How can atheism have morality?

a reply to: cooperton

Doesn't bacteria become resistant to antibiotics?

Isn't this because it adapts and evolves resistance in subsequent generations?

If that's not adaptation/evolution, then God is a d*ck. I mean it should be the same body weight, same dosage, same bacteria, yet something changes. Sometimes, if the dosage is to low, not only does more not work, it can become comepletely resistant.

Antimicrobial resistance happens when germs like bacteria and fungi develop the ability to defeat the drugs designed to kill them. Resistant infections can be difficult, and sometimes impossible, to treat. Antimicrobial resistance is a naturally occurring process.

Like with E-Coli. It's almost always originally neutralized by antimicrobial agents, then it accumulates resistance if not totally killed by the dosage. If this is not through "horizontal gene transfer" (as Google says), then it means divine intervention decides to arbitrarily make antibiotics stop working on individual people. I mean I can't see natural resistance when Amoxicillin's half life one hour.

So instead of the logical thing of a bacteria evolving greater resistance to these antibiotics, it's an argument that an outside force arbitrarily lowers the drugs effectiveness on you and only you.

What other explanation is there? If there's no evolution via microbial drug resistance than gods just a d*ck that demands you not fight the infection.

Evolution is small genetic steps at time. If drug resistant bacteria is not an evolution example than I have no choice but to wage endless war on a god that decides it wants to hurt people with greater effect by sadistically lowering their ability to fight infection.

And did you expect E-coli to suddenly develope a membrane bound nucleus and become a Eukaryote or something? Where do you expect E-coli to go? Seems to want to fill a specific niche, sometimes becoming drug resistant.



All Eukaryotes exist on that on tiny green branch in the bottom corner. Everything with a membrane bound nucleus. Barely registers in percentage on the tree.

I like my 38 trillion bacteria. I hope they keep filling their evolutionary roles.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Venkuish1

There is nothing 'marvelous' and nothing that indicates an intelligent designer. I am afraid these arguments cannot be supported as they rely on emotions and sensationalism.

'Marvelous'
'Miracle'
'Unbelievable'
'Impossible'

Well yeah because you believe it came to be without intelligence, of course you will have the most unintelligent opinion about the human body. How someone isn't in awe of 800,000 miles of neural circuitry compacted into a human skull is beyond me.

The word belief is quite unfortunate and is not used in the context of science. Belief and faith are words used in the context of religion. Do you know what it means by the word whataboutism?

The constant appealing to emotions and sensationalism are not valid arguments for the existence of an intelligent creator and neither are some of the constants of nature like the speed of light or the amount of starts in the universe.

Basically your argument goes like this:

'wow! there is an estimated 2 trillion stars in the observable universe and at least as many planets! The speed of light is 300 million kilometres per second. That's marvelous and magnificent, a true miracle beyond our 'comprehension', so it must be the work of an intelligent creator. How else it could be? '


Do you understand what an argument from ignorance means? It's a fallacy in a few words.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Venkuish1
A belief in God is what differentiates someone who believes and someone who doesn't. The belief in God comes as a package as not only people believe in the invisible creator but they assume morality comes as a result of it and without it there can be no 'objective' morality or no morality at all.

If we were created by dumb luck random mutations then it is not plausible to argue that objective morality would have been encoded into our nervous system. It would be as likely as a monkey programming the next updated AI model to have an independent sense of morality...

And here comes the argument of morality. After dismissing parts of science and misinterpreting the rest we get to the point where without the belief in the Harry Potter character we can't be moral.

Nah, more so that random chance mutations could not code for morality into neural circuits. It's just as dumb an idea as the theory of evolution itself. I don't say "dumb" as an ad hominem, but rather, evolution by its own premise is a dumb unintelligent theory regarding the origin of intelligent creatures. Especially regarding the origins of neural circuitry that allows us a sense of morality.

Evolution is a scientific theory and one of the most successful scientific theories ever. Evolution via natural selection is a fact.

Creation via intelligent design has no merits and there is not a shred of evidence to support creationism. The argument an intelligent creator is behind the 'beauty' of the universe is just an argument from ignorance (like I said above).

