Intelligent Design

[bob b]

Contrary to media reports, intelligent design is not a religious-based idea, but instead an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins – one that challenges strictly materialistic views of evolution. According to Darwinian biologists such as Oxford's Richard Dawkins, living systems "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." But for modern Darwinists, that appearance of design is entirely illusory. Why? Because the undirected processes of natural selection acting on random mutations can produce the intricate structures found in living organisms.

In contrast, the theory of intelligent design holds that there are telltale features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by a designing intelligence. The theory does not challenge the idea of evolution defined as change over time, or even common ancestry, but it does dispute Darwin's idea that the cause of biological change is wholly blind and undirected.

What telltale signs of intelligence do we see?

Over the last 25 years, biologists have discovered an exquisite world of nanotechnology within living cells – complex circuits, sliding clamps, energy-generating turbines and miniature machines. For example, bacterial cells are propelled by tiny rotary engines called flagellar motors that rotate at speeds up to 100,000 rpm. These engines look as if they were designed by the Mazda corporation, with many distinct mechanical parts (made of proteins) including rotors, stators, O-rings, bushings, U-joints and drive shafts.

Biochemist Michael Behe points out that the flagellar motor depends on the coordinated function of 30 protein parts. Remove one of these necessary proteins and the rotary motor simply doesn't work. The motor is, in Dr. Behe's terminology, "irreducibly complex."

This creates a problem for the Darwinian mechanism. Natural selection preserves or "selects" functional advantages. If a random mutation helps an organism survive, it can be preserved and passed on to the next generation. Yet the flagellar motor does not function unless all of its 30 parts are present. Thus, natural selection can "select" or preserve the motor once it has arisen as a functioning whole, but it can't produce the motor in a step-by-step Darwinian fashion.

Natural selection purportedly builds complex systems from simpler structures by preserving a series of intermediate structures, each of which must perform some function. In the case of the flagellar motor, most of the critical intermediate stages – like the 29- or 28-part version of the flagellar motor – perform no function for natural selection to preserve.

This leaves the origin of the flagellar motor, and many complex cellular machines, unexplained by the mechanism – natural selection – that Darwin specifically proposed to replace the design hypothesis.

Is there a better explanation? Based upon our uniform experience, we know of only one type of cause that produces irreducibly complex systems – namely, intelligence. Indeed, whenever we encounter such complex systems – whether integrated circuits or internal combustion engines – and we know how they arose, invariably a designing intelligence played a role.

Consider an even more fundamental argument for design. In 1953, when James Watson and Francis Crick elucidated the structure of the DNA molecule, they made a startling discovery. DNA's structure allows it to store information in the form of a four-character digital code. Strings of precisely sequenced chemicals called nucleotide bases store and transmit the assembly instructions – the information – for building the crucial protein molecules and machines the cell needs to survive.

Mr. Crick later developed this idea with his famous "sequence hypothesis," according to which the chemical constituents in DNA function like letters in a written language or symbols in a computer code. As Bill Gates has since noted, "DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we've ever created."

Clearly, the informational features of the cell at least appear designed. And to date, no theory of undirected chemical evolution has explained the origin of the digital information needed to build the first living cell. Why? There is simply too much information in the cell to be explained by chance alone. And the information in DNA has also been shown to defy explanation by the laws and forces of chemistry. Saying otherwise would be like saying that a newspaper headline might arise as the result of the chemical attraction between ink and paper. Clearly "something else" is at work.

DNA functions like a software program. We know from experience that software comes from programmers. We know generally that information – whether inscribed in hieroglyphics, written in a book or encoded in radio signals – always arises from an intelligent source. As the pioneering information theorist Henry Quastler observed, "Information habitually arises from conscious activity." So the discovery of information in the DNA molecule provides strong grounds for inferring that intelligence played a role in the origin of DNA, even if we weren't there to observe the system coming into existence.

Thus, contrary to media reports, the theory of intelligent design is not based on ignorance or religion, but instead on recent scientific discoveries and on our uniform experience of cause and effect, the basis of all scientific reasoning.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article was originally published in the Dallas Morning News, Sunday Jan. 29, 2006.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Jukia]

Who wrote it?

 

[bob b]

Who wrote it?

Is truth a function of its author?

Apparently so in the mind of those who are so insecure in their own ability to reason that they must lean on the pronouncements of authority figures.

 

[Jukia]

Is truth a function of its author?

Apparently so in the mind of those who are so insecure in their own ability to reason that they must lean on the pronouncements of authority figures.

GREAT COMMENT coming from bob b. Is ironic the correct adjective?
I asked a simple question. If you don't know please say so, if you do please provide the info. Thanks so much.

 

[bob b]

GREAT COMMENT coming from bob b. Is ironic the correct adjective?
I asked a simple question. If you don't know please say so, if you do please provide the info. Thanks so much.

Of course I know who wrote it. I deliberately withheld the name in the hope that doing so would encourage at least some to evaluate the article on its merits instead of immediately rejecting it because it was not written by a "big name" evolutionist author that they have "faith" in.

The "Authority Figure" syndrome is closely related to the "Shoot the Messenger" one.

BTW, the author was Hillary Clinton.

Not.

