Intelligent Design or Natural Evolution

[Guyver]

Psalm 145

All your works shall praise You, O Lord, and Your saints shall bless you. They shall speak of the glory of Your kingdom, and talk of Your power, to make known to the sons of men His mighty acts, and the glorious majesty of His kingdom. Your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and Your dominion endures throughout all generations.

The world we live in..chance or design? From the vastness of the universe (almost inconceivable really) to the inherent complexity of the smallest cell – amazing! The world is filled with wonder and pain. Let’s focus on the wonder for this thread.

I like science. I respect the scientific method. I’ll define the scientific method as..

Observation

Hypothesis

Data Collection

Testing

An additional aspect of scientific analysis is falsifiability. It is said that something that’s not falsifiable is not scientific. OK – fine. Does that mean that something that’s not falsifiable is not real or true? There are things that don’t lend themselves well to the scientific method that we all accept as true; like love and hate.

The world we live in is perfect for life; not just life, but intelligent life. Recent scientific investigation reveals the “specialness” of our planet. In their recent book and accompanying dvd The Privileged Planet, scientists have identified twenty parameters necessary for life.

These twenty parameters can be extrapolated to the entire universe, as the laws of physics are the same. They include; distance from the sun (Goldilock’s zone), liquid water, oxygen rich atmosphere, large moon, spectral type star, terrestrial planet, iron core, tectonic activity, crust regeneration, and many others. Not only do all twenty parameters have to exist for intelligent life to occur, but they have to work together at just the right time. The chance of all these parameters coming together to allow for intelligent life is one in 10 to the negative fifteen or; 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000. At this time we live on the only planet in the universe known to encompass all these necessary parameters. That is amazing! The chances of us being here are magnitudes less than the chances of winning the lottery. Chance or design? This concludes part one.

Edited February 26, 2010 by Guyver

[MARAB0D]

It is interesting to know whom exactly around yourself you call "intelligent life" and what are the fruits of their intelligence? Starting such thread with a psalm completely eliminate any need to express opinions in it. You already have all your answers - isn't this perfect?

[Guyver]

Part Two – The Smallest Unit

As vast and almost inconceivable as the universe is… equally impressive is the smallest unit of life – the cell. Charles Darwin was an intelligent man; and like so many great scientists before him; his ideas have stood the test of time. His theories on natural selection remain the driving force behind evolution. The interesting thing is that Darwin had almost no knowledge of the cell. I mean…sheez…electron microscopes weren’t even available then. He did have some musings about how primitive life may have evolved in a primordial “pond.”

The cell, and its internal components are nothing short of completely amazing. The cell is like a highly organized and extremely efficient miniature “factory” operating at an incredible rate of efficiency. The reality is…the cell is a miniature factory – literally.

How did the cell arise? What caused the first cell to form? How could the first cell have replicated? How could the first “populations” of cells have evolved into more complex forms? These are the essential questions that must be addressed when considering whether or not or world, and even our very existence is designed, or random.

Consider this for a moment.

Let’s say that when Jacob Roggeveen first discovered Easter Island in 1722 there were no inhabitants. As he first viewed those megaliths, what would he have thought? Would he have assumed that those huge stone structures were the result of powerful forces of erosion? Or, would he have immediately recognized that there was some intelligence and design behind their creation?

The obvious design of something so simple as stone carvings was immediately recognizable. Now, we have structures comprising each of us, a hundred billion times more complex than the simplest stone carving, yet many fail to recognize the signature of the divine in this order.

To be continued.

[Guyver]

It is interesting to know whom exactly around yourself you call "intelligent life" and what are the fruits of their intelligence? Starting such thread with a psalm completely eliminate any need to express opinions in it. You already have all your answers - isn't this perfect?

God first Marabod. If it's good enough for Roy, it's good enough for me.

[Guyver]

Now, lets go back 4.6 billion years to the time when our planet was formed, and consider how the first populations of cells could have formed so that natural selection could have begun the process of developing complex life. Wait…..GREAT BALLS OF FIRE…. we cant go back that far because thats what our planet was…a great ball of fire!

OK, that doesnt work. Lets go back to the time of the creation of the earth-moon system. That is one of the necessary parameters for intelligent life to exist. Now, lets open the door for differing opinions. The only peer reviewed paper that I know of regarding the formation of the earth-moon system dates it at 1.6 billion years ago. Please feel free to offer other evidence that dates the formation of the earth moon system.

Whatever the time frame, lets allow for the cooling of the planet and the stabilization of the earth-moon system. At some point in time, conditions must have been just right to allow for the formation of primitive cells. So, how did life begin?

