[_ Old Earth _] Intelligent Design

[Vaccine]

Welcome everyone!
In light of the recent discoveries by ENCODE (Encyclopedia of DNA Elements) which are changing the landscape of how we look at life, I thought I'd start a thread about Intelligent Design (ID)


The theory of intelligent design holds 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.


Plato, Aristotle and Cicero articulated early versions of design theory, as did virtually all of the founders of modern science.


The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.




Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.




Here are examples of a natural cause:

View attachment 3297




Here are examples of an intelligent cause:


View attachment 3298

 

[Barbarian]

As you know, ENCODE did not conclude any intelligent design in our genes. But do you think irreducible complexity proves intelligent design?

 

[Vaccine]

For those that don't know, ENCODE is a research consortium to identify functional elements of the genome and provide data analysis.
ENCODE did the research and provided this data analysis:
These analyses portray a COMPLEX LANDSCAPE OF LONG-RANGE GENE–ELEMENT CONNECTIVITY across ranges of hundreds of kilobases to several megabases, including interactions among unrelated genes. Furthermore, in the 5C results, 50–60% of long-range interactions occurred in only one of the four cell lines, indicative of a high degree of tissue SPECIFICITY FOR GENE-ELEMENT CONNECTIVITY.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture11247.html
ENCODE's analysis was specified-complexity in the gene element connectivity. This was the work of 594 scientists, which was submitted to an academic journal for peer review, and then reprinted in the National Institute of Health which assures the credibility of the research and data analysis.​

Scientists can then use that research and data analysis to conclude the genome was indeed intelligently designed. But that shouldn't come as a shock to anyone. It has been known the genetic code is an artificial language similar to computer code. Microsoft is working with Crick, Watson and many other scientists to develop a programming language to execute code in the genome.

 

[Barbarian]

As you know, the ENCODE researchers did not conclude anything about specified complexity, and did not conclude intelligent design. Someone from the Institute for Creation Research said they did, but that was false. If the ICR had said, "we think the findings support intelligent design", that would not have been dishonest. But they claimed ENCODE said so, which was very dishonest.

 

[Vaccine]

ENCODE does research and data analysis. 594 scientists, Nature, the National Institute of Health approved this summary:​

These analyses portray a COMPLEX LANDSCAPE OF LONG-RANGE GENE–ELEMENT CONNECTIVITY across ranges of hundreds of kilobases to several megabases, including interactions among unrelated genes. Furthermore, in the 5C results, 50–60% of long-range interactions occurred in only one of the four cell lines, indicative of a high degree of tissue SPECIFICITY FOR GENE-ELEMENT CONNECTIVITY.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture11247.html​

Scientists from Institute of Creation Research justly concluded the genome was Intelligently Designed. This is how real science works, research, data analysis, peer review, conclusions. But everyone is entitled to their opinions.​

 

[Barbarian]

Scientists from Institute of Creation Research justly concluded the genome was Intelligently Designed.

It would not have been dishonest if they said that the results had convinced them. It was dishonest to claim that ENCODE scientists made that determination.

This is how real science works, research, data analysis, peer review, conclusions.

If real scientists had made false claims about the conclusions of other scientists, they'd be out of jobs. That isn't tolerated in science. Dishonesty will get you removed quickly.

But everyone is entitled to their opinions.

No one is entitled to make false claims about what others have said. ICR was free to put whatever interpretation they wanted on the facts. They were not free to misrepresent what scientists actually said.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

Welcome everyone!

Good morning.

The theory of intelligent design holds 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.

So, you are saying that the best explanation is that there is an intelligent designer who, for some reason, drives the changes in the designs of living things so that many of them go extinct for a purpose, as opposed to natural selection, where, if you're dealt a better hand, you have a better chance of winning the card game.

Plato, Aristotle and Cicero articulated early versions of design theory, as did virtually all of the founders of modern science.

The farther you go back in time, the less scientific knowledge there is. That's why Intelligent Design was a popular view back then. "Modern science" says otherwise. You can go all the way back to a caveman experimenting with ways to start fires, and you could say that was "cutting-edge, modern science" if you were around back then. Even though that particular caveman was brilliant, we, standing on our modern perch of knowledge, wouldn't agree with all of his scientific viewpoints.

 

[Vaccine]

No one is entitled to make false claims about what others have said.

Something I can agree with.

 

[Vaccine]

The theory of intelligent design holds 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.

So, you are saying that the best explanation is that there is an intelligent designer who, for some reason

Intelligent Design theory is science which identifies the cause for certain features of the universe and living things. "Reasons" behind the cause are questions for theology.