 

[Jukia]

Of course I know who wrote it. I deliberately withheld the name in the hope that doing so would encourage at least some to evaluate the article on its merits instead of immediately rejecting it because it was not written by a "big name" evolutionist author that they have "faith" in.

The "Authority Figure" syndrome is closely related to the "Shoot the Messenger" one.

BTW, the author was Hillary Clinton.

Not.

I read it, it says nothing that has not been said before. Makes a big deal of the bacteria's flagellum. and comments that there are"many complex cellular machines" unexplained. But does not bother to discuss the other such machines.
Makes a comment that "the information in DNA has also been shown to defy explanation by the laws and forces of chemistry". Really. See now if I had a name I could perhaps e-mail and discuss this comment with him or her.
I'm not trying to shoot the messenger. Just trying to find out who the messenger is.

 

[fool]

ID is argument from ignorance

 

[Unbeliever]

ID is argument from ignorance

I can't find my keys. God must have taken them.

Here's the simplest test I have for creationism (or it's recent alias ID). What would a person believe who had never read the bible or heard of biblical creation? Would they look at all the evidence for an ancient earth, the diversity of life, and the geologic strata, and conclude that it all happened in 6 days. I doubt it. Creationism exists because of the bible, nothing more.

BTW, ID is as much science as astrology is. Could it be right? I suppose. But there is no evidence that it is.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

ID is argument from ignorance

Ya think?

If you came across a abandon camp fire in the forest and the logs were nicely placed in a tee-pee arrangement and there were similarly sized and shaped round stones placed in a circle around the fire, would you be making an argument from ignorance to conclude this camp fire was created by a person as opposed to just happening by chance?

 

[Johnny]

BTW, ID is as much science as astrology is. Could it be right? I suppose. But there is no evidence that it is.

Michael Behe admitted that any definition of science that includes ID also includes astrology. But then later he tried to say he was referring to "astrology" in the classical sense meaning instead "astronomy". He got nailed on that one in court.

 

[Johnny]

If you came across a abandon camp fire in the forest and the logs were nicely placed in a tee-pee arrangement and there were similarly sized and shaped round stones placed in a circle around the fire, would you be making an argument from ignorance to conclude this camp fire was created by a person as opposed to just happening by chance?

That's an argument based on previous experience. You recognize that pattern as a human pattern.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I can't find my keys. God must have taken them.

Here's the simplest test I have for creationism (or it's recent alias ID). What would a person believe who had never read the bible or heard of biblical creation? Would they look at all the evidence for an ancient earth, the diversity of life, and the geologic strata, and conclude that it all happened in 6 days. I doubt it. Creationism exists because of the bible, nothing more.

You call that a good test????

Are you on crack???

I submit to you the exact opposite would occur.

If you had a person that was not exposed to either the Bible (creationism) or atheistic explanations of the origin of the earth I believe they would see the evidence for creation. So there!

Yet the bottom line is this "test" of yours isn't very relevant because we cannot conduct such a "test" so who really cares what either of us think the result would be? :kookoo:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

That's an argument based on previous experience. You recognize that pattern as a human pattern.

Why are you subsituting the would "design" with "pattern"? :chuckle:

 

[Mr. 5020]

Creationism exists because of the bible, nothing more.

So are you saying that only Christians believe in creationism??

 

[Nathon Detroit]

So are you saying that only Christians believe in creationism??

That is an amazing admission wouldn't you agree?

Especially since it's usually the unbeliever types that cry out that the stories of the Bible are borrowed from other religions and cultures.

 

[fool]

Ya think?

If you came across a abandon camp fire in the forest and the logs were nicely placed in a tee-pee arrangement and there were similarly sized and shaped round stones placed in a circle around the fire, would you be making an argument from ignorance to conclude this camp fire was created by a person as opposed to just happening by chance?

You would be making an argument from ignorance if you posited that it could only come from humans.

 

[Unbeliever]

You call that a good test????

Are you on crack???

I submit to you the exact opposite would occur.

If you had a person that was not exposed to either the Bible (creationism) or atheistic explanations of the origin of the earth I believe they would see the evidence for creation. So there!

Yet the bottom line is this "test" of yours isn't very relevant because we cannot conduct such a "test" so who really cares what either of us think the result would be? :kookoo:

I'm not on any drugs that I know of.

And yet that test has been conducted many times. Throughtout human history, societies that had no contact with the bible or Christianity had many different explanations for the creation of the earth. Why don't they follow the biblical account exactly? The world was there for them to see. They should have been surrounded by evidence of God's method of creation, right?

You believe in Creationism because that's what the bible says happened. If tomorrow there was evidence found that completely disproved evolution, I could accept that. Could you accept it if Creationism were proved wrong? No, don't answer. I already know what you would do because you've already done it. You'd cling to the biblical account of creation even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

 

[Mr. 5020]

That is an amazing admission wouldn't you agree?

Especially since it's usually the unbeliever types that cry out that the stories of the Bible are borrowed from other religions and cultures.

 

[Unbeliever]

So are you saying that only Christians believe in creationism??

In the biblical account, yes. Other beliefs have their own versions. Only science seems capable of looking at the evidence and deciding what's most likely to be true.

No system built entirely on faith can find the truth.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

You would be making an argument from ignorance if you posited that it could only come from humans.

:rotfl: