Judgement Day - Intelligent Design on Trial

It's one thing to say that the primeval sup could make simple amino acids, but to encode the simplest organism DNA is imparting intelligence or coding into the DNA. This is how Darwin’s theory brakes down and can’t explain how one go’s from no DNA, to DNA in the correct format and replicates.
Nature is too random to encode DNA. It would be like making a computer program from a random number generator.

To me intelligent design doesn’t have to be from “GODâ€. I think people should look at all possibilities in science.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fairclge @ Nov 19 2007, 02:21 PM) [snapback]541584[/snapback]</div>

"Darwin's theory" typically refers to his theory of evolution, which does not address the abiogenesis (origin of life from non-living matter) question at all. I think Darwin did make some off-the-cuff remarks on the subject in some of his correspondence, but I'm not really sure how how the theory of evolution is at all refuted by an issue that it does not actually address. The theory of evolution can be applied to the abiogenesis question as one part of a different theory, but the theory of evolution stands alone and is supported by a very different (and far far FAR more comprehensive) experimental and data set.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fairclge @ Nov 19 2007, 10:21 AM) [snapback]541584[/snapback]</div>

To me, there are holes in both theories. Perhaps there are other possibilities besides these two.

Some people suspect extra terrestrial, some point to inside the earth itself, some point to other dimensions or another definition of time.

Some even think different races come from different sources leading to the possibility that many theories are on the right track, depending on race.

At this moment in history 'we' designate the 'scientific method' as a universal measurement of theory acceptance, in our newly past, faith was the measure.

There is therefore good reason to teach Creationism to those for whom the scientific method doesn't fit. That's what faith-based classes are for. If I were blogging in Galileo's time perhaps I would suggest extra-curricular classes were the proper forum to teach the theory of evolution, since then the currently accepted measurement was faith.

 

Darwin’s theory says that in order for a mutation, adaptation, to prevail and be replicated and passed down as a dominate force for change in the organism; this adaptation has to aid in the organisms survival or benefit the organisms in some way. Another way of looking at it is if the change doesn’t benefit the organism then it is lost and does not become dominate and replicated.
Given this simple explanation of Darwin’s theory how does this theory explain and complicated chain of events that would have to happen separately such as DNA coding that would not assist in the organisms survival and would be removed by Darwin’s own law of non-beneficial mutations not being replicated.

For example, can we agree that nature creates the various in the mountain landscape and its different shapes and sizes? We say it is not of intelligent design, it’s random. We know the difference when we see Mount Rushmore with its sculpted heads of the presidents as being of intelligent deign. To me the same thing is going on here with the DNA question. Did nature happen to randomly sequence the correct code for the first cell of life or is it some intelligence that did the encoding. I’m not saying you have to believe in GOD, but using the scientific method you must consider all arguments and peruse wherever the data leads. Perhaps there is a new theory that needs to be found to explain where Darwin can not.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fairclge @ Nov 20 2007, 10:42 AM) [snapback]541953[/snapback]</div>

The main point, often left out of the arguments, is that scientific theories live or die by their own merits. Darwin's theory has led to countless other theories and offshoots. Some of the researchers I work with are still using it. We're isolating proteins produced by harmful bacteria to use in fighting cancer, based on the assumption that way back when in the primordial slime-pool, cancer cells and bacteria may have been fighting for some of the same resources, thus leading some bacteria to develop anticancer properties.

That's the kind of experiment that real scientific theories lead to, and it comes pretty directly from the theory of evolution.

Intelligent design, positing that some creator created all this, is fundamentally un-scientific because is does not invite or stimulate testing of its hypothesis. The Theory of Intelligent Design has been around for some time now, but I can't think of any research that has come out of it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Nov 19 2007, 05:29 PM) [snapback]541683[/snapback]</div>

Ok. Let's just clear this out of the way. There is no hole in the theory of evolution. That evolution happened is a fact. Everything that is known from biology is consistent with it. The "holes" that the ID movement proclaims are straw man arguments that have nothing to do with the theory itself or questions that need more research to answer. But no hole. I think the biggest hole is to throw everything into the pit of an intelligent creator.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fairclge @ Nov 20 2007, 10:42 AM) [snapback]541953[/snapback]</div>

