Defending the Christian Worlview, Creationism, and Intelligent Design
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
Defending the Christian Worlview, Creationism, and Intelligent Design

This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to the Christian faith, creationism, and Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, and biodiversity


You are not connected. Please login or register

Defending the Christian Worlview, Creationism, and Intelligent Design » Intelligent Design » How to recognize the signature of (past) intelligent action

How to recognize the signature of (past) intelligent action

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Otangelo


Admin
How to recognize the signature of (past) intelligent actions

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2805-how-to-recognize-the-signature-of-past-intelligent-action

Contrasting and comparing "intended" versus "accidental" arrangements leads us to the notion of design.


Stephen C. Meyer, The God hypothesis, page 190:
Systems, sequences, or events that exhibit two characteristics at the same time—extreme improbability and a special kind of pattern called a “specification”—indicate prior intelligent activity. According to Dembski, extremely improbable events that also exhibit “an independently recognizable pattern” or set of functional requirements, what he calls a “specification,” invariably result from intelligent causes, not chance or physical-chemical laws

Think about the faces on Mt. Rushmore in South Dakota. If you look at that famous mountain you will quickly recognize the faces of the American presidents inscribed there as the product of intelligent activity. Why? What about those faces indicates that an artisan or sculptor acted to produce them? You might want to say it’s the improbability of the shapes. By contrast, we would not be inclined to infer that an intelligent agent had played a role in forming, for example, the common V-shaped erosional pattern between two mountains produced by large volumes of water. Instead, the faces on the mountain qualify as extremely improbable structures, since they contain many detailed features that natural processes do not generally produce. Certainly, wind and erosion, for example, would be unlikely to produce the recognizable faces of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Roosevelt.

With the extreme fine-tuning of the fundamental physical parameters, physicists have discovered a phenomenon that exhibits precisely the two criteria—extreme improbability and functional specification—that in our experience invariably indicate the activity of a designing mind.

If a designing intelligence established the physical parameters of the universe, such an intelligence could well have selected a propitious, finely tuned set. Thus, the cosmological fine tuning seems more expected given the activity of a designing mind, than it does given a random or mindless process. 


We have extensive experience-based knowledge of the kinds of strategies and systems that designing minds devise to solve various kinds of functional problems. We also know a lot about the kinds of phenomena that various natural causes produce. For this reason, the theory of intelligent design makes predictions about the kinds of features we are likely to find in living systems if they were in fact intelligently designed.

A physical system is composed of a specific distribution of matter: a machine, a car, a clock. When we describe it, and quantify its size, structure, motions, annotate the materials used, that description contains information. When we arrange and distribute materials in a certain way for intended means, we can produce things for specific purposes and call it design. Thus, when we see a physical system and discern the arrangement of its parts having intentional functions, we call it designed.  The question thus is, when we see things in nature with purpose and appear designed, ARE they indeed the product of intentional design ? How can random, nonliving matter produce structures of mind-boggling organizational intricacies at the molecular level that leave us in awe,  so sophisticated that our most advanced technology seems pale by comparison? How can a rational, honest person analyze these systems, and say they emerged by chance? These organic structures present us with a degree of complexity that we cannot explain stochastically by unguided means. Everything we know tells us that machines, production lines, computers, energy generating turbines, are structures of intelligent design. The cooperation and interdependent action of proteins and co-factors in cells is stupendous and depends on very specific controlled and arranged mechanisms, precise allosteric binding sites, and finely-tuned forces. Accidents do not design machines. Intellect does.

Intelligence leaves behind a characteristic signature. The action or signature of an intelligent designer can be detected when we see :

1. Implementing things based on regular behavior, order, mathematical rules, laws, principles, physical constants, and logic gates

2. Something purposefully and intentionally developed and made to accomplish a specific goal(s). That includes specifically the generation and making of building blocks, energy, and information.  If an arrangement of parts is
1) perceptible by a reasonable person as having a purpose and 2) can be used for the perceived purpose then its purpose was correctly perceived and it was designed by an intelligent mind.

3. Repeating a variety of complex actions with precision based on methods that obey instructions, governed by rules.

4. An instructional complex blueprint (bauplan) or protocol to make objects ( machines, factories, houses, cars, etc.) which are irreducible complex, integrated, and an interdependent system or artifact composed of several interlocked, well-matched hierarchically arranged systems of parts contributing to a higher end of a complex system that would be useful only in the completion of that much larger system. The individual subsystems and parts are neither self-sufficient, and their origin cannot be explained individually, since, by themselves, they would be useless. The cause must be intelligent and with foresight, because the unity transcends every part, and thus must have been conceived as an idea, because, by definition, only an idea can hold together elements without destroying or fusing their distinctness. An idea cannot exist without a creator, so there must be an intelligent mind.

5. Artifacts which use might be employed in different systems ( a wheel is used in cars and airplanes )

6. Things that are precisely adjusted and finely-tuned to perform specific functions and purposes

7. Arrangement of materials and elements into details, colors, forms to produce an object or work of art able to transmit the sense of beauty, elegance, that pleases the aesthetic senses, especially the sight.

8. Establishing a language, code, communication, and information transmission system, that is 1. A language, 2. the information (message) produced upon that language, the 3 .information storage mechanism ( a hard disk, paper, etc.), 4. an information transmission system, that is: encoding - sending and decoding) and eventually fifth, sixth, and seventh ( not essential): translation, conversion, and transduction

9. Any scheme where instructional information governs, orchestrates, guides, and controls the performance of actions of constructing, creating, building, and operating. That includes operations and actions as adapting, choreographing, communicating, controlling product quality, coordinating, cutting, duplicating, elaborating strategies, engineering, error checking and detecting, and minimizing, expressing, fabricating, fine-tuning, foolproof, governing, guiding, implementing, information processing, interpreting, interconnecting, intermediating, instructing, logistic organizing, managing, monitoring, optimizing, orchestrating, organizing, positioning, monitoring and managing of quality, regulating, recruiting, recognizing, recycling, repairing, retrieving, shuttling, separating, self-destructing, selecting, signaling, stabilizing, storing, translating, transcribing, transmitting, transporting, waste managing.

10. Designed objects exhibit “constrained optimization.” The optimal or best-designed laptop computer is the one that is the best balance and compromise of multiple competing factors.

1. Paul Davies: The universe is governed by dependable, immutable, absolute, universal, mathematical laws of an unspecified origin.
Eugene Wigner: The mathematical underpinning of nature "is something bordering on the mysterious and there is no rational explanation for it.
Richard Feynman: Why nature is mathematical is a mystery...The fact that there are rules at all is a kind of miracle.
Albert Einstein: How can it be that mathematics, being, after all, a product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality?
Max Tegmark: Nature is clearly giving us hints that the universe is mathematical.

2. Proteins have specific purpose and function through co-factors and apo-proteins ( lock and key). Cells are interlocked irreducible factories where a myriad of proteins work together to self sustain and perpetuate life. To replicate, reproduce, adapt, grow, remain organized, store, and use the information to control metabolism, homeostasis, development, and change. A lifeless Rock has no goal, has no specific shape or form for a specific function, but is random, and the forms of stones and mountains come in all chaotic shapes, sizes, and physicochemical arrangements, and there is no goal-oriented interaction between one rock and another, no interlocking mechanical interaction.

3. A variety of biological events are performed in a repetitive manner, described in biomechanics, obeying complex biochemical and biomechanical signals. Those include, for example, cell migration, cell motility, traction force generation, protrusion forces, stress transmission, mechanosensing and mechanotransduction, mechanochemical coupling in biomolecular motors, synthesis, sorting, storage, and transport of biomolecules

4. In living cells, information is encoded through at least 30 genetic, and almost 30 epigenetic codes that form various sets of rules and languages. They are transmitted through a variety of means, that is the cell cilia as the center of communication, microRNA's influencing cell function, the nervous system, the system synaptic transmission, neuromuscular transmission, transmission b/w nerves & body cells, axons as wires, the transmission of electrical impulses by nerves between brain & receptor/target cells, vesicles, exosomes, platelets, hormones, biophotons, biomagnetism, cytokines and chemokines, elaborate communication channels related to the defense of microbe attacks, nuclei as modulators-amplifiers. These information transmission systems are essential for keeping all biological functions, that is organismal growth and development, metabolism, regulating nutrition demands, controlling reproduction, homeostasis, constructing biological architecture, complexity, form, controlling organismal adaptation, change, regeneration/repair, and promoting survival.

5. There are a variety of organisms, unrelated to each other, which encounter nearly identical convergent biological systems. This commonness makes little sense in light of evolutionary theory. If evolution is indeed responsible for the diversity of life, one would expect convergence to be extremely rare. Some convergent systems are bat echolocation in bats, oilbirds, and dolphins, cephalopod eye structure, similar to the vertebrate eye, an extraordinary similarity of the visual systems of sand lance (fish) and chameleon (reptile). Both the chameleon and the sand lance move their eyes independent of one another in a jerky manner, rather than in concert. Chameleons share their ballistic tongues with salamanders and sand lace fish.

6. The initial conditions of the universe, subatomic particles, the Big Bang, the fundamental forces of the universe, the Solar System, the earth, and the moon, are finely tuned to permit life. Over 150 fine-tuning parameters are known. Even in biology, we find fine-tuning, like Watson-Crick base-pairing, cellular signaling pathways, photosynthesis, etc.

7. “I declare this world is so beautiful that I can hardly believe it exists.” I doubt someone would disagree with Ralph Waldo Emerson. Why should we expect beauty to emerge from randomness? If we are merely atoms in motion, the result of purely unguided processes, with no mind or thought behind us, then why should we expect to encounter beauty in the natural world, and the ability to recognize beauty, and distinguish it from ugliness? Beauty is a reasonable expectation if we are the product of design by a designer who appreciates beauty and the things that bring joy.

