pseudobug

dismissing the creation of a wildebeast from "leftover parts" is logically more difficult than dismissing the blowing of breath on dirt to create a person.

The former is theoretically possible. The latter is simply horse manure. :lol

Oolon Colluphid

Hiya Theo

I bumped <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000801" target="_blank">this thread</a> for your attention, but it's dropped down again. Since you've mentioned 'design' (albeit colloquially, perhaps), I'd be really interested for your comments on it.

Basically, this 'poofing' god is supposed to have done... were the organisms just random arrangements of bits? Of course not, because the vast majority of random arrangements would be dead things. Therefore, there was (under creationism) a mind behind the arrangements -- they were designed. Therefore again, it is extremely odd that so many intricate designs are found in nature, yet the designer capable of these intricacies also made so many cock-ups, basic flaws and irrelevancies in the designs. See the thread for details.

I look forward to your input.

Cheers, Oolon

Tabula_rasa

Hi scigirl,

I will grant you that design is a term with multiple meanings. English doesn't always allow for the conveyance of subtle distinctive uses of words. However, I would be hard pressed to agree that GeoTheo uses the term design in the same manner that scientists use it.

I will therefore clarify my statement and get to what I believe GeoTheo intended for his usage of the term design. If this is incorrect, GeoTheo should be capable of correcting me.

GeoTheo, please provide any evidence that DNA (prior to human manipulation) was designed by an intelligent agent.

Thanks,
Tabula_rasa

GeoTheo

Do you mean "With the assumption that the Universe is a closed field of cause and effect, prove that DNA is designed by a creator, keeping in mind that you must prove the existence of such a creator with empirical evidence."?

Tabula_rasa

I am not asking you to provide empirical evidence for the existence of a creator. No such physical evidence exists, and I believe that you would reasonably agree with that.

You are being asked to provide factual evidence that DNA has been created by such a being. The smoking gun, as it were. A trademark or blueprints might be a good start. I'll leave it to you to decide what evidence to present. This would all have to be independently verified, of course.

Please note, however, that responding with a list of issues that science may currently not have an answer for does not constitute evidence for an Intelligent Design hypothesis. It doesn't even constitute evidence against evolution, per se. It just means that research in the given area (e.g., bacterial flagellum) wasn't deemed a priority for very scarce research dollars. When the answers do come along, there will be a tremendous amount of backtracking on the part of Dembski, Behe and the Wedger's followed by a lot of scrambling to find another gap.

Hopefuly this answers your question.

Tabula_rasa

GeoTheo

There is no way to prove that without having knowledge of the designer. Its intent, personality character etc.

scigirl

So, please explain to me how you go about getting knowledge of this designer.

In another thread you seem to make a distinction (or maybe we all do) between naturalistic and non-naturalistic phenomenon.

But in my view, as soon as something becomes real to us, than it is all of a sudden real in the naturalistic sense.

For example, perhaps God is outside of science or our senses.

But I percieve him talking to me. Perception of things (anything - real or imagined) has a biological cause and explanation.

Or. . . God inspires me to write a book. That book, each word, is now a naturalistic, materialistic "thing" that we could perhaps apply scientific principles to.

How do we objectively study a creator? Please tell me how.

scigirl

MrDarwin

I believe the "intelligent design" movement has failed miserably because they have failed to prove, or even support, the "intelligent" part. I do think we have to admit up front that there is a design to life. But knowing what we do about the design of life, we have no reason to believe that the designer was/is self-aware, conscious, capable of intent, least of all intelligent.

In fact, we actually do know something about the designer. And it is that the designer is not a conscious or intelligent entity, it is a process: evolution.

Tabula_rasa

You are confusing the issue here. I never asked you to prove anything. I asked you for evidence that points to an intelligent agent as being the creator of DNA. Point to anything made by humans and I can find forensic evidence that would show that it was produced by a human. If ID wants to be taken seriously it needs to provide forensic evidence.

MOJO-JOJO

Btw, GeoTheo, before you can posit a christian explanation of origins, you folks really need to come up with an agreed upon doctrine of what you really believe happened and why. It seems that even the "more knowledgeable" amongst you (and I use the term loosely) would argue against your position;

<a href="http://www.reasons.org/kidsspace/dinocave.html?main" target="_blank">Dr. Ross' Thoughts</a>