I would like to offer the opinion of the man who wrote the book on chemical evolution literally. In the late 70s a world-renown scientist and his partner, wrote a book on how the first primitive cells could have evolved. The book was entitled, Biochemical Predestination, and the author was one Dr. Dean Kenyan. This book was widely received by the scientific community as it offered a natural explanation for how molecular evolution could have occurred in the first primitive cells.

A few years after the publishing of this book, Dr. Kenyan was asked a question by a student that his theory couldnt explain. This caused him to re-think the conclusions that he had published. After much deliberation, and current discoveries in the field of molecular biology, Dr. Kenyan had to recant his findings. After further study, this is what he had to say about biochemical evolution.

Amino acids do not have the ability to organize themselves in a meaningful way. We have not the slightest chance of a chemical evolutionary origin for even the simplest of cells, so the concept of the intelligent design of life was immensely attractive to me, and it made a great deal of sense as it very closely matched the multiple discoveries of molecular biology.

Dr. Kenyan rejected the notion of biochemical evolution as a basis for the formation of the first population of cells.

I would like to quote another scientist, one Stephen Meyer. Without dna, there is no self replication, but without self replication there is no natural selection. So you cannot use natural selection to explain the origin of dna without assuming the existence of the very thing youre trying to explain.

DNA is the key to life. DNA is genetic information. DNA is the instructions that allows the formation of life. Without DNA, there is no intelligent life. DNA is the most compact and complex thing in the universe. It could not have formed randomly or by chance; DNA is the evidence of intelligent design.

Edited February 26, 2010 by Guyver

[Guyver]

An explanation that fits nicely with what is currently known about evolution is this....

God created the intitial populations.

Coincidentally, this explanation fits perfectly with that ancient book of wisdom, written in language that all could understand.....THE BIBLE.

I rest.

Edited February 26, 2010 by Guyver

[Beckys_Mom]

God first Marabod. If it's good enough for Roy, it's good enough for me.

Not for me.god isnt 1st... for me my child always comes 1st, even over god... I am responsible for her and have to worry 24/7, its my job... as for god, I dont have to care for him 24/7 and I dont have to worry about him either!!As you mentioned Roy.. I figured as Roy puts god 1st over everything regardless the topic..

Above is a serious post ..just incase you think its likewise LOL

Edited February 26, 2010 by Beckys_Mom

[Beckys_Mom]

Part Two – The Smallest Unit

As vast and almost inconceivable as the universe is… equally impressive is the smallest unit of life – the cell. Charles Darwin was an intelligent man; and like so many great scientists before him; his ideas have stood the test of time. His theories on natural selection remain the driving force behind evolution. The interesting thing is that Darwin had almost no knowledge of the cell. I mean…sheez…electron microscopes weren't even available then. He did have some musings about how primitive life may have evolved in a primordial "pond."

The cell, and its internal components are nothing short of completely amazing. The cell is like a highly organized and extremely efficient miniature "factory" operating at an incredible rate of efficiency. The reality is…the cell is a miniature factory – literally.

How did the cell arise? What caused the first cell to form? How could the first cell have replicated? How could the first "populations" of cells have evolved into more complex forms? These are the essential questions that must be addressed when considering whether or not or world, and even our very existence is designed, or random.

Consider this for a moment.

Let's say that when Jacob Roggeveen first discovered Easter Island in 1722 there were no inhabitants. As he first viewed those megaliths, what would he have thought? Would he have assumed that those huge stone structures were the result of powerful forces of erosion? Or, would he have immediately recognized that there was some intelligence and design behind their creation?

The obvious design of something so simple as stone carvings was immediately recognizable. Now, we have structures comprising each of us, a hundred billion times more complex than the simplest stone carving, yet many fail to recognize the signature of the divine in this order.

To be continued.

Any chance of posting the sources of these articles Guyver? Cheers

[Guyver]

Any chance of posting the sources of these articles Guyver? Cheers

I quoted the source from part one; The Privileged Planet.

The quotes from the Dr.s Kenyan and Meyer came from this.

http://www.illustramedia.com/umolinfo.htm

Everything else came out of my head.

[Mattshark]

An explanation that fits nicely with what is currently known about evolution is this....

God created the intitial populations.

Coincidentally, this explanation fits perfectly with that ancient book of wisdom, written in language that all could understand.....THE BIBLE.

I rest.

But any explanation that rests on conjecture is inherently a very weak one.

[JamieSymptom]

I think Guyver is the source of the text.

Googling large chunks of the prose doesn't turn up any prior source.

