on personal opinion. There is nothing verifiable about that. The appearance of order is a result of gravity. But again appearance can be deceiving, which is why doing scientific research is so important. If scientists just looked at things and hastily judged them based solely on appearance, science would never get anywhere. There are plenty of things in nature that appear to be designed, but were results of natural processes like erosion. ID is pretty much the same thing except it refers to DNA.

originally posted by: flyingfish
a reply to: cooperton

There is no such thing as irreducibly complex machinery, that's just more debunked creationist nonsense.

no such thing as irreducibly complex machinery? Take out a couple gears from your nearest clock, and see how well it tells time.

originally posted by: Barcs

Evidence of design would be:

- Tangible evidence of a designer

genetic code, physical laws, etc

- Lab evidence that replicates the creation process or shows the mechanisms involved

from my reading, life has been shown to spawn simultaneously when water, silicates, and electromagnetic impulse are mixed together in the right manner:

Bion (microbe-like) spontaneous creation
creation Acarus Crossii
Creation of the alphabet through "mental projection"
Creation of visible animal forms from silica protoplasm

Whether it be sand in william Reich's experiment, or silicates in Crosse's, these experiments all recreate the initial conditions of Creation described in Genesis: earth (the crust is mostly silicates), water,, and electromagnetic influence

A perfectly knowledgeable Being could do much more with His Creative Forces than was demonstrated in these rudimentary experiments.

- a god logo or design trademark

Phi: in the human body, and in the rest of nature
Pi: All spherical/radially symmetric objects (eyeball, planets, jellyfish, etc)

What's amazing about these numbers is that they are irrational, meaning their decimal places go on to infinity. There is an infinitude of information encoded in these numbers. God encoded infinity into his design, and such complexity is evident for any keen eye.

DNA complexity is not evidence of design, nor is it irreducibly complex.

Try creating more DNA without DNA polymerase and its many cofactors and coenzymes. You could have all the pieces except DNA polymerase, and DNA wouldn't be able to replicate - this, by definition, makes it irreducibly complex; the whole system of DNA replication is useless without certain parts in play.

a reply to: cooperton

no such thing as irreducibly complex machinery? Take out a couple gears from your nearest clock, and see how well it tells time.

comparing clocks to biology. yet another fallacy.

genetic code, physical laws, etc

how is this evidence of "design"?

A perfectly knowledgeable Being could do much more with His Creative Forces than was demonstrated in these rudimentary experiments.

too bad you cant test that hypothesis by ringing said being up and arranging an interview on the today show.

What's amazing about these numbers is that they are irrational, meaning their decimal places go on to infinity. There is an infinitude of information encoded in these numbers. God encoded infinity into his design, and such complexity is evident for any keen eye.

again, too bad you cant test that hypothesis. surely you dont need to be reminded how the scientific method works?

originally posted by: Barcs
Order and design is based on personal opinion. There is nothing verifiable about that.

Versus, say, mathematics? What would an engineer or an actual designer have to say about your assertions?

originally posted by: Barcs
The appearance of order is a result of gravity.

More baseless statements from you, but what else is new, eh comrade?

a reply to: cooperton

1. Genetic code and universal laws are not tangible evidence of a designer. There is no logical connection, it relies on complete assumption that they were created, rather than just the way the universe is naturally.

2. You are still improperly using the phrase irreducible complexity. I don't know why you still use this false definition despite being corrected more than once with sources. Not sure why you are so blatantly dishonest about this point.

3. You just posted evidence of abiogenesis. There are no documented experiments that link anything in those experiments to god. You assume it. You said it yourself, you can't create without a creator. So where is the creator? Where is the link to him from those experiments???

4. Phi and Pi are not god logos or trademarks. You assume that. You need proof. Counting never ends because that's how counting works. It doesn't mean anything was designed.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

originally posted by: Barcs
Order and design is based on personal opinion. There is nothing verifiable about that.