8. In the alphabet of the three-letter word found in cell biology are the organic bases, which are adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C), and thymine (T). It is the triplet recipe of thesebases that make up the ‘dictionary’ we call in molecular biology genetic code. The codal system enables the transmission of genetic information to be codified, which at the molecular level, is conveyed through genes. Pelagibacter ubique is one the smallest self-replicating free-living cells, has a genome size of 1,3 million base pairs which codes for about 1,300 proteins. The genetic information is sent through communication channels that permit encoding, sending, and decoding, done by over 25 extremely complex molecular machine systems, which do as well error check and repair to maintain genetic stability, and minimizing replication, transcription and translation errors, and permit organisms to pass accurately genetic information to their offspring, and survive.

9. Science has unraveled, that cells, strikingly, are cybernetic, ingeniously crafted cities full of factories. Cells contain information, which is stored in genes (books), and libraries (chromosomes). Cells have superb, fully automated information classification, storage, and retrieval programs ( gene regulatory networks ) which orchestrate strikingly precise and regulated gene expression. Cells also contain hardware - a masterful information-storage molecule ( DNA ) - and software, more efficient than millions of alternatives ( the genetic code ) - ingenious information encoding, transmission, and decoding machinery ( RNA polymerase, mRNA, the Ribosome ) - and highly robust signaling networks ( hormones and signaling pathways ) - awe-inspiring error check and repair systems of data ( for example mind-boggling Endonuclease III which error checks and repairs DNA through electric scanning ). Information systems, which prescribe, drive, direct, operate, and control interlinked compartmentalized self-replicating cell factory parks that perpetuate and thrive life. Large high-tech multimolecular robotlike machines ( proteins ) and factory assembly lines of striking complexity ( fatty acid synthase, non-ribosomal peptide synthase ) are interconnected into functional large metabolic networks. In order to be employed at the right place, once synthesized, each protein is tagged with an amino acid sequence, and clever molecular taxis ( motor proteins dynein, kinesin, transport vesicles ) load and transport them to the right destination on awe-inspiring molecular highways ( tubulins, actin filaments ). All this, of course, requires energy. Responsible for energy generation are high-efficiency power turbines ( ATP synthase )- superb power generating plants ( mitochondria ) and electric circuits ( highly intricate metabolic networks ). When something goes havoc, fantastic repair mechanisms are ready in place. There are protein folding error check and repair machines ( chaperones), and if molecules become non-functional, advanced recycling methods take care ( endocytic recycling ) - waste grinders and management ( Proteasome Garbage Grinders )

The (past) action or signature of an intelligent designer can be detected when we see all the above things. These things are all actions either pre-programmed by intelligence in order to be performed autonomously, or done so directly by intelligence.

10. The initial conditions of the universe, subatomic particles, the Big Bang, the fundamental forces of the universe, the Solar System, the earth and the moon, are finely tuned to permit life. Over 150 fine-tuning parameters are known.

One hundred years ago a Scientific American article about the history and large-scale structure of the universe would have been almost completely wrong. In 1908 scientists thought our galaxy constituted the entire universe. They considered it an “island universe,” an isolated cluster of stars surrounded by an infinite void. We now know that our galaxy is one of more than 400 billion galaxies in the observable universe. In 1908 the scientific consensus was that the universe was static and eternal. The beginning of the universe in a fiery big bang was not even remotely suspected. The synthesis of elements in the first few moments of the big bang and inside the cores of stars was not understood. The expansion of space and its possible curvature in response to the matter was not dreamed of. Recognition of the fact that all of space is bathed in radiation, providing a ghostly image of the cool afterglow of creation, would have to await the development of modern technologies designed not to explore eternity but to allow humans to phone home.

Besides special revelation, the teleological argument provides a foremost rational justification for belief in God. If successful, then theists can justify supernatural creation, Ex-nihilo.

We must know what we are looking for before we can know we have found it. We cannot discover what cannot be defined. Before the action of ( past ) intelligent design in nature can be inferred, it must be defined how the signature of intelligent agents can be recognized. As long as the existence of a pre-existing intelligent conscious mind beyond the universe is not logically impossible, special acts of God (miracles and creation) are possible and should/could eventually be identifiable.

What do we mean when we say “design? The word “design” is intimately entangled with the ideas of intention, creativity, mind, and intelligence. To create is to produce through imaginative skill, or to bring into existence through a course of action. A design is usually thought of as the product of goal-directed intelligent, creative effort.

An underlying scheme that governs functioning, developing, or unfolding pattern and motif <the general design of the epic>

Creation is evidence of a Creator. But not everybody ( is willing ) to see it.
Romans 1.19 - 23 What may be known about God is plain to them because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.





https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2805-how-to-recognize-the-signature-of-past-intelligent-action

When we say something is “designed,” we mean it was created intentionally and planned for a purpose. Designed objects are fashioned by intelligent agents who have a goal in mind, and their creations reflect the purpose for which they were created. We infer the existence of an intelligent designer by observing certain effects that are habitually associated with conscious activity. Rational agents often detect the prior activity of other designing minds by the character of the effects they leave behind. A machine is made for specific goals and organized, given that the operation of each part is dependent on it being properly arranged with respect to every other part, and to the system as a whole. Encoded messages and instructional blueprints indicate an intelligent source. And so does apply mathematical principles and logic gates.  

Argument: There is no empirical proof of God's existence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Answer: There is no empirical proof of God's existence. But there is neither, that the known universe, the natural physical material world is all there is. The burden of proof cannot be met on both sides.  Consequently, the right response does not need an empirical demonstration of God's existence but we can elaborate philosophical inferences to either affirm or deny the existence of a creator based on circumstantial evidence, logic, and reason.

The first question to answer is not which God, but what cause and mechanism best explain our existence. There are basically just two options. Either there is a God/Creator, or not. Either a creative conscious intelligent supernatural powerful agency above the natural world acted and was involved, or not. That's it.  All answers can be divided into these two basic options, worldviews, and categories.

Design can be tested using scientific logic.  How? Upon the logic of mutual exclusion, design and non-design are mutually exclusive( it was one or the other) so we can use eliminative logic: if non-design is highly improbable, then the design is highly probable.  Thus, the evidence against non-design (against the production of a feature by the undirected natural process) is evidence for design.  And vice versa. The evaluative status of non-design (and thus design)  can be decreased or increased by observable empirical evidence, so a theory of design is empirically responsive and is testable.

Both organisms and machines operate towards the attainment of particular ends; that is, both are purposive systems

Example 1: 
Question: Let us suppose, you travel to Mars on Elon Musk's SpaceX, and at arrival, you suddenly see two devices which catch your attention: One cellular iPhone from Apple, and next to it, a device with gps and similar capabilities as the Cell phone, but no nameplate or any kind of information that would give a hint of how it was made. What would you conclude in regard to its origin?

Analogy Viewed from Science
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2809-analogy-viewed-from-science

John Herschel, mathematician, chemist, and astronomer, published a philosophical treatise in 1830 called A Preliminary Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy. He writes:
"Analogies in science, according to Herschel, establish links between different areas of investigation. Moreover, they may aid in explaining a new phenomenon on the basis of the causes acting in an analogous phenomenon already explained." 

It seems obvious, that if the iPhone is recognized as coming from Apple, and as such intelligence that made it, then the device next to it, with GPS, and similar capabilities, would have as well intelligence as a causal agency.

Remarkably, biological Cells do also host GPS and sophisticated signaling networks:

Primary Cilium a Cell’s Antenna or Its Brain
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2089-primary-cilium-a-cells-antenna-or-its-brain

The argument from wound healing cilium    
1. The cilium that looks like an antenna on most human cells, orients cells to move in the right direction at the speed needed to heal wounds, and so acts like a Global Positioning System (GPS) that helps ships navigate to their destinations.
2. “The really important discovery is that the primary cilium detects signals, which tell the cells to engage their compass reading and move in the right direction to close the wound.”
3. “Protruding through the cell membrane, primary cilia occur on almost every non-dividing cell in the body.”
4. “Once written off as a vestigial organelle discarded in the evolutionary dust, primary cilia in the last decade have risen to prominence as a vital cellular sensor at the root of a wide range of health disorders, from polycystic kidney disease to cancer to left-right anatomical abnormalities.”
5. The unavoidable importance of the primeval cilium for the survival of the cell and its wonderful design proves the existence of the primeval designer God.
6. God necessarily exists.

Signaling: Main topics on signaling
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2811-signalling-maintopics-on-signalling

Convention and biochemical rules mean a treaty, an agreement, a standard of presentation or conduct, and inherently the product of a mind, intelligence, and conscience. In the case of Cells, it must be a mind that sets the convention, rules, implementation of precision of organic chemistry, constraints by flexible organization, a program that works like software, able to interpret, recognize, select and discriminate the incoming signals and cues, and react in conformity and correctly, making correct choices, behaviors and responses across many hierarchical levels. Signal transduction does, in fact, qualify as a selection-driven recognition phenomenon. The cell is a semiotic structure and signal transduction is a meaning-making” process. The effects that external signals have on cells do not depend on the energy and information they carry, but on the meanings that cells give them with rules that can be called signal transduction codes. The deterministic rules of biochemistry being constrained by higher-order principles can only depart from mental intelligence. 

Most signal-relay stations we know about were intelligently designed. Signal without recognition is meaningless.  Communication implies a signaling convention (a “coming together” or agreement in advance) that a given signal means or represents something: e.g., that S-O-S means “Send Help!”   The transmitter and receiver can be made of non-sentient materials, but the functional purpose of the system always comes from a mind.  The mind uses the material substances to perform an algorithm that is not itself a product of the materials or the blind forces acting on them.  Signal sequences may be composed of mindless matter, but they are marks of a mind behind the intelligent design.

Cell internet: Cells have their own internet communication channels and cargo delivery service, all in one 
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2760-cell-internet-cells-have-their-own-internet-communication-channels-and-cargo-delivery-service-all-in-one

- The setup and implementation of sophisticated, complex and advanced communication networks like the internet depend on the invention of highly intelligent, skilled communication network engineers.
- Multicellular organisms use several extremely advanced communication systems, like Tunneling nanotubes (TNT's), Extracellular Vesicles ( VT's) which are, on top of that, also cargo carriers ( there are also cell-cell gap junctions and exosomes ). The size of the communication and cargo delivery network of the human body is 75 thousand times the size of the entire world wide web if there would be just one communication connection between each cell ( in reality, things are far more complex: each neuron cell computer may be connected to up to 10,000 other neurons )
- This is amazing evidence that multicellular organisms and their communication systems were definitively created by an extremely intelligent designer.