Correct. However, before you can intelligently discuss a scientific theory you must become knowledgeable in the area. For example, the arguments you propose were answered back when Darwin wrote the Origin of the Species and are simple to answer. You have to add two things to your thinking, heredity and selection.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fairclge @ Nov 20 2007, 10:42 AM) [snapback]541953[/snapback]</div>

Nature does not choose randomly what code remains. It is selected based on survival over deep, deep time. One small step at a time to climb mount improbable. Just think of this statistics problem. The probability of getting ten heads in a coin flip is 0.5^10, a rather small number and improbable. However, if you had a room full of people eventually one of them over time would achieve ten heads in a row. Select him to be the winner and there you have it, an unique instance of a highly improbable event.

Better example is the lottery. The probability of any one person winning the lottery is very small but it is very likely that someone will. And that is all you need to obtain improbable events; a large enough population and a selection mechanism.

 

The theory has itself been built upon. Some of Darwin's ideas may no longer apply, and thus dropped. Like the the non-beneficial mutations not being replicated. Unless the organism dies before reproducing, those genes will be passed on. Nature is really conservative. A mutation doesn't have to have an immediate beneficial affect to be saved in the genes.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(samiam @ Nov 18 2007, 02:00 PM) [snapback]541284[/snapback]</div>

Right on! Scientific theory and religious mythology are in totally different ball parks. Before I came to the U.S. (I'm originally from NZ, Hi Samiam) I couldn't understand what the probem/conflict was. I still don't.

It seems simply foolish to try to make science out of religious mythology (or a belief system out of science for that matter)

Maybe foolishness serves an evolutionary purpose in the human species

 

funny story to lighten the mood...

imagine the setting, seven scientists entrenched in heavy debate over the figures vs conclusions of a paper over lunch. along comes the delivery man, with a package for the boss. boss opens package to reveal a "complimentary gift" called the "atlas of creation"

uproarious laughter ensues. and eventually figure 5 is scrutinized again, with a number of creation-atlas jokes tossed in for good measure.

 

As a physicist, I have a much bigger problem with many religious fundamentalists (the main proponents of intelligent design) than just the debate over our creation.

Our ideas of human origin are based on scientific observations of the physical world, including how our solar system and the earth came into being. Since this happened some time before humans were around to observe it, we have to extrapolate from our understandings of how things work. Figuring our how old things are and where they came from isn't easy, but most scientific estimates of the earth's age are a lot larger than those accepted by fundamentalists. The more rabid of the latter believe, against all evidence, that the earth is merely a few thousand years old.

In order to accept many of the tenets of ID, you have to also dismiss carbon dating, tree-ring studies, ice analysis as well as to claim that we physicists are mistaken about the speed of light! It's not just evolution (the hot button) but a lot of the foundation of modern science that is questioned.

We scientists may not know everything nearly as perfectly as we would like, but I am not about to throw my hands up in the air and say things are too complicated for us to understand and therefore they must have been made by some mythical wise being worthy of deification.

Nova is to be commended on its coverage of this issue.

Mike

(card-carrying Pastafarian)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stringmike @ Nov 21 2007, 09:09 AM) [snapback]542105[/snapback]</div>

A good point. Why do you suppose there is the need to disavow so much of science and technology?
I really haven't heard anyone refer to the "theory" of evolution in many years (except in these kind of faith vs science discussions). At most I hear about the process of speciation, otherwise evolution has long since moved from a theory (with hypothetical constructs) into the realm of scientific fact.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stringmike @ Nov 21 2007, 09:09 AM) [snapback]542105[/snapback]</div>

Nova can get a nod for airing the show, but the Doco was filmed and produced by the BBC. No slur intended, but 'm not sure it would have aired had it been made in the US.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(paulccullen @ Nov 21 2007, 06:30 AM) [snapback]542027[/snapback]</div>

Humour certainly has survival value!
When you coming home Paul? New jandals for xmas, beach cricket & a barbie, its all still here.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stringmike @ 2007 11 20 12:09) [snapback]542105[/snapback]</div>

Exactly. I don't have a problem admitting there are things we don't know, or even that we may never know, but being asked to reject what we do know is not acceptable.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(samiam @ 2007 11 20 13:32) [snapback]542131[/snapback]</div>

George Orwell answered this one in 1948 (and 1984): "Ignorance is Strength." Knowledge is a threat to power.

