Refractor

It makes a big difference. A primary cause, for example, would be a person creating a car directly. The car's creation wouldn't exist if not for the direct effort of the person, and that person alone. A secondary cause would be akin to a mechanized assembly line at a car manufacturing factory where robotic devices are programmed to systematically create a car. The human engineers who created the mechanized assembly line would be the "primary" cause of the car's existence, whereas the robotic assembly line would be the "secondary" cause of the car's existence.

The same thing holds true with procreation vs. primary creation. Procreation is simply the continuation of a process that was set in motion long ago. But whoever, or whatever created that process and set it in motion would be the "primary" cause of creation.

No, because evolution is based on reproduction/procreation, which is a *secondary* process. There is a difference between creation, and procreation. There is difference between production, and reproduction. The difference is the former represents primary cause, whereas the latter represents secondary cause.


Yes there is. The reason is we have only seen intelligent designers as *primary* causes for the creation of complex systems. Reproduction/procreation is a complex system. Therefore, it most likely had an intelligent designer.

Even the simplest form of life, like single-cell organisms are very complex, especially compared to something as simplex as a molecule. Even under extremely controlled environments under the direct influence of scientists (intelligent designers), scientists are unable to manufacture a living organism out of the non-living, raw materials.

So the question is, why would we assume that mindless natural forces can accomplish what intelligent humans cannot?

Principia

I see. So a complex system that is achievable by human minds is a result of intelligent design. And a complex system that is not achievable by human minds is also a result of intelligent design. So tell us, what isn't a result of intelligent design?

Refractor

What wouldn't be the result of intelligent design is anything that lacks the attributes of intelligent design. The inherent attributes of intelligent design are - numerous, corroboratively integrated systems/subsystems, features, or structures that must co-exist within a macrosystem in order for that system to perform a *specific* function.

Magus55

Well, this is an interesting topic. The universe and the Earth is just too perfectly, and coincidentally in harmony to be by chance and without a designer.

For example. What ever possessed molecules to decide the only planet in our solar system that life can form on, will have a molten iron and nickel core, that produces an electromagnetic force that prevents a sun that is perfectly placed compared to the Earth from incinerating the planet?

What possessed molecules to create such an organized system of life and the universe? Universe > Galaxies > Stars > Solar Systems > Planets > (ecological systems like biomes, populations, communities etc.) > Organ systems > Organs > Tissues > Cells > Atoms > Protons, Neutrons, and Electrons. Molecules exploding from a center point haphazardly to form such an organized pyramid of design is rediculous, even according to some of the most brilliant scientists ever to live on this earth.

I mean, do you know how complex human systems are? How did molecules and evolution just happen to decide that for cells to respirate, they would have to go through glycolosis creating pyruvate, and krebs cycle, and the electron transport chain of repeating redox reactions. Or that cell membranes have proteins coded in them to allow perfectly specific materials to attach and enter the cell. Or reproduction, how 2 cells just happened to come together and cause a chain reaction that forms the most intelligent being in the known Universe.

There is nothing science can ever discover, than can explain these mind boggling questions. There is such minute detail in the universe that its incomprehensible to Humans, yet molecules did it on their own when they aren't even living.

The universe had to have an architect. Its irrational to say there isn't one. Matter exploding from a singular point to end up creating a design so incredibly complex as the human body, where humans don't even understand it fully is like putting a giant pile of wood and bricks on the ground, detonating the pile with TNT and having it form the White House.

Another

Drat, not interesting.....

simply another way of stating the "watchmaker" argument - just as flawed (sort of with an abiogenesis twist).

Isn't there anything novel ? If there was a creator, I'd appreciate a little spontaneous generation of something new and interesting. That this doesn't seem to happen may be telling.

Principia

Right, but that doesn't really explain to me why there exists non-intelligently designed things. For that matter, I don't see why intelligent design must result in things possessing attributes of intelligent design. Your logic is circular. Say I took a stone and with it I dig out a hole in the ground. Is this hole not intelligently designed?

Jinto

Right. And the specific function that humans perform is?

Actually, in case you were unaware of it, the simplest form of life is a molecule.

CALDONIA

The argument for Intelligent Design is the Trojan Horse with God hiding inside.

What is complexity? A log cabin or the White House? The Wright brothers' plane or the newest jet fighter? The sundial or the watch? These are material things that evolved.

By the way, must there be ONE Intelligent Designer or a thousand? Why?

lpetrich

Except, O Magus55, that the Universe has an abundance of capability for self-organization.

Look inside a refrigerator's freezer some time. Notice what happens as it gets frosted. Water condenses and freezes, making ice crystals. It gets more organization than what it originally had. Was there some little fairy that assembles water molecules into ice crystals?

Self-organization happens in many, many other places, as a direct consequence of the laws of physics; here is a summary of it over the history of the Universe:

Grand Unified Theory phase -> Standard Model of elementary particle physics (quarks, gluons, leptons, photons, W, Z, etc) in Big Bang

Quarks and gluons -> hadrons in Big Bang

Protons and neutrons -> H2, He3, and He4 nuclei in Big Bang

H and He nuclei + electrons -> H and He atoms in Big Bang

Hydrogen/helium clouds collapse, forming galaxies and the stars within them

Stars form heavier elements and spew them out

Heavier elements form planets from the leftover material from the formation of later generations of stars.

The Earth seems conveniently sized and positioned for life because of natural selection -- most other places in the Solar System would not allow life to form, with the possible exceptions of Mars and Europa.

And although our bodies are formidably complex systems, we have had numerous less-complex predecessors, and many present-day organisms survive just fine with a variety of lesser degrees of complexity.

We didn't originate all at once; evolution does not work by poofing things into existence from nowhere.

Advocatus Diaboli

There seems to be 100 billion galaxies (at least). Each galaxy has approx 100 billion stars. But, since there seems to be life on only one planet, everything was created for homo sapiens. Makes sense...