Imagine the internet not only as a worldwide web for an interchange of information and communication but also a courier delivery service carrier of goods, like FedEx. That would be pretty convenient, wouldn't it? In 2018, there are an estimate of 4 billion computers connected through the internet, worldwide. Most recent data estimates the number of human Cells to 3.0·10^13 4 If we put that each cell uses just one communication channel to interact with other cells, then the size of the communication and cargo delivery network of the human body would be 75 thousand times the size of the worldwide web !! 

Cell Communication and signaling, evidence of design 
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2181-cell-communication-and-signaling-evidence-of-design

The  essential signaling pathways   for animal development 
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2351-the-essential-signaling-pathways-for-animal-development

How Signaling in biology points to design
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2745-how-signaling-in-biology-points-to-design

How  intracellular Calcium signaling,  gradient and its role as a universal intracellular regulator points to design
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2448-howintracellular-calcium-signaling-gradient-and-its-role-as-a-universal-intracellular-regulator-points-to-design

How signaling between cells can orient a mitotic spindle 
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2383-how-signaling-between-cells-can-orient-a-mitotic-spindle

The Hippo signaling pathway in organ size control, tissue regeneration and stem cell self-renewal 
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2350-the-hippo-signaling-pathway-in-organ-size-control-tissue-regeneration-and-stem-cell-self-renewal

===============================================================================================================

Question: God is a POSSIBLE explanation of why we exist. How could you recognize that something in the natural world bears the signs or signature of the design, or being created, rather than not?
Unbeliever: I don't assert design - that's you. I'm simply asking you to support your claim that a god 'designed' life.
Response: If you do not know how to recognize design in nature, it is like to ask a blind to appreciate the beauty of Leonardo's Mona Lisa.

Example 2: 
Let us suppose, that you arrive with a colleague at a place, and there you find an object. You do not know who/what made it, but analyzing it, you observe that it was made of several interlocking parts in precise shapes with structural complementarity which functionally interacts together in a very precise fashion, as pieces of a puzzle or, in the more popular analogy, a lock and its key, with, as it seems, specific purpose. Furthermore, you see a nameplate and several signs similar to the alphabet forming a sentence, but in an unknown code and language. 

Now your colleague asks you: What do you think, how was this object made? 
Upon your observation and analyzing the object, would you say, it was rather made by someone with intelligence, or it came to exist rather because of random natural forces, that is the wind, rain, etc. ?
I think order and complexity are together sufficient to support the inference to a designer even without any knowledge at all of the identity of the designer, or how he made the object. 
The fact that a watch performs the function of keeping time is something that has value to an intelligent agent.  In the same sense, we can recognize that the universe is finely tuned and set up to permit life on planet earth, and in biology, proteins, molecules, organelles are made with specific purpose, to provide a higher-end, namely the existence of life, and its perpetuation, survival, and adaptation to the environment.
The order and complexity of the universe and living beings far exceeds that of any human-made artifact, and we may, therefore, infer that the designer of the universe and life is correspondingly greater than designers of watches.

Example 3:
If the goal is to have a sequence, a particular string starting at 1, then 2,3,4,5,6 ............ 500, then intuitively you know there sequence has a specific order and was probably put there in that order with some kind of intention.  The relevant point to be outlined here is: The sequence 1,2,3,4 ..........  500, exhibits a specification or particular pattern. What must be explained, is the origin not of any kind of sequence, but a particular, specific sequence.
Suppose you see a blueprint to make a car engine with 100 horsepowers to drive a BMW 5X. Not any blueprint will produce this particular car engine with the right size and fit and power. Only a blueprint with the precise, specific, complex arrangement of orders that is understood by the common pre-established agreement between the engineer, and the manufacturer, will permit to be encoded, transmitted, decoded and transformed in an equivalent artifact that has the specific, recognizable function which meets the pre-established goal. The information for that particular car engine can be encoded in Bits. Let's suppose its the size of a CD, 600mb. What has to be calculated, are the odds to get that specific sequence of instructions, which permit to give rise to that particular car engine. Not any sequence will do.
 
Example 4: 
Let's suppose you arrive at a beach, and you see a sandcastle. Sculptured in precise rectangular shapes.  To suggest that the sandcastle just happened to appear on the beach as the result of rain, wind, and frost would, of course, be ludicrous. It would be irrational to argue that the sandcastle may be appeared by accident, regardless of the time allowed for such a process. It's obvious that the Sandcastle is the product of an intelligent designer, as surely design points to a designer. Anyone would agree that it would be pure nonsense to argue that the structure is the result of a series of unexplained, chaotic random events by chance to be there.  Systems, structures or sequences with the joint properties of “high complexity” (or small probability) and “specification” invariably result from intelligent causes, not chance or physical-chemical laws. The shape of the sandcastle is special. It matches a pattern. The shape is complex and specified. All this can be observed in nature, contrasting randomness, the lack of specification, and random chaotic structures.

Objection: A sandcastle is designed, and the beach is designed. Which doesn't help us understand the difference between natural forces and design? The claim fails because the position is that both the beach and the sandcastle are designed by an intelligent being.
Response: The argument does not fail, because, despite the fact that the sand, both, to make the sand on the beach, and the sand used to make the sandcastle are created by God, the structure and pattern of the sand on the beach is random, the result of natural forces, like wind and rain, while the specific purposeful order, pattern, and shape of the sandcastle, is obviously the result of intelligence.


Example 5:
The Factory maker Argument

1. Blueprints are required to make factories with specific goals
2. DNA is an information storage molecule that ( amongst other over 20 epigenetic information systems ) stores the blueprint of life to make biological Cells which are self-replicating factories and multicellular organisms with trillions of Cells.
3. All information storage devices, blueprints, and factories are known, are of intelligent origin.
4. Therefore, biological cells and organisms are with high certainty the result of Intelligent design.

Design can be tested using scientific logic.  How? Upon the logic of mutual exclusion, design and non-design are mutually exclusive (it was one or the other) so we can use eliminative logic: if non-design is highly improbable, then the design is highly probable.  Thus, the evidence against non-design (against the production of a feature by undirected natural process) is evidence for design.  And vice versa. The evaluative status of non-design (and thus design) can be decreased or increased by observable empirical evidence, so a theory of design is empirically responsive and is testable.

Probability theory is the logic of science. You do not need to prove everything absolutely for it to make sense within reason. What you need is a tendency for it to be true statistically. That means evidence of it working repeatedly with low error.

1. According to the latest estimation of a minimal protein set for the first living organism, the requirement would be about 560 proteins, this would be the absolute minimum to keep the basic functions of a cell alive.  
2. According to the Protein-length distributions for the three domains of life, there is an average between prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells of about 400 amino acids per protein. 8
3. Each of the 400 positions in the amino acid polypeptide chains could be occupied by anyone of the 20 amino acids used in cells, so if we suppose that proteins emerged randomly on prebiotic earth, then the total possible arrangements or odds to get one which would fold into a functional 3D protein would be 1 to 20^400 or 1 to 10^520. A truly enormous, super astronomical number.
4. Since we need 560 proteins total to make a first living cell, we would have to repeat the shuffle 560 times, to get all proteins required for life. The probability would be therefore 560/10520.  We arrive at a probability far beyond  of 1 in 10^100.000  ( A proteome set with 239 proteins yields odds of approximately 1/10^119614 )

(Herschel [1830] 1987, p. 148). Herschel (ibid., p. 149) wrote:
“If the analogy of two phenomena be very close and striking, while, at the same time, the cause of one is very obvious, it becomes scarcely possible to refuse to admit the action of an analogous cause in the other, though not so obvious in itself.”

1. Intelligent minds make factory plants full of machines with specific functions, set up for specific purposes. Each fabric can be full of robotic production lines where the product of one factory is handed over to the next for further processing until the end product is made. Each of the intermediate steps is essential. If any is mal or non-functioning, like energy supply, or supply of the raw materials, the factory as a whole ceases its production.  
2. Biological cells are a factory complex of interlinked high-tech fabrics, fully automated and self-replicating, hosting up to over 2 billion molecular fabrics like Ribosomes & chemical production lines, full of proteins that act like robots, each with a specific task, function or goal, and completing each other, the whole system has the purpose to survive and perpetuate life. At least 560 proteins and a fully setup metabolome and genome is required, and they are interdependent. The probability, that such complex nano-factory plant could have emerged by unguided chemical reactions, no matter in what primordial environment, is beyond the chance of one to 10^150.000. The universe hosts about 10^80 atoms.   
3. Biological Cells are of unparalleled gigantic complexity and adaptive design, vastly more complex and sophisticated than any man-made factory plant. Self-replicating cells are, therefore, with extremely high probability, the product of an intelligent designer.

The make of components of a complex system that are only useful in the completion of a much larger system and their orderly aggregation in a sequentially correct manner requires always external direction through intelligence. No exceptions are known. In other words: Intermediate sub-products have by its own no use of any sort unless they are correctly assembled in a larger system.    Instructional complex information is required for to make these sub-products and parts, and know-how to mount them correctly in the right order and at the right place, and interconnected correctly in a larger system.   Intelligence is required to find and recruit and select the right materials, and to form computer hardware, highly efficient information storage devices, software, a language using signs and codes like the alphabet, an instructional blueprint, information retrieval, transmission, signaling, translation,  machine parts with highly specific structures, which permit to form the aggregation into complex machines, production line complexes, autonomous robots with error check functions and repair mechanisms, electronic circuit - like networks, energy production factories, power generating plants, energy turbines, recycle mechanisms and methods, waste grinders and management, organized waste disposal mechanisms, and self-destruction when needed to reach a higher-end,  and veritable micro-miniaturized factories where all before-mentioned systems and parts are required in order for that factory to be self- replicating, and being functional. 