 

If you traveled the universe taking black and white photographs of rock formations you would eventually if you did it long enough be able to find a rock formation which when scanned with a bar code scanner would bring up the code for corn flakes. This planet and universe has been here a long time throwing out random mixes of chemicals so the chance of life gaining a foot hold on some rock somewhere in the universe isn't perhaps as remote as some would have you believe. The reason we see life around us is we are on that rock.

There are near enough infinite planets orbiting almost as many stars, each planet no doubt unique. This one was the one (we know of) that developed deoxyribonucleic acid.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(patsparks @ Nov 20 2007, 02:38 PM) [snapback]542159[/snapback]</div>

That's why I have two predictions about our first encounter with extraterrestrial life:

First, when we discover it, we'll discover that it is varied and prolific, entirely occupying every cubic millimeter about the surface of its planet (or planetoid) from several miles beneath the surface up several miles into its atmosphere (if there is one), from single celled organisms (99% of the biomass) to more complex organisms, just as life has continuously teemed in every cubic millimeter of Earth's subsurface, surface and atmosphere since very close to life's genesis. We won't find life as islands surrounded by sterility (unless we happen upon it VERY close to its genesis, say within a few million years of it when evolutionary adaptations haven't yet overtaken patches of the planet hostile to the initial forms of life.

Second, when we discover it, we'll realize that we'd actually "discovered" it quite a bit earlier, but didn't recognize it for what it was. It may not have the same carbon/DNA basis all terrestrial life has. So we'll detect inexplicable "chemical reactions" and wonder about them awhile before it finally occurs to us that what we're seeing is life, just not life as we know it.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Nov 20 2007, 11:16 AM) [snapback]541982[/snapback]</div>

Darwin’s theory, (not law) works very well explaining how giraffes get their long necks from the giraffes with short ones; so did steady state and other countless theories. You know, the idea that galaxies do not move, or geocentric model. These are all good theories that lasted much longer than Darwinism, well at lest the last one, you get the idea.
Because a theory has been around does not make it totally correct, if correct at all.
And because research is going on using Darwinism is not conclusive proof that it can be applied to this argument, the first DNA in the first cell, not the cells that came later. And I have not read of any proof of a replicated simple DNA from the P-soup in a lab, just amino acids. Do that and Darwinism will become law.
Maybe we should not call it intelligent design and just say "we don't know how this happend insert your theory here"
It’s easy to say DNA is = energy + water + chemicals + time and you have DNA and life.
So shouldn’t we see the same results on Mars or other moons and planets some day that had the same or similar environments ?
Because we can’t measure something or test it in a lab, does that mean we can investigate? Quantum physics is hardly measurable or testable, mostly theoretical. The instant of the big bang it’s thought that all known laws of physics don’t occur and break down. Should we tell these scientists that they should stop today and pull the discussion because we can’t test the theory? Or string theory, parallel universes, and why gravity is so weak being that it’s one of the four known forces. I digress
I say intelligent design is a more testable theory than the ones I’ve just listed, once we understand what defines intelligence, other than what you may think of my rant, what is intelligence? I think once we define that and understand what intelligence is than perhaps we will agree or disagree on the subject at hand.
SETI is looking for intelligence out in space, what it will sound like. It’s not random noise or chance grouping of signals, its data, purposeful data not counting the pulse of a neutron star.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(samiam @ Nov 20 2007, 04:32 PM) [snapback]542131[/snapback]</div>

I think it has to do with the idea that some have of their own self-rightenousness. Intelligent design is a cheap, easy, quick way to completely separate human beings from all other life on the planet. That's one of the aspects of religion, in general. It supposes that humans are above animals and, therefore, cannot be descendents of 'unintelligent' life. It's just the easy way out for those not particularly interested or educated enough to actually read and learn about a logical, scientific way that life developed (and continues to develop) on the planet.

As someone else has already pointed out, in ignorance, there is bliss. It's a lot more comforting to believe that there is a devine presence which began life on earth and continues to oversee everything, rather than a somewhat random pattern of development based on environment. It's also quite an effective way of suppressing free thinking and getting someone to adhere to the agenda of whomever is espousing the devine presence, i.e., listen and obey your religious advisor.

Personally, I kind of like the Flying Spaghetti Monster as the intelligent designer.