There is no argument to be made either that we need religion and the belief in God to have morals.

a reply to: cooperton


I have made reference to it earlier in this thread but it worths pointing out (again) that apart from evolution being a scientific theory (fact) and the natural process of change of all organisms, evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origin of life. The most prevailing scientific hypothesis for the origin of life is abiogenesis for which there is plenty of evidence (contrary to the claims made by creationists).

Another one is panspermia but it too based on abiogenesis but in different places in the universe. So abiogenesis and panspermia are two processes considered the most likely by scientists and there is nothing that involves intelligent design or a creator.

We already know how amino acids are created which are the building blocks of proteins and so the building blocks of life. All you have to do is take a look at the Miller- Urey experiment performed back in 1952

It's rather known for a long period of time that organic compounds are synthesised from inorganic compounds and all you need to produce amino acids are just gases found here on earth, water, and an electric spark to simulate lightining

en.wikipedia.org...

The Miller–Urey experiment (or Miller experiment) was an experiment in chemical synthesis carried out in 1952 that simulated the conditions thought at the time to be present in the atmosphere of the early, prebiotic Earth. It is seen as one of the first successful experiments demonstrating the synthesis of organic compounds from inorganic constituents in an origin of life scenario. The experiment used water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2), and an electric arc (the latter simulating lightning) and resulted in the production of amino acids.

It is regarded as a groundbreaking experiment, and the classic experiment investigating the origin of life (abiogenesis). It was performed in 1952 by Stanley Miller, supervised by Nobel laureate Harold Urey at the University of Chicago, and published the following year. At the time, it supported Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that the conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized complex organic compounds from simpler inorganic precursors

edit on 19-1-2024 by Venkuish1 because: (no reason given)

I'm pretty sure the experiment by some cyba geige, later Novartis employees, duped the primeval code reveals a huge unknown mechanic in evolution...

Evolution is a fact but is it really the material environment that triggers it. The mentioned experiment implies that the electromagnetic environment has a much higher and more direct impact on genes.


Check our this fantastic thread on ATS

It's not been ridiculed, they just patented, and shelved it and never spoke of it again.

Might just be me, but it seems like there is a trend of just not talking about it, when it comes to research focused on electromagnetism...

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: cooperton

Doesn't bacteria become resistant to antibiotics?

Isn't this because it adapts and evolves resistance in subsequent generations?

If that's not adaptation/evolution, then God is a d*ck. I mean it should be the same body weight, same dosage, same bacteria, yet something changes. Sometimes, if the dosage is to low, not only does more not work, it can become comepletely resistant.

What other explanation is there besides evolution?

I don't blame you for thinking that, because they express their data as though that is the case. But a part of the data that is seldom discussed is the fact that the antibiotic resistance is quickly reversible, which in itself shows that it is not evolution. They actually found the mechanism for it, it is epigenetic expression, which is the cell's ability to turn gene productivity up or down. In this case, it is specifically the expression of a particular gene that codes for a detoxification protein.

By increasing the expression (i.e. increasing production) of detoxification efflux pumps in the bacteria's membrane, they are able to handle a higher toxic load. This eventually plateaus, as there is only a certain amount until a bacteria simply can't handle creating any more detoxification pumps and the antibiotic prevails. Most importantly, when the antibiotic is removed from the population, the bacteria will resume regular vulnerability to the antibiotic. It resumes normal detoxification pump productivity once the antibiotic is removed from the bacterial population.

"Adaptive resistance emerges when populations of bacteria are subjected to gradual increases of antibiotics. It is characterized by a rapid emergence of resistance and fast reversibility to the non-resistant phenotype when the antibiotic is removed from the medium. Recent work shows that adaptive resistance requires epigenetic inheritance and heterogeneity of gene expression patterns that are, in particular, associated with the production of porins and efflux pumps."

"This procedure, repeated several times, very quickly yields populations with high levels of resistance. Another important observation is that this resistance is highly reversible. When the antibiotic is removed from the environment, the population becomes sensitive again after a few generations"

link

I'm telling you guys, evolutionary theory has already been proven wrong, you just have to sort through the dogma that they dish out.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

Evolution is a scientific theory and one of the most successful scientific theories ever. Evolution via natural selection is a fact.