Versus, say, mathematics? What would an engineer or an actual designer have to say about your assertions?

originally posted by: Barcs
The appearance of order is a result of gravity.

More baseless statements from you, but what else is new, eh comrade?

We are talking about the appearance of order in the universe, not man made creations and architecture. Gravity is precisely why the galaxies and solar systems appear to be ordered. Wait, I already know what you're going to say next. No, I didn't say it was the ONLY thing. I shouldn't even have to explain this.

Not sure why you keep going out of your way to defend insanity, irrationality and intellectual dishonesty. I'm not going back and forth with you over semantics anymore. You might as well not waste your time responding to me.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: cooperton
You said it yourself, you can't create without a creator.

I am tired of your blatant misrepresentations. I never said that only the Creator can create. Obviously, as I create these words on the keyboard, I too am a creator, along with beavers, bees, etc. pretty much all the creations of the Prime Creator have creative capabilities.

Phi and Pi are not god logos or trademarks. You assume that.

No, the fact that these "trademarks" are throughout all of nature indicate that they are a common denominator in the creations.

Genetic code... is not tangible evidence of a designer.

computer code is evidence of a coder.

Apparently it is impossible to spoon feed answers to those who aren't ready. I do wish you to come to the truth of reality, and my only advice I can give you that you may hopefully receive is to keep an open mind, do not get stuck in a dead-end philosophy. Best of luck.

a reply to: Barcs

Man made creations/architecture are precisely order and design in the universe. What, because it's made by man it suddenly ceases to be part of the universe? You're falling into that false dichotomy of nature vs artificial. A notion which unknowingly guides our perspective of things, sets man apart and above all else. Quite unfortunate actually, if we're really in the search for some sort of truth...

Not sure why you keep going out of your way to defend insanity, irrationality and intellectual dishonesty.

Easy there chief. Don't confuse my criticisms of you for a defence of "insanity, irrationality and intellectual dishonesty", which I can only assume means creationism or some form of.

The problem is you are debating against a faith based ideology. It's a pointless endeavor as I see it, because much of that position is based well, mostly on faith and weak "science". I don't begrudge it, nor do I support it. I just let it be. I'm not threatened by it like you and other folks seem to be.

Hey, fine, set them straight, if that's your thing. Go for it. But as an ambassador of science one would expect actual facts to be represented by you, except many times it's only half truths or just plain falsehoods. I'm not sure that you realize it or even care. But if you're supposed to be the guy who is always right then you better not be wrong.

PhotonEffect wrote:

The problem is you are debating against a faith based ideology. It's a pointless endeavor as I see it, because much of that position is based well, mostly on faith and weak "science". I don't begrudge it, nor do I support it. I just let it be. I'm not threatened by it like you and other folks seem to be.

True statement - The debate has degenerated into a classic Atheist vs. Theist scenario. Theists demand a creator and will
push their arguments and stretch their logic to support their faith - BUT the worse case of religiosity as usual comes from
the atheists who will step away from natural order, design and intelligence to prove their atheist religion [yes it is a religion, requiring an absolute faith in nothing as the prime cause of everything!!!] is correct - better chaos then Intelligent Design as ID does allow the possibility of an intelligence beyond their obviously limited intelligence would allow - Any theory that even allows the possibility of a creator is anathema to them - The universe came from nothing, has no intrinsic order, no goals, no destiny - How do they sleep at night? - In such a chaotic void how can you really be sure the Sun will rise tomorrow ?

When it comes to evolution, I believe that all organic life with the exception of Humans, has come about due to evolution.

Humans are far too intelligent to have evolved, we are more likely a hybrid, probably even engineered by whomever and left to our own devices.

We have evolved as a race though. We have improved our education as the centuries passed, we explored science and continue to do so, we seek knowledge like no other generation before us.

Hey, Noah lived until he was 950, so we have devolved our lifespan. Maybe they didn't have cigarettes and alcohol back then, so I for one, am glad I wasn't around then. But according to some beliefs, maybe I was?