- The establishment of communication systems requires intelligence. Most signal relay stations we know about were intelligently designed. Signal without recognition is meaningless.  Communication implies a signaling convention (a “coming together” or agreement in advance) that a given signal means or represents something: e.g., that S-O-S means “Send Help!”   The transmitter and receiver can be made of non-sentient materials, but the functional purpose of the system always comes from a mind.  The mind uses the material substances to perform an algorithm that is not itself a product of the materials or the blind forces acting on them.  Signal sequences may be composed of mindless matter, but they are marks of a mind behind the intelligent design.  Acts as an information processing system ( the interaction of a software program and the hardware can only be set up all at once through intelligent input )

- Selecting the most optimal and efficient code information system and the ability to minimize the effects of errors requires intelligence. 
Intelligence is required to create a system that uses a cipher, translating instructions through one language,  which contains Statistics, Syntax, Semantics, Pragmatics, and Apobetics, and assigns the code of one system to the code of another system. 

- The make of complicated, fast high-performance production systems,  and technology with high robustness, flexibility, efficiency, and responsiveness, and quality-management techniques requires intelligence. 
- The setup of 1,000–1,500 manufacturing proceedings in parallel by a series of operations and flow connections to reach a common end-goal, the most complex industry-like production networks require intelligence. 
- The product making only in response to actual demand, not in anticipation of forecast demand, thus preventing overproduction, requires intelligence for setup and implementation.
- To create machines, production lines and factories that are more complex than man-made things of the sort, most probably require more intelligence, than human intelligence, and not none at all.
- The organization of software exhibiting logical functional layers - regulatory mechanisms -  and control networks and systems have only been observed to be set up by intelligence. 
- Error check and detection,  inspection processes, quality assurance procedures, information error proofreading, and repair mechanisms have only been observed to be set up by intelligence. 
- Foolproofing, applying the key-lock principle to guarantee a proper fit between product and machine requires an intelligent setup. 
- Complex production lines that depend on precise optimization and fine-tuning require intelligence. 
- Only intelligence is capable to create complex systems that are able to adapt to variating conditions. 

All the above systems are a pre-requisite of life and biological Cells and implemented in an extremely ordered, complex, efficient manner. 

Example 6
A wrecking yard or junkyard is a place of dismantling where wrecked or decommissioned objects are brought, with lots of unusable metal parts, known as scrap metal parts. These parts are usually in a state of disorder,  without any purpose or function, there is no injection of energy, so usually, they are decomposing and by thermodynamical forces moving from an already state of disorder, to more disorder. There are no specified specific shapes or forms placed in order to do something specific.

In contrast, when we see a factory producing specific products, with input of energy, raw materials, and a project department, where blueprints are elaborated of these products with specific goals, and these blueprints are sent to the factory where the blueprints are read and the instructions applied to produce the products, based on the specific information, then we can recognize that the factory itself was made by intelligence with purpose.

Biological Cells are equal to a complex of millions of interlinked factories

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2245-biological-cells-are-like-an-industry-complex-full-of-interlinked-factories

1. Factories are the result of intelligent design
2. Biological cells are factories
3. Therefore, biological cells are designed.

The Factory maker Argument
1. Intelligent minds make factory plants full of machines with specific functions, set up for specific purposes. Each fabric can be full of robotic production lines where the product of one factory is handed over to the next for further processing until the end product is made. Each of the intermediate steps is essential. If any is mal or non-functioning, like energy supply, or supply of the raw materials, the factory as a whole ceases its production.  

2. Biological cells are a factory complex of interlinked high-tech fabrics, fully automated and self-replicating, hosting up to over 2 billion molecular fabrics like Ribosomes & chemical production lines, full of proteins that act like robots, each with a specific task, function or goal, and completing each other, the whole system has the purpose to survive and perpetuate life. At least 560 proteins and a fully setup metabolome and genome is required, and they are interdependent. If even one of these proteins were missing, life could not kick-start. For example, without helicase, DNA replication would not be possible, and life could not perpetuate. The probability, that such complex nano-factory plant could have emerged by unguided chemical reactions, no matter in what primordial environment, is beyond the chance of one to 10^150.000. The universe hosts about 10^80 atoms.  

3. Biological Cells are of unparalleled gigantic complexity and purposeful adaptive design, vastly more complex and sophisticated than any man-made factory plant. Self-replicating cells demonstrate, therefore extremely strong indicators that the deliberate action of a conscious intelligent designer was involved in creating living cells.

Example 7
Just what it is for something to be complex in the relevant sense is rarely explained very well, but it is generally acknowledged that the idea is well captured by Fred Hoyle’s (1981) suggestion that the random assembly of the very simplest living system would be like a tornado blowing through a junkyard and assembling a Boeing 747 (Dawkins 1987 and de Duve 1995 focus on this example in part to illustrate the alleged absurdity of attributing the emergence of life to chance). Obviously part of what makes something complex in this sense is that it has a heterogeneous structure, being made up of very many parts of various shapes and sizes. But any pile of 747 parts meets this condition. Furthermore, the 747 parts should be randomly assembled into a jumbled pile of some very specific shape and structure is just as improbable as their being assembled into a plane. What then is the significant difference between the pile of 747 parts and the 747? The idea seems to be what Hume (1935) described as “the curious adapting of means to ends” (p. 34) Like a living system, the plane consists of very many parts working intricately together to perform a function, namely flying. The parts require a very specific arrangement for this to work; if anyone part is in a slightly different position, then the plane can’t perform its function. The pile of plane parts, on the other hand, don’t do anything but sit there, or topple over if you push them enough. You don’t need a very precise arrangement of parts to do that, so there is nothing very remarkable about such a pile forming by chance.

On a closer look, however, this apparent difference is not so deep. For any pile of plane parts, we could define a very specific functional property taking the form: the pile is such that when this part is pulled in precisely this direction, precisely this far, then the pile will topple into this very specific structure.... This functional property requires for its instantiation an extremely precise arrangement of parts; shift one part and the pile will not have exactly the same toppling tendencies. Call a pile of plane parts that has this functional property a “schmane” What planes and schmanes have in common is that the probability that tornado strewn plane parts would assemble either is extremely low. Why then are we so resistant to the idea that a tornado might assemble the parts into a plane, but have no trouble supposing that might produce a schmane? The answer should be that a tornado is just as likely to produce either, it is just that only the plane is more likely to result if there was more than just chance operating. But now we must return to the question of whether it is the assumption of intentional or non-intentional biasing which renders this outcome more probable. Certainly the plane might seem more likely on the assumption that an agent influenced the arrangement of the parts (that is why if we found one on a distant planet we would conclude that extraterrestrials had built it, even if we had never seen a plane before, and even if our theories made the existence of such creatures in the vicinity very unlikely). But it is hard to see any reason to suppose that on the assumption of non-intentional biasing, a plane is any more likely than a schmane. Any considerations which make planes stand out as special as compared to schmanes, are intentionally related—whatever intuitions we have about the case have to do with what we think an agent is likely to do.

We seem to be in the same situation with respect to the molecular machinery from which complex life forms developed. These molecules are intricate little machines that perform a certain functions, most important of which is the assembly of new machines identical to themselves with a high degree of accuracy. But for any large heterogeneous aggregate of molecules, we can define some very specific functional property F that it possesses, such that it is extremely unlikely that a random assembly of molecules will result in something with property F. Yet for the vast majority of such properties, no one will have any trouble believing that it was just a matter of chance that some molecules were arranged this way. What makes the complex macromolecules from which life developed so special? Unlike just any arbitrary function, their ability to create replicas of themselves strikes many as crying out for a nonchancy explanation. But once again we may have a sense as to why an agent might be inclined to form such a molecular structure rather than others. But it is hard to imagine why what de Duve calls the “combinatorial properties of matter” if they favor particular molecular configurations at all, should be biased toward those capable of self-replication.

I’ve argued that the phenomenon of life gives us no good reason to doubt that it arose by chance, unless we think life’s existence is more likely on the assumption of intentional biasing. Why then are most scientists so reluctant to allow too much chance into their accounts of life’s emergence?

Example 8
If you see a blueprint to make a factory, it is obvious and evident that somebody made that blueprint, rather than coming to be by chance.  DNA contains precise instructions/ a blueprint / specified - instructional - complex - codified information to make biological Cell factories. This evidence alone is the signature of God, is a stumblingblock of naturalism, and corners ANY unbeliever.

The Signature in the Cell
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Nave-html/Faithpathh/sigcell.html

How to recognize the signature of (past) intelligent action 8Im3l8Z

How to recognize the signature of (past) intelligent action Gear_p10


A Positive, Testable Case for Intelligent Design
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1288-a-positive-testable-case-for-intelligent-design

Dembski :
The problem is that nature has too many options and without design couldn’t sort them all out. Natural mechanisms are too unspecific to determine any particular outcome. Mutation and natural selection or luck/chance/probablity could theoretically form a new complex morphological feature like a  leg or a limb with the right size and form , and arrange to find out the right body location to grow them , but it could  also produce all kinds of other new body forms, and grow and attach them anywhere on the body, most of which have no biological advantage or are most probably deleterious to the organism. Natural mechanisms have no constraints, they could produce any kind of novelty. Its however that kind of freedom that makes it extremely unlikely that mere natural developments provide new specific evolutionary arrangements that are advantageous to the organism.  Nature would have to arrange almost a infinite number of trials and errors until getting a new positive  arrangement. Since that would become a highly  unlikely event, design is a better explanation. This situation becomes even more acentuated when natural selection is not a possible constrainer, since evolution depends on replication, which did not exist prior dna replication

Stephen Meyer:
What natural selection lacks, intelligent design—purposive, goal-directed selection—provides. Rational agents can arrange both matter and symbols with distant goals in mind. In using language, the human mind routinely "finds" or generates highly improbable linguistic sequences to convey an intended or preconceived idea. In the process of thought, functional objectives precede and constrain the selection of words, sounds, and symbols to generate functional (and meaningful) sequences from a vast ensemble of meaningless alternative possible combinations of sound or symbol. Similarly, the construction of complex technological objects and products, such as bridges, circuit boards, engines, and software, results from the application of goal-directed constraints. Indeed, in all functionally integrated complex systems where the cause is known by experience or observation, designing engineers or other intelligent agents applied constraints on the possible arrangements of matter to limit possibilities in order to produce improbable forms, sequences, or structures. Rational agents have repeatedly demonstrated the capacity to constrain possible outcomes to actualize improbable but initially unrealized future functions. Repeated experience affirms that intelligent agents (minds) uniquely possess such causal powers.  Analysis of the problem of the origin of biological information, therefore, exposes a deficiency in the causal powers of natural selection and other undirected evolutionary mechanisms that corresponds precisely to powers that agents are uniquely known to possess. Intelligent agents have foresight. Such agents can determine or select functional goals before they are physically instantiated. They can devise or select material means to accomplish those ends from among an array of possibilities. They can then actualize those goals in accord with a preconceived design plan or set of functional requirements. Rational agents can constrain combinatorial space with distant information-rich outcomes in mind. The causal powers that natural selection lacks—by definition—are associated with the attributes of consciousness and rationality—with purposive intelligence. Thus, by invoking intelligent design to overcome a vast combinatorial search problem and to explain the origin of new specified information, contemporary advocates of intelligent design are not positing an arbitrary explanatory element unmotivated by a consideration of the evidence.