And yet you can't show one empirical example of a population of organisms becoming anything distinctly new. Like in the E. Coli experiment, it is clear that it is remaining E. Coli and is not able to become some other bacteria.

Therefore you are left with faith that it is possible.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

In that case, your morals and values are probably different from the religious people that taught them to you. LOL

Why? Should I be running up and down the street naked or something. You and others have expressed that religious people do good out of fear of going to hell and I find that so Old Testament 13th century thinking.

I’m sure some denominations preach about Hell etc. But I have never met anyone in fear of going to hell.

I do find it is interesting that in big cities there seems to be a lack of morals lately, maybe it’s the water😈

If we are to get back to the original poster's message, that being, understanding God's will not man's subjective interpretation of God's will.

As for running down the street naked (or something? like sauntering down the street instead?) did God not make us in it's image, if so, why the shame, why is being naked in public an immoral act when God made us this way and it was good?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: cooperton

Doesn't bacteria become resistant to antibiotics?

Isn't this because it adapts and evolves resistance in subsequent generations?

If that's not adaptation/evolution, then God is a d*ck. I mean it should be the same body weight, same dosage, same bacteria, yet something changes. Sometimes, if the dosage is to low, not only does more not work, it can become comepletely resistant.

What other explanation is there besides evolution?

I don't blame you for thinking that, because they express their data as though that is the case. But a part of the data that is seldom discussed is the fact that the antibiotic resistance is quickly reversible, which in itself shows that it is not evolution. They actually found the mechanism for it, it is epigenetic expression, which is the cell's ability to turn gene productivity up or down. In this case, it is specifically the expression of a particular gene that codes for a detoxification protein.

By increasing the expression (i.e. increasing production) of detoxification efflux pumps in the bacteria's membrane, they are able to handle a higher toxic load. This eventually plateaus, as there is only a certain amount until a bacteria simply can't handle creating any more detoxification pumps and the antibiotic prevails. Most importantly, when the antibiotic is removed from the population, the bacteria will resume regular vulnerability to the antibiotic. It resumes normal detoxification pump productivity once the antibiotic is removed from the bacterial population.

"Adaptive resistance emerges when populations of bacteria are subjected to gradual increases of antibiotics. It is characterized by a rapid emergence of resistance and fast reversibility to the non-resistant phenotype when the antibiotic is removed from the medium. Recent work shows that adaptive resistance requires epigenetic inheritance and heterogeneity of gene expression patterns that are, in particular, associated with the production of porins and efflux pumps."

"This procedure, repeated several times, very quickly yields populations with high levels of resistance. Another important observation is that this resistance is highly reversible. When the antibiotic is removed from the environment, the population becomes sensitive again after a few generations"

link

I'm telling you guys, evolutionary theory has already been proven wrong, you just have to sort through the dogma that they dish out.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

Evolution is a scientific theory and one of the most successful scientific theories ever. Evolution via natural selection is a fact.

And yet you can't show one empirical example of a population of organisms becoming anything distinctly new. Like in the E. Coli experiment, it is clear that it is remaining E. Coli and is not able to become some other bacteria.

Therefore you are left with faith that it is possible.

Not only you don't understand what evolution is but you made similar claims about the universal gravitational law being 2000% off and even doubted the formation of protostars through the gravitational collapse of molecular clouds of hydrogen. You seem to be providing alternative pseudot-heories that have no basis in science.

Evolution is 'observed' over millions or hundreds of millions of years.

Going back to the cosmological scales we haven't 'observed' the big bang but we can easily measure it's effects and it's leftovers such as CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation).

Evolution and particle physics are facts. There is some much evidence which has lead to the theory of evolution on one hand and the standard model of partible physics on the other hand. People have had stellar careers in the physics, biology, chemistry, and mathematics, to the point that creationism is not something to be taken seriously anymore.

I understand that people who think like you want to believe in an intelligent designer who created the universe and who guides them and gives them a purpose in life as well as the morals we have been disgusting. The only problem is there is not a shred of evidence for creationism and for the existence of God.