Guyver - Saying the cell is the smallest constituent of life is not accurate in my opinion. Atoms, and the physical and chemical processes that bind them into cells is more of a starting point. As far as I understand it RNA was around first and DNA evolved from it later? If that is accurate, would your view be that the Intelligent Designer is responsible for DNA, but not RNA or any of the chemical pre-cursors?

I read a good book called The Beautiful Basics Of Science by Natalie Angiers that explains a lot of this, I don't see how it is anything which points to intelligent design.

[Emma_Acid]

The world we live in..chance or design? From the vastness of the universe (almost inconceivable really) to the inherent complexity of the smallest cell – amazing! The world is filled with wonder and pain. Let’s focus on the wonder for this thread.

I wouldn't say it was filled with "wonder and pain". Sex and struggle perhaps.

Either way, I think its a bit of a misdirection to be talking about "chance or design". In terms of "chance", given the enormous size of the universe, the number of planets within it, and the abundance of elements needed for life, the chance of life appearing is pretty much certain - even if those planets are only 1 in thousands of millions.

So, the appearance of life isn't surprising, and neither is the appearance of complex life. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics takes care of this.

As for "design", there is no evidence of it. I have said this before: complexity is not the sign of design, it is the sign of unintelligent, generational adaptation.

Simplicity is the sign of intelligent design.

I like science. I respect the scientific method. I’ll define the scientific method as..

Observation

Hypothesis

Data Collection

Testing

You must also be able to back the theory up with evidence from more than one source, and it must be repeatable in any suitable laboratory, by anyone.

An additional aspect of scientific analysis is falsifiability. It is said that something that’s not falsifiable is not scientific. OK – fine. Does that mean that something that’s not falsifiable is not real or true? There are things that don’t lend themselves well to the scientific method that we all accept as true; like love and hate.

First off, something that isn't falsifiable isn't "true" - this has no real meaning in this argument. Something that isn't falsifiable isn't a theory. Like God.

Love and hate have nothing to do with scientific method. Love and hate are explainable by chemical reactions, which can be explained through scientific method, but this is different.

The chance of all these parameters coming together to allow for intelligent life is one in 10 to the negative fifteen or; 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000. At this time we live on the only planet in the universe known to encompass all these necessary parameters. That is amazing! The chances of us being here are magnitudes less than the chances of winning the lottery.

But given the size and age of the universe, life is pretty much a given. If we kept a medieval mindset and only looked at our solar system, yeah, we're pretty lucky. But the chance of there being more planets like ours is a cert.

And the lottery comparison completely falls down - you seem to be comparing our existence here to be like someone playing the lottery. But our existence here is like someone who's already won it. Saying to a lottery winner "you can't have won, the chances are too small" doesn't make any sense when the money is already in their account.

Can you see what I'm getting at here? We are no longer at the mercy of "chance". There is a tiny chance of a planet being in the right place at the right time for life, and a tiny tiny tiny percentage of the planets in the universe achieve this - but that's still a huge amount of planets, and we're not one that is still being formed out of gas and rock, waiting for its lottery numbers to come up.

Edited February 26, 2010 by Emma_Acid

[The Silver Thong]

Hmmm looks to a 102 page thread asking for scientific proof of creation.................. yup still the same. None!

[Guyver]

Guyver - Saying the cell is the smallest constituent of life is not accurate in my opinion. Atoms, and the physical and chemical processes that bind them into cells is more of a starting point. As far as I understand it RNA was around first and DNA evolved from it later? If that is accurate, would your view be that the Intelligent Designer is responsible for DNA, but not RNA or any of the chemical pre-cursors?

Atoms and chemicals are the building blocks or raw materials for more complex forms but they are not "living." They are like logs that form a cabin. They need instructions and force to organize themselves in meaningful ways. RNA is formed during transcription of DNA.

[+Link of Hyrule]

Responding solely to the Title of the thread - "Intelligent Design or Natural Evolution", I am happy to lean back on Intelligent Design. That is to say, evolution is the process which brought us to this stage in our existence, but behind this was a divine creator who has been guiding this process - thus an "intelligence" behind our "design".

However, it has been my experience that a lot of the time that "Intelligent Design" is mentioned, it is simply a re-badged form of Creationism, denying evolution and insisting that seven-day, young-earth creationism be put on a pedestal and taught equally in a science classroom. If this is the case, then I cannot agree. And being totally honest, after reading the first few posts from the thread starter, I tend to think that this is not so much an "Intelligent Design" thread, so much as it is a "Creationism vs Evolution" thread.