1. http://web.mit.edu/rog/www/papers/does_origins.pdf
2. http://burro.case.edu/Academics/USNA229/endofcosmology.pdf



Last edited by Otangelo on Mon Apr 05, 2021 4:20 pm; edited 85 times in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin
The Watchmaker Argument - Debunked (Teleological Argument - Refuted) - Really ?!!

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2805-how-to-recognize-the-signature-of-past-intelligent-action#6567

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHmjHMbkOUM&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR0vWqmLSBd5kBt6iNWPx0it8962rnojU9cciMXBlJVmT9QWSgqqinfn6qY


The Watchmaker Argument - Debunked (Teleological Argument - Refuted) - Really ?!!

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2805-how-to-recognize-intelligently-made-artefacts#6567

The Watchmaker Argument - Debunked (Teleological Argument - Refuted)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHmjHMbkOUM

Argument: its a false analogy an analogy is a comparison between things that have similar features for the purpose of explaining a principle or an idea and in this case Paley insists that a comparison can be made between the complexity of a watch and the complexity of the universe
Response: The Factory maker argument does not propose or argue that a analogy is made. It states that biological Cells are LITERALLY a facory complex.

What is a factory ?
Factory is from latin, and means fabricare, or make. Produce, manufacture. A factory or manufacturing plant is a site, usually consisting of buildings and machinery, or more commonly a complex having several buildings, where, in fully automated factories, for example, pre-programmed robots, manufacture goods or operate machines processing one product into another. A factory is a place where materials or products are produced or created. A factory is a manufacturing unit for manufacture/production of an article or thing.

Manufacturing:
Engineers, Programmers, Machine designers make blueprints of various goods or things: Factories, machines, and computers. Information transmission systems can be utilized to send the blueprints from the engineering department to the assembly sites of the factories. Carpenters, electricians, masons, machinists etc. construct machines, factories, assembly lines, robots etc. " Factories are usually full of machines, interlinked assembly lines that manufacture various kind of products.

All this is PRECISELY what cells do, but in a far far more sophisticated fashion than man-made fabrics. Biological cells run complicated and sophisticated production systems. The study of the cell’s production technology provides us with insights that are potentially useful in industrial manufacturing. When comparing cell metabolism with manufacturing techniques in the industry, we find some striking commonalities assures quality at the source, and uses component commonality to simplify production.  The organic production system can be viewed as a possible scenario for the future of manufacturing. We try to do so in this paper by studying a high-performance manufacturing system - namely, the biological cell. A careful examination of the production principles used by the biological cell reveals that cells are extremely good at making products with high robustness, flexibility, and efficiency. Section 1 describes the basic metaphor of this article, the biological cell as a production system, and shows that the cell is subject to similar performance pressures. Section 4 further deepens the metaphor by pointing out the similarities between the biological cell and a modern manufacturing system. We then point to the limits of the metaphor in §5 before we identify, in §6, four important production principles that are sources of efficiency and responsiveness for the biological cell, but that we currently do not widely observe in industrial production. For example, the intestinal bacterium, Escherichia coli,  runs 1,000–1,500 biochemical reactions in parallel. Just as in manufacturing, cell metabolism can be represented by flow diagrams in which raw materials are transformed into final products in a series of operations.

Argument: because two things share one quality in common that being complexity they must also share another quality in common a designer when this simply cannot be logically concluded
Response: If the analogy of two phenomena are very close and striking while at the same time, the cause of ONE of the phenomenon is very obvious; it becomes scarcely possible to refuse to admit the action of an analogous cause of the other phenomenon, though (the cause of the other phenomenon is) not so obvious in itself"
--- in "Preliminary Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy", London, Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown and Green, 1831, page 149.

Argument: Yet another major problem with the watchmaker argument it completely ignores evolution by natural selection without getting into it too deeply natural selection has been completely and utterly proven to be an unconscious process that has given rise to countless complex and purposed organisms which without an understanding of natural selection do indeed give the impression that they were deliberately designed or in other words we know for a fact that nature can does and has produced remarkably complex organisms without a conscious and intelligent hand behind them
Response: The response is fallacious in two ways. First, the Watchmaker argument addresses the origin of life, and evolution. Both processes fall short of being explained successfully by natural means. No scientific experiment has been able to come even close to synthesize the basic building blocks of life, and reproduce a  self-replicating Cell in the Laboratory through self-assembly and autonomous organization. The total lack of any kind of experimental evidence leading to the re-creation of life; not to mention the spontaneous emergence of life… is the most humiliating embarrassment to the proponents of naturalism and the whole so-called “scientific establishment” around it… because it undermines the worldview of who wants naturalism to be true.
Secondly: only a holistic view, namely structuralism and systems biology, take into account all influences that form cell form and size, body development and growth, providing adequate descriptions of the scientific evidence. The BIG ( umbrella ) contributor to explain organismal complexity is preprogrammed instructional complex INFORMATION encoded in various languages and communication through signalling through various signalling networks  that act  on a structural level, which are pre-instructed to respond to environmental cues, development, and nutrition demands, therefore, the genetic and epigenetic codes and signalling networks and the instructions to build cells and complex biological organisms were most likely created by an intelligent agency.

Argument: the truth of the matter is that the reason we recognize as designed actually has nothing to do of how complex and purposed it is but rather it is because we already know that the watch was designed we have literally millions of examples of watches being created by a designer and 0 of examples of watches being made without a designer however and in contrast we have zero examples of life being created by a designer and literally millions of examples of nature creating complex life
Response: We have zero examples of life coming from non-life. Eugene Koonin: All things considered, my assessment of the current state of the art in the study of the origins of replication and translation is rather somber. Notwithstanding relevant theoretical models and suggestive experimental results, we currently do not have a credible solution to these problems and do not even see with any clarity a path to such a solution.

Argument: a fourth major flaw with the watchmaker argument is that evoke emits a special pleading fallacy or that it's completely self refuting its core premise asserts that purpose and complexity requires a designer and so if we draw the watchmaker argument out to its logical conclusion that there is a God and that it created the universe and everything in it then by applying the arguments logic to itself we must conclude that that God too had a designer and so on and so forth for infinity by definition special pleading is an argument in which the speaker deliberately creates an exception to their argument without justifying why and that is precisely
Response: 1. Contingent or non-necessary beings depend on an external cause that made them come into existence - the physical universe – is also contingent. 2. Since that external cause has to be outside the whole aggregate of contingent things, it cannot itself be contingent. So it is necessary. 3. Hey presto, we’ve demonstrated that there is a necessarily existent, uncreated, non-contingent being which causes all other things! And this, of course, is God. “All lemons are citrus. Mushrooms are not citrus.” This isn’t special pleading because there is a category difference. God is not in the same category as the creation.

Objection: it wouldn't prove a particular religion to be true or as Hitchens put it even if the watchmaker argument was valid you as a theist still have all of your work ahead of you in addition to the watchmaker argument not supporting theism it's logic is also inconsistent
Response: The watchmaker argument does indeed not address which entity and its nature, but that is beyond the scope of the argument. To identify the designer, theological and philosophical arguments are just fine.

Has Paley's Watchmaker argument been debunked? 

William Paley (July 1743 – 25 May 1805) was an English clergyman, Christian apologist, philosopher, and utilitarian. He is best known for his natural theology exposition of the teleological argument for the existence of God in his work Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, which made use of the watchmaker analogy. 1

I love analogies, and Paleys watchmaker analogy is a classic: 

In WILLIAM PALEY's  book  :
Natural Theology or Evidence of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, collected from the appearances of nature  2, page 46, he writes : 

In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there, I might possibly answer, that, for any thing I knew to the contrary, it had lain there for ever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to shew the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch* upon the ground, and it should be enquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given, that, for any thing I knew, the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch, as well as for the stone? Why is it not as admissible in the second case, as in the first? For this reason, and for no other, viz. that, when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive (what we could not discover in the stone) that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose, e.g. that they are so formed and adjusted as to produce motion, and that motion so regulated as to point out the hour of the day; that, if the several parts had been differently shaped from what they are, of a different size from what they are, or placed after any other manner, or in any other order, than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use, that is now served by it. 

The Watchmaker Argument - Debunked (Teleological Argument - Refuted) - Really ?!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHmjHMbkOUM&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR0vWqmLSBd5kBt6iNWPx0it8962rnojU9cciMXBlJVmT9QWSgqqinfn6qY

Argument No.1: First and foremost, and what single-handedly debunks the Watchmaker Argument, is that it’s a False Analogy. An analogy is a comparison between things that have similar features for the purpose of explaining a principle or an idea, and in this case, Paley insists that a comparison can be made between the complexity of a watch and the complexity of the universe, which both imply that they had a designer. However, the last step is flawed because it concludes that because two things share one quality in common – that being complexity, they must also share another quality in common – a designer when this simply cannot be logically concluded.