When you try to use scientific concepts that you don't understand and you keep misinterpreting so to argue in favour of intelligent design your statements and claims become really absurd.

originally posted by: Venkuish1


Not only you don't understand what evolution is but you made similar claims about the universal gravitational law being 2000% off

We've been over this, the discrepancy on the galactic level, which I mentioned, is theorized to be the result of dark matter being undetectable. 5% regular matter, and 95% dark matter means there is about 2000% (1900% exactly) more dark matter than regular matter. Whether it's true or not, no one knows, the consensus is still out. Scientists are both looking to prove the existence of dark matter, while others are looking for alternatives to it.

Evolution is 'observed' over millions or hundreds of millions of years.

Yeah so it can't be observed, and it relies on faith.

Evolution and particle physics are facts. There is some much evidence which has lead to the theory of evolution on one hand and the standard model of partible physics on the other hand.

Don't lump in evolution with particle physics. Particle physics is the result of experimentation that shows particular empirical data that gets assessed in various ways. Evolution on the other hand is lacking experimentation that shows a population of organisms can become something new over time.

I understand that people who think like you want to believe in an intelligent designer who created the universe

I understand that people who think like you want to believe this was all an unintelligent accident. I've been there.

The only problem is there is not a shred of evidence for creationism and for the existence of God.

Moral code being present in our very being is another testament to the fine handiwork of the neural circuitry in our bodies. Think about it. Imagine an AI model with a moral code, and how absurd it would be for such a thing to have been designed by random chance. It is clearly intelligent, and so is our sense of morality in general.

a reply to: cooperton

I am wondering if the natural moral code is really just the random mix of bodily hormones and chemicals because there are good and bad mothers in the animal kingdom as well as within humankind, so with those cases that we perceive to be bad morals (bad mothering) then does it not stand to be a natural development not a learned behaviour, or if intelligently orchestrated by God, why have both good and bad when survival of the young is at stake?

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: cooperton

I am wondering if the natural moral code is really just the random mix of bodily hormones and chemicals

Sure chemicals and hormones effect these things, but these alone cannot create the conscious faculty of morality.

because there are good and bad mothers in the animal kingdom as well as within humankind, so with those cases that we perceive to be bad morals (bad mothering) then does it not stand to be a natural development not a learned behaviour, or if intelligently orchestrated by God, why have both good and bad when survival of the young is at stake?

Even morality from other organisms are quite astonishing, even if they aren't matching with the morals of humankind, such as the praying mantis eating its mate after having children.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Venkuish1


Not only you don't understand what evolution is but you made similar claims about the universal gravitational law being 2000% off

We've been over this, the discrepancy on the galactic level, which I mentioned, is theorized to be the result of dark matter being undetectable. 5% regular matter, and 95% dark matter means there is about 2000% (1900% exactly) more dark matter than regular matter. Whether it's true or not, no one knows, the consensus is still out. Scientists are both looking to prove the existence of dark matter, while others are looking for alternatives to it.

Evolution is 'observed' over millions or hundreds of millions of years.

Yeah so it can't be observed, and it relies on faith.

Evolution and particle physics are facts. There is some much evidence which has lead to the theory of evolution on one hand and the standard model of partible physics on the other hand.

Don't lump in evolution with particle physics. Particle physics is the result of experimentation that shows particular empirical data that gets assessed in various ways. Evolution on the other hand is lacking experimentation that shows a population of organisms can become something new over time.

I understand that people who think like you want to believe in an intelligent designer who created the universe

I understand that people who think like you want to believe this was all an unintelligent accident. I've been there.

The only problem is there is not a shred of evidence for creationism and for the existence of God.

Moral code being present in our very being is another testament to the fine handiwork of the neural circuitry in our bodies. Think about it. Imagine an AI model with a moral code, and how absurd it would be for such a thing to have been designed by random chance. It is clearly intelligent, and so is our sense of morality in general.

The discrepancy (more mass than it is expected) is well explained by the presence of dark matter for which there is plenty of evidence and not by the existence of a supernatural force for which there is no evidence at all... The argument that the universal law of gravitation is by 2000% off is ridiculous and the law of gravitation doesn't predict the amount of mass and the type of mass but it describes the force of attraction between two masses. I am sure that anyone can explain it to you.