*cue dozens of pages of arguing without result, ad nauseum*

Edited February 26, 2010 by Paranoid Android

[JamieSymptom]

Atoms and chemicals are the building blocks or raw materials for more complex forms but they are not "living." They are like logs that form a cabin. They need instructions and force to organize themselves in meaningful ways. RNA is formed during transcription of DNA.

My understanding is that early cells did not have DNA, but had RNA, and that DNA evolved from RNA, which is still used by cells. Some cells still do not have DNA, I believe.

The forces that organise atoms into cells are physical and chemical. Still don't see the need for a designer.

I need to check what I'm saying is technically correct tho, I have to rush now, will be back at some time.

[Emma_Acid]

Responding solely to the Title of the thread - "Intelligent Design or Natural Evolution", I am happy to lean back on Intelligent Design. That is to say, evolution is the process which brought us to this stage in our existence, but behind this was a divine creator who has been guiding this process - thus an "intelligence" behind our "design".

But it isn't needed, and poses more unanswerable questions than it would ever answer - all for the sake of keeping people who need to believe in iron age mythology happy.

[Leonardo]

But any explanation that rests on conjecture is inherently a very weak one.

Playing Devil's Advocate (a very apt title, I think) here for a minute, Matt.

What is the exact limit of genetic difference between species?

i.e. How different, exactly, do two populations have to be to be classified as different species?

[+Link of Hyrule]

But it isn't needed, and poses more unanswerable questions than it would ever answer - all for the sake of keeping people who need to believe in iron age mythology happy.

Hi Emma,

I don't recall ever bringing up a particular brand of "god" in my post. Thus iron-age mythology has nothing to do with what I wrote. True, my own beliefs are Christian, but there are plenty of people who believe in a creator that don't believe in the Christian God and then look at evolution and conclude that behind this process a creator was involved guiding the process. My comments thus move far beyond simply "keeping people who need to believe in iron age mythology happy" (as you put it).

Evolution is a process - it can only tell us about how the diversity of species came to be what it is today. It cannot tell us anything about our origins or the creation of the universe (abiogenesis, Big Bang, etc). These require different branches of study, and not all of them are scientific in nature. To use evolution beyond its means is to start making evolution more than just another branch of scientific study.

~ Regards, PA

[FurthurBB]

An explanation that fits nicely with what is currently known about evolution is this....

God created the intitial populations.

Coincidentally, this explanation fits perfectly with that ancient book of wisdom, written in language that all could understand.....THE BIBLE.

I rest.

I know of no god/gods/goddesses that fit nicely with what is currently known about anything, let alone evolution. Furthermore, I am thoroughly convinced that if any deity exists the reality of it could not be further from the ideas in the bible.

[+Link of Hyrule]

i.e. How different, exactly, do two populations have to be to be classified as different species?

Well I do remember watching an episode of "QI" (for any UK readers, you probably know this show more than others) that suggested that humans share 22% (or thereabouts) of the exact same genetic structure as a potato.......

Go back far enough, we might find a common ancestor between us - one of us happened to branch off into living sentience, the other in to vegetation....

[FurthurBB]

Playing Devil's Advocate (a very apt title, I think) here for a minute, Matt.

What is the exact limit of genetic difference between species?

i.e. How different, exactly, do two populations have to be to be classified as different species?

The difference must only be great enough to prevent breeding or a viable offspring if breeding is possible.

[Leonardo]

Well I do remember watching an episode of "QI" (for any UK readers, you probably know this show more than others) that suggested that humans share 22% (or thereabouts) of the exact same genetic structure as a potato.......

That is one reason I won't undertake DNA profiling, PA. I don't want that 22% figure to increase!!

FurtherBB,

The difference must only be great enough to prevent breeding or a viable offspring if breeding is possible.

I appreciate that populations have to be genetically different to be classified different species, but how different?

Not some conjecture such as, "As different as they have to be", but a figure. Something testable, repeatable, etc.

Edited February 26, 2010 by Leonardo

[+Link of Hyrule]

That is one reason I won't undertake DNA profiling, PA. I don't want that 22% figure to increase!!

That just made my evening, Leo. I think I can go to bed quietly chuckling all the way now.....

Thanks, my friend. Care for some Smiths Crisps for your afternoon snack, lol?

Edited February 26, 2010 by Paranoid Android

[Mattshark]

Playing Devil's Advocate (a very apt title, I think) here for a minute, Matt.

What is the exact limit of genetic difference between species?

i.e. How different, exactly, do two populations have to be to be classified as different species?

I couldn't tell you, but if they can't produce viable offspring, I think then that classification will come in.