Response: I think it CAN be rationally concluded. Here an example. It is a modern version of the watchmaker argument, which i call the Factory maker argument:

1. Blueprints, instructional information and master plans, and the making of complex machines and factories upon these are both always tracked back to an intelligent source which made them for purposeful, specific goals.  
2. Biological cells are a factory park of unparalleled gigantic complexity and purposeful adaptive design of interlinked high-tech fabrics, fully automated and self-replicating, directed by genes and epigenetic languages and signalling networks.
3. The Blueprint and instructional information stored in DNA and epigenetics, which directs the making of biological cells and organisms - the origin of both is, therefore, best explained by an intelligent designer which created life for his own purposes.

Herschel 1830 1987, p. 148:
“If the analogy of two phenomena be very close and striking, while, at the same time, the cause of one is very obvious, it becomes scarcely possible to refuse to admit the action of an analogous cause in the other, though not so obvious in itself.”

The Factory maker argument does not propose or argue that a analogy is made. It states that biological Cells are LITERALLY a factory complex.

What is a factory ?
Factory is from latin, and means fabricare, or make. Produce, manufacture. A factory or manufacturing plant is a site, usually consisting of buildings and machinery, or more commonly a complex having several buildings, where, in fully automated factories, for example, pre-programmed robots, manufacture goods or operate machines processing one product into another. A factory is a place where materials or products are produced or created. A factory is a manufacturing unit for manufacture/production of an article or thing.

Manufacturing:
Engineers, Programmers, Machine designers make blueprints of various goods or things: Factories, machines, and computers. Information transmission systems can be utilized to send the blueprints from the engineering department to the assembly sites of the factories. Carpenters, electricians, masons, machinists etc. construct machines, factories, assembly lines, robots etc. " Factories are usually full of machines, interlinked assembly lines that manufacture various kind of products.

All this is PRECISELY what cells do, but in a far far more sophisticated fashion than man-made fabrics. Biological cells run complicated and sophisticated production systems. The study of the cell’s production technology provides us with insights that are potentially useful in industrial manufacturing. When comparing cell metabolism with manufacturing techniques in the industry, we find some striking commonalities assures quality at the source, and uses component commonality to simplify production.  The organic production system can be viewed as a possible scenario for the future of manufacturing. We try to do so in this paper by studying a high-performance manufacturing system - namely, the biological cell. A careful examination of the production principles used by the biological cell reveals that cells are extremely good at making products with high robustness, flexibility, and efficiency. Section 1 describes the basic metaphor of this article, the biological cell as a production system, and shows that the cell is subject to similar performance pressures. Section 4 further deepens the metaphor by pointing out the similarities between the biological cell and a modern manufacturing system. We then point to the limits of the metaphor in §5 before we identify, in §6, four important production principles that are sources of efficiency and responsiveness for the biological cell, but that we currently do not widely observe in industrial production. For example, the intestinal bacterium, Escherichia coli,  runs 1,000–1,500 biochemical reactions in parallel. Just as in manufacturing, cell metabolism can be represented by flow diagrams in which raw materials are transformed into final products in a series of operations.


Argument No.2: If it could, then by using the same faulty logic, countless other absurd qualities could also be attributed to the universe. For example; the watch is complex; the watch was invented in the 15th century; the universe is complex; therefore, the universe was invented in the 15th century. Just because two objects share one quality in common, this doesn’t mean that they necessarily share another.

Response: This is partially true. But distracts from what is indeed true. There are features and things that we have only experience and knowledge to come from intelligent minds. 

The (past) action or signature of an intelligent designer can be detected when we see :

1. An object in nature very similar to human-made things
2. Something made based on mathematical principles
3. Systems and networks functioning based on logic gates
4. Something purposefully made for specific goals
5. Specified complexity, the instructional blueprint or a codified message  
6. Irreducible complex and interdependent systems or artefacts composed of several interlocked, well-matched parts contributing to a higher end of a complex system that would be useful only in the completion of that much larger system.
7. Order or orderly patterns
8. Hierarchically arranged systems of parts
9. Intelligence can create artefacts which use might be employed in different systems ( a wheel is used in cars and airplanes) 
10. Fine-tuning

Argument No.3: The next objection, very closely related to the first, is that it commits a False Cause Fallacy. It does this by asserting that complexity and order can only be caused a designer, when not only has this never been proven to be true, it’s actually been proven to be completely incorrect.  It completely ignores evolution by natural selection.

Response: When I called in at the Talk Heathens show, at the fifth of May 2019, and asked Stephen from Rationality Rules, if he went to a library, and took a book from the bookshelf, without mentioning any author, and in the book there were at the first pages a picture of a  blueprint, and at the following pages,  a factory build based on the precise instructions, upon that previous blueprint, how he would explain the origin of both. Either a)  intelligence or b) chance.  He jumped straight to say that I did use a black and white fallacy, a false dichotomy and that the origin could be explained by evolution through natural selection. I corrected him and explained, that it was not a false dichotomy. Evolution only starts when DNA replication is operational, and that is an abiogenesis problem. Abiogenesis cannot be explained by evolution. Therefore, the only two possible explanations are either chance, or intelligent implementation and design. 

Argument No.4: Without getting into it too deeply, natural selection has been completely and utterly proven to be an unconscious process that has given rise to countless complex and purposed organisms – which, without an understanding of natural selection, do indeed give the impression that they were deliberately designed.Or in other words, we know, for a fact, that nature can, does, and has produced remarkably complex organisms without a conscious and intelligent hand behind it.

Response: First, it must be clarified what is meant by evolution. In the article “The Meanings of Evolution,” Stephen Meyer and Michael Keas distinguished six different ways in which “evolution” is commonly used:

1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature
2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population
3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended froma common ancestor.
4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification; chiefly pre-programmed selection acting on random variations or mutations
5. Natural selection acting up to two random mutations as shown in malaria ( See Behe's Edge of evolution )

6. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.
7. Blind watchmaker thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors through unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural
selection acting on random variations or mutations; the idea that the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random variation, and other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, completely suffice to explain the origin of novel biological forms and the appearance of design in complex organisms.

There is rather little dispute or none in regards of the first five claims, and the majority of creationists agree with them. The dispute lies in the two last points, and the real mechanisms are far more diversified and complex than commonly asserted, and essentially based on pre-programmed information and signalling. 

Argument No.5:  A fourth major flaw with the Watchmaker Argument is that either commits a Special Pleading Fallacy, or it’s completely self-refuting. Its core premise asserts that purpose and complexity requires a designer, and so if we draw the Watchmaker Argument out to its logical conclusion – that there is a god and that it created the universe and everything in it.

Response: in his book: The Blind Watchmaker Richard Dawkins, writes: 
Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in .nature, it is the blind watchmaker.

Teleological explanations have played a central role throughout the history of the life sciences, but, thanks to Charles Darwin, they have been expunged from the biological sciences starting in the nineteenth century.

And yet the same textbooks often explain adaptations by reference to natural selection in language that sounds suspiciously teleological. Notice the explanatory structure implicit in the following quotation from  Albert Lehninger’s Bioenergetics: The Molecular Basis of Biological Energy Transformations (1971, 110 ). 

How to recognize the signature of (past) intelligent action 011
Thus photo-induced cyclic electron flow has a real and important purpose, namely, to transform the light energy absorbed by chlorophyll molecules in the chloroplast into phosphate bond energy.

A common response to passages such as this is to say that the use of the term “purpose” is merely a kind of shorthand for a more complicated mechanical explanation, not evidence of a commitment to teleology. Yet this passage is embedded in a detailed description of the mechanisms of photosynthesis, and historically the discovery of the process described led to a quest for its purpose. Biochemists did not feel that they understood cyclic electron flow until they figured out its biological function.

There is a concern that such explanations imply some sort of conscious, or anyway cognitive, agency – either in the form of an external, perhaps divine, agent, or in the form of an inherent drive or vital power. Much philosophical effort has been devoted in the past fifty years or so to making sense of natural teleology as a distinctive mode of explanation without accepting either of those implications.

A major problem for explanations based on evolution is the fact that evolution is not purpose driven. Natural selection would not select for components of a complex system that would have use or purpose only in the completion of that much larger system. 


In other words : Why would natural selection select an intermediate biosynthesis product, which has by its own no use for the organism, unless that product keeps going through all necessary steps, up to the point to be ready to be assembled in a larger system ?  


A minimal amount of instructional complex information is required for a gene to produce useful proteins. A minimal size of a protein is necessary for it to be functional.   Thus, before a region of DNA contains the requisite information to make useful proteins, natural selection would not select for a positive trait and play no role in guiding its evolution. 

Imagine a production line in a factory. Many robots there are lined up, and raw materials are fed into the production line. The materials arrive at Robot one. It processes the first step. Then, when ready, the product moves on and is handed over to the next Robot. Next processing step. And that procedure repeats 17 times. In the end, there is a fully formed subpart, as the door of a car. That door is part of a larger object, like the finished car. That door by its own has no use unless mounted at the right place in the car.  Nobody would project a car door without visualizing the higher end upfront, in the project and development stage, and based on the requirement, specify the complex shape of the door which precisely will fit the whole of the chassis of the car where it will be mounted. And the whole production line and each robot the right placement and sequence where each robot will be placed must be planned and implemented as well. Everything has to be projected with a higher end goal in mind. And there is an interdependence. If one of the robots ceases to work for some reason, the whole fabrication ceases, and the completion of the finished car cannot be accomplished. That means, a tiny mal connection of one of the robots in the production line of the door might stop the production of the door, and the finished car cannot be produced.

- No glycine amino acids, no pyrimidines, no DNA - no life.
- No Watson Crick base pair fine-tuning, no DNA - no life.
- No topoisomerase II or helicase proteins, no DNA replication - no life perpetuation.
- No peripheral stalk, a subunit in ATP synthase nano turbines, no energy supply trough ATP for biological cells, no advanced life.
- No cleavage of tRNA during its biosynthesis, tRNA's will not be useful for the cell, no life. 
- No nitrogenase enzymes to fix nitrogen in an energy demanding, triple bond breaking process, no ammonia, required to make amino acids - no nitrogen cycle - no advanced life.
- No chlorophylls, no absorption of light to start photosynthesis, no starch and glucose - cells will have no food supply to sustain complex organisms - no advanced life on earth.
- No water evolving complex in photosynthesis, no oxygen, no advanced life.
- No carotenoids quenching heat in chlorophylls in the antenna complex, the surrounding membrane would be burned - no advanced life.  
- No rubisco, no fix of CO2, no hidrocarbons - no advanced life.
- No counterion in retinal, and rhodopsin could not receive visible light - and there would be no vision on earth by any organism.