Plato, Aristotle and Cicero articulated early versions of design theory, as did virtually all of the founders of modern science.

The farther you go back in time, the less scientific knowledge there is. That's why Intelligent Design was a popular view back then. "Modern science" says otherwise. You can go all the way back to a caveman experimenting with ways to start fires, and you could say that was "cutting-edge, modern science" if you were around back then. Even though that particular caveman was brilliant, we, standing on our modern perch of knowledge, wouldn't agree with all of his scientific viewpoints.

True, "earlier versions" were articulated as far back as Plato but we have made progress since then. For example, in Darwin's day they thought the cell was incredibly simple, like jelly. Modern science has learned just how irreducibly complex a cell is, some have compared the complexity in 1 cell to that of a boeing 747.

 

[Barbarian]

Intelligent Design theory is science which identifies the cause for certain features of the universe and living things.

According to the guys who invented it, it's purpose is to convince people of their version of God.

Governing Goals

To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.
From the "Wedge Document" accidentally released by the Discovery Institute, inventors of ID.

"Reasons" behind the cause are questions for theology.

Would you say that God would be a reason?

 

[Vaccine]

Intelligent Design theory is science which identifies the cause for certain features of the universe and living things.

According to the guys who invented it, it's purpose is to convince people of their version of God.

What do you mean by version of God?

Would you say that God would be a reason?

Reason for what, life or nature? In the OP is a picture of a sandcastle, without knowing who made it we can only guess why. A question best answered by theology not science.

 

[Barbarian]

Intelligent Design theory is science which identifies the cause for certain features of the universe and living things.

Barbarian observes:
According to the guys who invented it, it's purpose is to convince people of their version of God.

What do you mean by version of God?

For example, Jonathan Wells, a founder of the IDers, thinks that Rev. Moon is an improved version of Jesus Christ. And Michael Denton (another founder) is sort of a deist; he thinks a supernatural agency created the universe, but took no part in the subsequent evolution of life (which he considers to be a fact).

"Reasons" behind the cause are questions for theology.

Barbarian asks:
Would you say that God would be a reason?

Reason for what, life or nature?

You said "Reasons behind the cause are questions for theology." The IDers say their main objective is to convince people of God. So is that theology or science in your opinion?

In the OP is a picture of a sandcastle, without knowing who made it we can only guess why. A question best answered by theology not science.

Unless you knew something about forensics, a science which often answers such questions.

 

[Vaccine]

Barbarian observes:
According to the guys who invented it, it's purpose is to convince people of their version of God.

The theory of intelligent design holds 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 is a scientific theory, not theology.
Here is a link for more information:
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/faq.php

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
According to the guys who invented it, it's purpose is to convince people of their version of God.

The theory of intelligent design holds 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.

It's not a theory; it's a religious doctrine. Here's what the guys who invented it say about its "governing goals":


To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html

Remember, that is what IDers say it's about, when they think no one else is paying attention.

ID is a scientific theory, not theology.

Not according to the guys who invented it.

Here is a link for more information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

 

[Vaccine]

Barbarian observes:
According to the guys who invented it, it's purpose is to convince people of their version of God.

Necessity is the mother of invention. Since natural selection alone is inadequate to explain the complexity of life, scientists came up intelligent design. If the theory happens to promote the God of the bible so much the better. If you think about it that's what most people are doing. Atheists and naturalists use evolution to promote their religion, or lack of religion. You're trying to convince people here of your version of god where nature is the creator.
“God says the Earth brought forth living things as he intended. He used nature to do that.”
http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=48410&page=45
“If so, God is a naturalist”
http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=48410&page=49



The Bible doesn't mention nature:
“And God calleth to the dry land `Earth,'” Genesis 1:10
“And God saith, `Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind,” Genesis1:24
'Let' is the verb in that verse, meaning the power to create is in God's voice not 'dry land'. Your version of god is Nature is the creator.
Statement of Faith: We believe that there is only one God, who is eternal and immutable, and manifests Himself in three distinct Persons; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
I'm not a moderator, so this is just a friendly reminder, but the statement of faith doesn't mention“nature” either. I just thought I'd point that out before a moderator does.

The theory of intelligent design holds 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.

It's not a theory; it's a religious doctrine.

It is a scientific theory, ad hominem..

Here's what the guys who invented it say about its "governing goals":
To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html

That isn't from the ID website so we shouldn't attribute it to ID theory.