No need for lectures from creationists on either evolution or particle physics (for which you have demonstrated zero knowledge). Both evolution and the standard model of particle physics are well accepted scientific theories for which there is an abundance of evidence and that's why they are valid scientific theories.

Evolution or particle physics and cosmology rely on evidence and not belief and faith in the supernatural world. On the other hand creationism has zero merits. If you want to argue in favour of creationism then you need evidence. Where is it? In the 'beauty' and 'perfection' of the universe as you usually claim? Any better arguments?

Try to find some evidence for your unfounded beliefs rather than trying to explain (rather unsuccessfully) physics and biology because even if we hadn't advanced yet in several scientific fields then your 'alternative' still has zero evidence.

If you want to argue about the problem of infinite regress then you have to include your God into this problem rather than asserting there is a beginning in the form of a supernatural intelligent designer. And most importantly all physical processes have natural causes. There is not even one that has a supernatural cause. Can you find one?

The moral code we have depends on our interactions with other humans and our perceptions of what is acceptable and what is not. It has nothing to do with intelligent designers and supernatural forces.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: cooperton

I am wondering if the natural moral code is really just the random mix of bodily hormones and chemicals

Sure chemicals and hormones effect these things, but these alone cannot create the conscious faculty of morality.

because there are good and bad mothers in the animal kingdom as well as within humankind, so with those cases that we perceive to be bad morals (bad mothering) then does it not stand to be a natural development not a learned behaviour, or if intelligently orchestrated by God, why have both good and bad when survival of the young is at stake?

Even morality from other organisms are quite astonishing, even if they aren't matching with the morals of humankind, such as the praying mantis eating its mate after having children.

There is nothing astonishing about morality which evolves as society evolves. Morality is subjective and not a given set of rules.

The most astonishing claims are made in the name of creationism where the Earth is a few thousands years old, creating a scenario where dinosaurs and humans coexisted for most of their history, and where humans cannot be descendents of monkeys because if they were then how comes monkeys didn't evolve (classical creationist arguments which are devoid of science)

Atheism and morality is a strawman. Morality is a social construct just like language, just like the dollar, just like the republic. Top of the class from each tribe convenes and devises a solution to someone's moral dilemma. The real question: who is most qualified to engineer a moral code, the compendium of civic values, do's and don'ts of modern society. That's when everyone jumps in with some appeal to authority or false equivalency argument and it all traces back to the same problem: my supreme arbitrator is stronger and smarter than your supreme arbitrator. How do you win that argument? You don't. Nobody wants "the answer". They want to grand stand and celebrate their superior business model because EGO. You can provide examples of morality from every community, every church, every nation across the vast spectrum of ideology and it changes nothing. Being right is the competition, conceit is the prize, and you can't fix that. You can only fix who YOU are and what YOU are contributing to society and that is where individuality begins. As if anybody here needed the subject to be fully deconstructed and diagramed, it's just a pretentious excuse to wave a banner and recite the holy pledge. Looking at you, Neoholographic.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

There is nothing astonishing about morality which evolves as society evolves. Morality is subjective and not a given set of rules.

The biological hardware to allow organisms to have morality is absolutely astonishing. You realize that we are still trying to figure out how to make AI be independently moral beyond its coding? How would you even imagine to code such a thing? The best engineers are on the case and it is a difficult task. Yet we humans have it as a given. So yeah, it is quite the feat to be able to make self-aware supercomputers.

The most astonishing claims are made in the name of creationism where the Earth is a few thousands years old

Meh, the earth was probably made in a matured state, just like the first humans.

I'm not going to respond to the rest of the post so we can stay on topic.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

The discrepancy (more mass than it is expected) is well explained by the presence of dark matter for which there is plenty of evidence and not by the existence of a supernatural force for which there is no evidence at all...

According to your belief. But experts in the field are exploring other options besides dark matter.

The argument that the universal law of gravitation is by 2000% off is ridiculous and the law of gravitation doesn't predict the amount of mass and the type of mass but it describes the force of attraction between two masses. I am sure that anyone can explain it to you.

They literally use the gravitational law to try to determine the mass of planets in our solar system and beyond. You are continually proving you don't know what you're talking about.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Venkuish1

The discrepancy (more mass than it is expected) is well explained by the presence of dark matter for which there is plenty of evidence and not by the existence of a supernatural force for which there is no evidence at all...