This is just a small example - there are many others. The salient part is - in the same manner, as a robot has no function by itself and by its own, and outside of a factory, unless placed at the right production line, getting the right substrate from another robot, processing it in the right manner, and handing it over to the next processing step - which also has to have its right function and manufacturing proceeding pre-programmed- nothing done.

Argument No.6. Then by applying the argument’s logic to itself, we must conclude that this god too had a designer, and so on and so forth for infinity… 

Response: God is eternal. By deductive reasoning, we can come to the conclusion that the God of the Bible most probably exists. Following argument requires no theology nor science which must be true based uniquely on deductive reasoning. 

1. Something cannot come into existence from absolutely nothing.

How to recognize the signature of (past) intelligent action 012
2. The present moment cannot be reached by adding individual events together from eternity.


How to recognize the signature of (past) intelligent action 412

3. Therefore, the universe must have had a beginning of time, therefore, it had a cause.


How to recognize the signature of (past) intelligent action 511

4. Therefore a non-physical, eternal, non-created & necessary first cause is the best explanation of our existence.

5. An agent endowed with free will can have a determination in a timeless dimension to operate causally at a (first) moment of time and thereby to produce a temporally first effect.
6. That cause must be supernatural in nature, (as He exists outside of His creation), Incredibly powerful (to have created all that is known), Eternal (self-existent, as He exists outside of time and space), Omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it), Timeless and changeless (He created time),  Immaterial (because He transcends space), Personal (the impersonal can’t create personality), Necessary (as everything else depends on Him), Infinite and singular (as you cannot have two infinites),  Diverse yet has unity (as all multiplicity implies a prior singularity),  Intelligent (supremely, to create everything), Purposeful (as He deliberately created everything), Moral (no moral law can exist without a lawgiver), Caring (or no moral laws would have been given)

Only the God of the Bible is described with the above-described characteristics.

God is omnipresent (Psalm 139:7-12; Jeremiah 23:24)
God is omniscient (Psalm 147:4-5)
God is omnipotent (Jeremiah 32:17; Psalm 135:6)
God is Spirit (John 4:24)
God is in a league of His own (Isaiah 46:9)
God is immortal and invisible (1 Timothy 1:17)
God is the Creator (Genesis 1:1; Colossians 1:16)
God is unchanging (Malachi 3:6)
God is sovereign (Psalm 115:3)
God is One, yet He exists in three persons (Matthew 3:16-17; 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14)
God is loving (John 3:16; 1 John 4:8 )
God is gracious and merciful (Jonah 4:2; Deuteronomy 4:31)
God is righteous (Psalm 11:7)
God is holy (Leviticus 19:2; 1 Peter 1:16)
God is just (Deuteronomy 32:4; Isaiah 30:18)
God is forgiving (1 John 1:9)
God is compassionate (James 5:11)

Argument No.6: By definition, Special Pleading is an argument in which the speaker deliberately creates an exception to their argument without justifying why, and that is precisely what one must do to prevent the Watchmaker Argument from being completely self-refuting. 

Response: “All lemons are citrus. Mushrooms are not citrus.”
This isn’t special pleading because there is a category difference. God is not in the same category as the creation. God is in a league of His own. He is… the great I AM.

Pointing out the obvious is not special pleading. The natural universe had a beginning. Therefore, the cause of the natural universe must be supernatural.

If logic does not account for justifiable special pleading then such logic is clearly flawed. Of course, an Infinite Creator Who created everything would involve a justifiable special pleading. Such Creator would not be like the rest of us. It is as simple as seeing the difference between an Infinite Being (notice I didn't say "existence") and billions of "finite beings."
The One Infinite Being is clearly different. The One Infinite Being Who created all existence is quite different than those finite beings who are created by such Being.
It is as easy as seeing the difference between "those who have a beginning" who are finite verses an "Infinite Creator" Who has no beginning and alone possesses the attribute of Aseity.
In theology there are several (what we call) incommunicable attributes of God. 1. would be omniscience. 2. omnipresence. 3. omnisapience 4. Asiety 5. immutability 6. I would include omnitemporal being. There are others. You see, only God is infinite everywhere. Only God is the Creator of the universe. Everyone else is different.
This is why we have something as basic as justifiable special pleading to account for this every clear difference between an Infinite Creator Who created everything.... and all other finite existences.


Argument No.7: Even if it were accepted as a sound argument, it would only prove that a universe had a universe designer – and that’s it. It wouldn’t prove a particular religion to be true. Or, as Hitchens put it, “Even if the watchmaker argument was valid, you, as a theist, still have all of your work ahead of you”.

Response: The teleological argument, or the argument of design has never been intended to point to a specific deity, but merely, that the features observed in the natural world are best explained by design. 

Argument No.8: In addition to the Watchmaker Argument not supporting theism, its logic is also inconsistent with the description of most monotheistic gods – and certainly the Abrahamic ones. An all-powerful and all-loving god would not create organisms with the type of suboptimal design that can be seen in nature. From vestigial organs to birth defect to pregnancy complications, it cannot logical follow that an all-powerful, all-loving god can be responsible for this. 

How to recognize the signature of (past) intelligent action 610
Response: Atheists commonly consider themselves very intelligent, rational and logical, and not rarely feel intellectually superior compared to believers. Funny though is, that when they take out off their hat, from their repertoire of arguments to reject God, as it quite frequently happens, the claim of bad design: they point to a list of supposedly badly designed and/or vestigial organs. Funny though, they never apply the bad design argument to their thinking organ, their own brain and their mind, which they presuppose has superior functional abilities, and was well designed.... this is a blatant contradiction. Unbelievers commonly argue about bad design and vestigial organs, but in order to argue about bad design, design, bad or not, must be assumed in the first place. Arguing that bad design is evidence of no design is a logical fallacy.

Neither, secondly, would it invalidate our conclusion, that the watch sometimes went wrong, or that it seldom went exactly right. The purpose of the machinery, the design, and the designer, might be evident, and in the case supposed would be evident, in whatever way we accounted for the irregularity of the movement, or whether we could account for it or not. It is not necessary that a machine be perfect, in order to show with what design it was made: still less necessary, where the only question is, whether it were made with any design at all. 
Paley, (Natural Theology. 12th edition. J. Faulder: London, 1809, Chapter I, pp. 4-5)





Meaning that either that god isn’t omnipotent or that it isn’t omnibenevolent – or both! So, to recap, the Watchmaker Argument is flawed because: It’s a False Analogy; It commits a False Cause Fallacy; It completely ignores evolution by Natural Selection; It commits a Special Pleading Fallacy or it’s completely Self-Refuting; It’s self-contradicting; It doesn’t imply a designer, but rather many designers; It acts as if watches are created from nothing; It doesn’t support theism; and, It doesn’t support the concept of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent god. It’s not a sound argument… in fact, it’s thoroughly debunked. As you might have noticed, this video is quite a bit longer than many of my others, but to be perfectly honest with you I think it needed to be. While the Watchmaker Argument is thoroughly flawed, it is nevertheless what I personally consider to be the best argument for a deity that there has ever been… and hence, it deserved this royal kick-in! Thanks for the view, and I’ll leave you with this overwhelmingly powerful argument to consider: Armored Skeptic has a YouTube channel. Armored Skeptic has three hundred thousand subscribers. Rationality Rules has a YouTube channel. Therefore, Rationality Rules has three hundred thousand subscribers.



Last edited by Admin on Mon May 20, 2019 7:04 am; edited 17 times in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin
Analogy Viewed from Science

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2809-analogy-viewed-from-science

David Hume Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion
Look round the world: contemplate the whole and every part of it: you will find it to be nothing but one great machine, subdivided into an infinite number of lesser machines, which again admit of subdivisions to a degree beyond what human senses and faculties can trace and explain. All these various machines, and even their most minute parts, are adjusted to each other with an accuracy which ravishes into admiration all men who have ever contemplated them. The curious adapting of means to ends, throughout all nature, resembles exactly, though it much exceeds, the productions of human contrivance; of human designs, thought, wisdom, and intelligence. Since, therefore, the effects resemble each other, we are led to infer, by all the rules of analogy, that the causes also resemble; and that the Author of Nature is somewhat similar to the mind of man, though possessed of much larger faculties, proportioned to the grandeur of the work which he has executed. By this argument a posteriori, and by this argument alone, do we prove at once the existence of a Deity, and his similarity to human mind and intelligence.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin
Atheist Matt Dillahunty Goes After Intelligent Design — and Stumbles

https://evolutionnews.org/2015/04/dillahunty_on_d/

“No matter how improbable it seems,” argues Dillahunty, “they haven’t demonstrated that their supernatural explanation is even possible, let alone probable.”
Here we run into another problem with Dillahunty’s argumentation. To understand the problem, consider this example: How would one go about demonstrating that a Higgs boson is possible? How would one go about calculating the probability of a Higgs boson existing? We infer the existence of the Higgs boson by observing its effects and reaching a judgment about the best explanation of those effects. In like manner, we infer the existence of an intelligent designer by observing certain effects that are habitually associated with conscious activity.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

5How to recognize the signature of (past) intelligent action Empty Randomness Mon Jun 01, 2020 12:48 pm

Otangelo


Admin
Either reality, our physical existence emerged by a lucky accident, spontaneous events of self-organization by unguided natural events in an orderly manner without external direction, purely natural processes and reactions, or through the direct intervention and creative force of an intelligent agency, a powerful creator.

Can:

randomness
unpredictable events
lack of orderly patterns
unfollow or intelligible patterns or combinations
improbable events
unpredictable movements
unplanned events
accidents
Spontaneous generations
control-less events
chaos
unguided
directionless

do the following ?