But since you brought up materialism, whats wrong with someone using ID theory to defeat materialism? That's exactly what materialists do with evolution, remove God from the equation. According to materialism God is just another name for ignorance. Again, I'm not a moderator, but I consider materialism an attack on Christs resurrection and not compatible with the statement of faith of this forum. What about you, is your version of god compatible with materialism? Was Christ resurrection 'natural' or 'supernatural'?
Materialism rules out the supernatural. Science can't be considered a search for truth if we impose that materialistic presupposition. Science then becomes a search for a materialistic explanation. ID theory is actually improving science by removing that presupposition. Science is now an uninhibited search for truth, as it should be. If “poof there it is” is the truth then so be it. It is a lot easier to believe Jesus formed Adam from the dust and breathed life into him, than it is to believe the wind, rain, gravity, or electricity assembled a something as complex as a functioning cell and an artificial language.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
According to the guys who invented it, it's purpose is to convince people of their version of God.

Since natural selection alone is inadequate to explain the complexity of life,

It takes random mutation and natural selection.

scientists came up intelligent design.

No. Most of it was done by a lawyer, Philip Johnson. And some by philosophers, with a few scientists afterwards.

If the theory happens to promote the God of the bible so much the better.

I suppose that depends on whether the Unification Church promotes the God of the bible.

If you think about it that's what most people are doing. Atheists and naturalists use evolution to promote their religion, or lack of religion.

A common misconception. It's often used by dishonest creationists to smear Christians who accept God's creation.

You're trying to convince people here of your version of god where nature is the creator.

That's a good example. Saying that God used nature to create things, is just accepting His word as it is. Creationists object to that, so they ignore what He says.

“God says the Earth brought forth living things as he intended. He used nature to do that.â€
http://www.christianforums.net/showt...=48410&page=45

As the quote shows, you've made a false claim about my beliefs.

The Bible doesn't mention nature:

If you think the earth, waters, and living things aren't nature.

Your version of god is Nature is the creator.

Be honest with yourself, at least. I showed you that God is the creator. You're just not pleased with the way He did it.

Statement of Faith: We believe that there is only one God, who is eternal and immutable, and manifests Himself in three distinct Persons; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

I'm glad you accept that. But why don't you go all the way and accept the way He created things?

I'm not a moderator, so this is just a friendly reminder, but the statement of faith doesn't mention“nature†either.

Doesn't mention the Resurrection, either. You claiming that part of Christian belief is false, too?

I just thought I'd point that out before a moderator does.

Funny how people never think it applies to them, um?

The theory of intelligent design holds 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.

As you learned, natural selection is not an undirected process. And ID is not a theory; it's a religious doctrine.

It is a scientific theory

Let's see what the guys who invented it say:

Governing Goals:
"To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies"
"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"

Wedge Document, inadvertently released by the Discovery Institute

Nope. It's a religion.

ad hominem..

It's what they admit themselves. No escaping that.

That isn't from the ID website so we shouldn't attribute it to ID theory.

It's a fact. Would you like me to show you?

But since you brought up materialism, whats wrong with someone using ID theory to defeat materialism?

Why not just use Christianity, instead of a new religion posing as science?

The Dover trial was a disaster for ID when it was shown that IDers took a religious book and substituted "designer" for "God", and then proposed it as a textbook.

That's exactly what materialists do with evolution, remove God from the equation.

Newton did it with physics, too. And they did it with metallurgy and meteorology. Scientific theories aren't about God. Science is too weak a method to consider the supernatural. It can neither verify nor deny God.

What about you, is your version of god compatible with materialism?

For a Christian, it's compatible with the universe as it is. You seem to have confused orthodox Christianity with materialism.

Was Christ resurrection 'natural' or 'supernatural'?

I don't know of any Christian sect that thinks it was natural. What church do you belong to?

Materialism rules out the supernatural.

Ontological materialism does. Methodological materialism merely looks for natural causes for natural events, but does not rule out the supernatural.

Science can't be considered a search for truth if we impose that materialistic presupposition.

And yet, nothing works better for learning about His creation. It's just a method, but one that works exceedingly well.

Science then becomes a search for a materialistic explanation. ID theory is actually improving science by removing that presupposition.

That fact that the new religion of ID has made no increases in knowledge at all, effectively refutes that notion.

Science is now an uninhibited search for truth, as it should be.

That science has always been an uninhibited search for truth was precisely what upset IDers.

If “poof there it is†is the truth then so be it. It is a lot easier to believe Jesus formed Adam from the dust and breathed life into him, than it is to believe the wind, rain, gravity, or electricity assembled a something as complex as a functioning cell and an artificial language.