According to your belief. But experts in the field are exploring other options besides dark matter.

The argument that the universal law of gravitation is by 2000% off is ridiculous and the law of gravitation doesn't predict the amount of mass and the type of mass but it describes the force of attraction between two masses. I am sure that anyone can explain it to you.

They literally use the gravitational law to try to determine the mass of planets in our solar system and beyond. You are continually proving you don't know what you're talking about.

That's not a belief but the prevailing scientific hypothesis for which there is plenty of evidence. And that's dark matter and not modified theories of gravity that don't seem to work. For them to work then gravity would behave in a very strange way which makes it an even less probable and for which there isn't evidence other than mathematical models.

Still the universal law of gravity hasn't changed and it's the best approximation to describe the force of attraction between any two masses. The discrepancy is the amount of mass we were expecting in galaxies.

You seem to complete ignore the fact that not all galaxies have the amount of dark matter you think they have. There is dark matter inside galaxies, in between galaxies, and on some occasions very little dark matter is present in the galaxies.

You clearly don't understand what dark matter is and how is detected. Claiming that the universal gravitational law is off by 2000% is absurd because it's the mass that is often more than expected in galaxies but the amount is not constant. Galaxies have different amounts of dark matter (some have very small amounts).

But again I don't see how the current research on dark matter gives any credit to the creationism nonsense.


www.energy.gov...

Dark matter accounts for five times as much of the universe as ordinary matter. However, we know little about it other than that it only interacts with ordinary matter through gravity. Despite our lack of knowledge, scientists do have overwhelming indirect evidence for dark matter.

www.pnas.org...#:~:text=The%20evidence%20for%20the%20existence%20of%20dark%20matter%20has%20been,broad%20range%20of%2 0astronomical%20data.

The evidence for the existence of dark matter has been known from astronomical observations for over eight decades. It has been tested and reinforced since then by a broad range of astronomical data.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Venkuish1

There is nothing astonishing about morality which evolves as society evolves. Morality is subjective and not a given set of rules.

The biological hardware to allow organisms to have morality is absolutely astonishing. You realize that we are still trying to figure out how to make AI be independently moral beyond its coding? How would you even imagine to code such a thing? The best engineers are on the case and it is a difficult task. Yet we humans have it as a given. So yeah, it is quite the feat to be able to make self-aware supercomputers.

The most astonishing claims are made in the name of creationism where the Earth is a few thousands years old

Meh, the earth was probably made in a matured state, just like the first humans.

I'm not going to respond to the rest of the post so we can stay on topic.

No it's ok because if you bring creationism to the table to explain matters and the beauty of the universe or how astonishing the biological hardware is to have morals then you need to be able to explain your position clearly.

Where is the evidence that the universe was created by an intelligent designer? Let's say a mastermind. No whataboutism is allowed.

That takes us to the morals and morality which you claim must come from the belief in the supernatural and without it we have no good morals or fluid morals.

First things first: you need to establish the existence of this supernatural supreme being.

a reply to: cooperton

They literally use the gravitational law to try to determine the mass of planets in our solar system and beyond. You are continually proving you don't know what you're talking about

You can do this only if you know the mass of the star, the orbital radius of the planet R, and the period of the planet's orbit T. If you don't know any of the above you can't do any calculation to find the mass of a planet. You need to know for example the mass of the star and the orbital radius of the planet to find its period. That's very different to what the law of gravitation describes which is the force of attraction between any two masses. Just by knowing the mass of the star you can't do anything. You need everything else to play with the equations and use Kepler's Third Law.

The universal gravitational law cannot predict the mass of a planet on its own if we don't know the above quantities and can't predict the type of mass either. You seem to ignore these facts and just reproducing something you have read online.

originally posted by: Venkuish1
There is nothing 'marvelous' and nothing that indicates an intelligent designer. I am afraid these arguments cannot be supported as they rely on emotions and sensationalism.

The problem I have with the intelligent design is that it ends up in the chicken or egg scenario as to what came first. The other issue is that we do not actually need intelligent design for all this to happen and if it was intelligent design they would have done a better job. Even we mere humans can improve on that design quite easily.