God says that life was brought forth from the Earth. That's good enough for me. It should be good enough for you, too.

However, He didn't say how it happened. Some things, He left for us to learn for ourselves.

 

[Vaccine]

Without any empirical evidence to support your claims, all you have are your opinions.

ENCODE did the research and provided this data analysis:
These analyses portray a COMPLEX LANDSCAPE OF LONG-RANGE GENE–ELEMENT CONNECTIVITY across ranges of hundreds of kilobases to several megabases, including interactions among unrelated genes. Furthermore, in the 5C results, 50–60% of long-range interactions occurred in only one of the four cell lines, indicative of a high degree of tissue SPECIFICITY FOR GENE-ELEMENT CONNECTIVITY.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture11247.html

So nothing about specified complexity

That says it all. Empirical evidence the genome is intelligently designed, but you deny it. Honestly, by not accepting the truth, you're asserting pseudo science knows better than true science. Science has empirical evidence the genome is intelligently designed, empirical evidence the genome has a global checksum, science has concluded humans did not evolve from chimps. It really exposes your commitment to the idea we evolved and not truth.

 

[Barbarian]

ENCODE did the research and provided this data analysis:
These analyses portray a COMPLEX LANDSCAPE OF LONG-RANGE GENE–ELEMENT CONNECTIVITY across ranges of hundreds of kilobases to several megabases, including interactions among unrelated genes. Furthermore, in the 5C results, 50–60% of long-range interactions occurred in only one of the four cell lines, indicative of a high degree of tissue SPECIFICITY FOR GENE-ELEMENT CONNECTIVITY.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture11247.html

Barbarian observes:
So nothing about specified complexity

That says it all. Empirical evidence the genome is intelligently designed

It doesn't say so. And the researchers who wrote the report don't say it indicates intelligent design.

but you deny it.

I'm just pointing out the facts. Nothing about intelligent design.

Honestly, by not accepting the truth, you're asserting pseudo science knows better than true science.

Notice that "real scientists" did not conclude intelligent design. As you know, the ICR merely pretended that they did.

Science has empirical evidence the genome is intelligently designed, empirical evidence the genome has a global checksum,

But you can't find anything by any ENCODE researcher that says so. Which is why the ICR was dishonest to say otherwise.

science has concluded humans did not evolve from chimps.

Rather, it has learned that humans and chimps have a common ancestor more recently than either has a common ancestor with any other group.

It really exposes your commitment to the idea we evolved and not truth.

It comes down to evidence. A commitment to the truth means you go with the evidence, no matter where it goes. And, as you see, it doesn't go with intelligent design.

 

[Vaccine]

Science deals with what can be observed and reproduced by experimentation. ENCODE's analysis of specified-complexity is an example of that. ICR drew a conclusion from that analysis. You're establishing a double standard by calling them dishonest. I've seen research papers that only mention "natural selection" or even "selection pressures" and yet other scientists will conclude evolution from them. Science can't reproduce the origin of life, so the best analysis now shows it was intelligently designed. Really is a watershed moment.

 

[Barbarian]

Science deals with what can be observed and reproduced by experimentation.

Science is more than experimentation. Sometimes, we can't reproduce nature, and just have to go observe it as it is. Which is why the vast majority of scientists, including the ENCODE researchers, accept evolution; predictions are repeatedly confirmed by observation and experimentation.

ENCODE's analysis of specified-complexity is an example of that.

As you learned, the ENCODE researchers did not analyze or even detect specified complexity. That was just a story the ICR told. Remember, even if a paragraph includes "specificity" and "complex", it doesn't mean that the paragraph is saying anything about "specified complexity."

ICR drew a conclusion from that analysis.

And if they merely said that it was their interpretation, that would not have been dishonest. But they dishonestly claimed that ENCODE made that conclusion. One cannot serve God by lying.

You're establishing a double standard by calling them dishonest.

Can you show where I defended someone for misrepresenting the words of others? If not, I'd say you owe me an apology.

I've seen research papers that only mention "natural selection" or even "selection pressures" and yet other scientists will conclude evolution from them.

First, the ENCODE report never mentioned intelligent design or specified complexity. So bad analogy. Second, even where a paper mentions evolution, I don't see any scientists deciding the paper has to be evidence for evolution.

Science can't reproduce the origin of life, so the best analysis now shows it was intelligently designed.

Comes down to evidence. And that indicates that the earth brought forth living things. As God said. He's the Creator. No design necessary.

Really is a watershed moment.

Not for the ICR. They've been trying these scams for years. It's their M.O.