1. Produce objects in nature very similar to human-made things?
2. Make something based on mathematical principles?
3. Generate systems and networks functioning based on logic gates?
4. Create something purposefully made for specific goals?
5. Come up with specified complexity, the instructional blueprint, or a codified message?  
6. and upon this, create irreducible complex and interdependent systems or artifacts composed of several interlocked, well-matched parts contributing to a higher end of a complex system that would be useful only in the completion of that much larger system?
7. Create order or orderly patterns
8. Invent hierarchically arranged systems of parts
9. Create artifacts that use might be employed in different systems ?(as the wheel, used in cars and airplanes )
10. Fine-tune systems and things?

That is all that we observe in the natural world, and it seems to me, intelligence explains following much better than no intelligence:

1. Machines, production lines, factories, and factory parks
2. Physical laws
3. The gene regulatory network
4. The eye to see, the ear to listen, the nose to smell, the brain to think
5. The genetic and epigenetic information
6. The flagellum, the Cell, the eye, etc.
7. Fibonacci curves are seen in Seashells, plants, cactus, etc.
8. Atoms - molecules - molecular machines - cells - multicellular organisms,
9. Sonar systems used in bats, dolphins, whales
10. The BigBang, cosmological constants, the fundamental forces of the universe, our galaxy, the earth ?

I have not enough faith to be an atheist.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

6How to recognize the signature of (past) intelligent action Empty Imagine... Thu Jul 09, 2020 1:21 pm

Otangelo


Admin
Imagine...

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2805-how-to-recognize-the-signature-of-past-intelligent-action#7669

you were invited to go to a martial art fight and had the opportunity to bet on the fight, and if you won, become one of the wealthiest persons imaginable. Gaining more money than the ten richest men on earth together. Richer than the Rothschilds. You had two options to chose, two fighters, being:

Option one: The best, most capable, best trained, best-equipped fight warrior ever seen:
fully armored extraordinarily life-long trained professional warrior prepared for any fight,  applying advanced and developed fighting skills and tactics, highly capable, planning how to fight by studying and understanding his opponent, thoughtful, knowledgeable, experienced, using foreplanning and judgment of how to perform the fight, reasons and thinks how to apply complex fight techniques, observing and perceiving his surrounding, and adapting and adjusting effectively to the conditions of the fight, calculating, applying stored information of previous experience.

Option two:
you have a warrior, which just appears like a warrior, but is, in reality, a mindless, brainless, blind, earless lifeless bot, with no sensory perception at all, just standing there like a show doll in the vitrine.

Any sane person would obviously bet on option one, the capable warrior, which, in an instant, would shred the bot into peace and not leaving other than snippets of peace on the ground.

Theists are those that opt to choose in a debate the capable warrior. Atheists, option two, the mindless bot. It's OBVIOUS when armored with good arms, theists win an intellectual fight. The arms are knowledge in philosophy, theology, and science.

God is comparable with the capable warrior.

An intelligent designer can create:

- an object in nature very similar to human-made things
- something made based on mathematical principles
- systems and networks functioning based on logic gates
- something purposefully made for specific goals
- specified complexity, the instructional blueprint or a codified message  
- irreducible complex and interdependent systems or artifacts composed of several interlocked, well-matched parts contributing to a higher end of a complex system that would be useful only in the completion of that much larger system.
- order or orderly patterns
- hierarchically arranged systems of parts
- intelligence can create artifacts which use might be employed in different systems ( a wheel is used in cars and airplanes )
- Fine-tuning

No agent at all, that is:

- fortuitous accidents
- spontaneous self-organization
- unguided stochastic coincidence
- events without external direction
- reactions influenced by environmental parameters

can not.

An Intelligent Designer can climb mount unsurmountable, that is:

- trigger the Big bang, and create a finely tuned and adjusted universe
- invent mathematical laws which enforce how matter behaves  
- finely tune on a razor's edge the conditions to make stars, essential for life, which is a chance of one in 10^209 ( a vanishingly small number )  Chance practically zero.
- create the complex building blocks of life
- select the four nucleobases, and the 20 amino acids, amongst hundreds extant on the early earth.
- create the extremely complex molecular machinery, and chemical factory, producing the basic building blocks of life.
- create energy in the form of ATP
- codified instructional complex information, stored in a minimal genome of 1,3 million nucleotides.
- set up a minimal proteome to have a functional cell with 1200 proteins. Chance to get those randomly is 1 in 10^700.000
- create cells that are interdependent and irreducible complex ( a minimal genome, proteome, and metabolome size are required to give life a first go ).
- create millions of different lifeforms, different body architectures, and forms, based on preprogrammed instructional complex INFORMATION encoded in various genetic and epigenetic languages and communication by various signaling codes through various signaling networks. That brings us to the origin of an intelligent designer.
- create conscience and personality
- create and enforce in our hearts objective moral values
- create humans that seek for meaning and truth

No agent, can with high certainty, most probably, not.

It is obvious, that the theist is on the winning side. And, provided with a good education, will win every debate with atheists in the sense of most likely being on the side of the worldview which is true. And his winning price cannot be bought with all wealth existing on earth: Eternal life in the presence of the triune loving, just, graceful, forgiving, good, immensely powerful creator.

What is your choice? In which team do you want to play?


How to recognize the signature of (past) intelligent action Sem_tz52

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin
Elon Musk:
Boil things down to the most fundamental truths you can imagine and you reason up from there and this is a good way to figure out if something really makes sense.

If there are only two options to account for something, i.e., God and no God, and one of them is negated, then by default the other position is validated.
There is no evidence that we can exist without God. How can the materialistic worldview adequately account for the uniformity of nature, truth, the laws of logic and reality?
The universe cannot create itself, nor can it be eternal.
The universe obeys mathematical laws; they are like a hidden subtext in nature. Rules-based on mathematics do not emerge from chaotic coincidence.  
That a lucky accident finely tuned it on a razor's edge to make stars, essential for life, is a chance of one in 10^209 ( a vanishingly small number )  Chance practically zero.
Life cannot come from non-life.
There is no evidence that the four basic building blocks of life emerged randomly on the early earth.
There was no selection process to select the four nucleobases, nor the 20 amino acids, amongst hundreds extant on the early earth.
There is no known possible route from random molecules to the extremely complex molecular machinery, and chemical factory, producing the basic building blocks of life.
Biological cells require the basic building blocks, energy in the form of ATP, and codified instructional complex information, stored in a minimal genome of 1.3 million nucleotides.
A minimal proteome to have a functional free-living cell requires about 1300 proteins. The chance to get those randomly is 1 in 10^722.000
Cells are interdependent and irreducible complex ( a minimal genome, proteome, and metabolome size are required to give life a first go ).
Biodiversity cannot be explained by evolution
The Fossil record does not support evolution
The idea that matter, somehow, by evolutionary processes, can become conscious, is absurd to the extreme.
Objective moral values exist, they cannot come from matter

Gods existence is validated by positive evidence ( Not God of the gaps arguments):

The chain of sustained beings cannot regress infinitely. Therefore, the chain of sustained beings must terminate in an independent being that is not itself sustained.
The universe cannot be past eternal. Neither could it be self-caused. Therefore, it must have been caused by God.
Paul Davies: The universe is governed by dependable, immutable, absolute, universal, mathematical laws. Laws require a lawmaker
Laws and require a lawgiver. And interdependent systems a creator. Therefore, nature, the laws of nature, and their interdependence require a creator.
Gravity is inferred by observing an apple falling to the floor, so the existence of a non-physical non-created creator is inferred by observing the existence of a finite universe.
Minds purposefully develop and make things to accomplish a specific goal(s). Cells are interlocked irreducible factories where a myriad of proteins work together to self-sustain and perpetuate life.
Blueprints, machines, and factories are always the product of intelligence. Genomes direct the making of molecular machines, and cell factories. All this is therefore the product of design.
Codes always have code-makers. Therefore, the genetic code had most probably a code-maker: God.
The origin of programs, logic gates, and complex circuits to obtain a purposeful specific outcome is always tracked back to intelligent implementation.
Repeating a variety of actions based on methods that obey instructions, governed by rules comes from intelligence. Many biomechanical events are performed in a repetitive manner, obeying complex biochemical instructions
The true mechanisms to explain organismal form and architecture is prescribed complex instructional information stored in the genome, and epigenetic codes, and signaling pathways
Creative agents make artifacts which use might be employed in different systems ( a wheel is used in cars and airplanes ). Many organisms, unrelated to each other, employ nearly identical convergent biological systems.
Fine-tuning requires a fine tuner. The universe, subatomic particles, the Big Bang, the fundamental forces of the universe, the Solar System, the earth, and the moon, are finely tuned to permit life.
Intelligence makes objects of art able to transmit a sense of beauty, elegance, that pleases the aesthetic senses, especially the sight.  The world contains so many beautiful things that it is often hard to believe they exist.
Intelligence creates instructional information governing the making and operation of complex tasks and operations. Cells, strikingly, are cybernetic, ingeniously crafted cities full of factories, made and controlled through information.
Designed objects exhibit “constrained optimization.” The optimal or best-designed laptop computer is the one that is the best balance and compromise of multiple competing factors. That is also observed in the natural world.
Minds exist which have and use objective logic. Objective logic depends and can only derive from a pre-existing necessary first mind with objective logic. That mind is God.
The origin of blueprints, machines, computers, energy turbines, robotic production lines, factories, transistors, energy production plants is always tracked back to intelligence.
Objective moral values exist. Therefore, God exists.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin
A clear distinction can be made between things that can be explained by natural unguided causes and those things that are a measurable consequence of intelligent action.
Like a narrow-band radio signal, dimensional semiotic memory is a measurable correlate of intelligence, found nowhere in the natural world except in the recording of language and mathematics.

1) A semiotic system using physical representations and protocols to translate memory into functional effects. The observable aspects of this system are characterized by the information tetrahedron model of translation.
2) The use of dimensional representations to encode information into memory; where the individual arrangements in the medium are recognized in their system by their spatial orientations, which are independent of the minimum total potential energy state of the medium.
3) In addition to translation protocols, the operation of the system will also require systematic protocols to establish the dimensional operation of the system itself.

How to recognize the signature of (past) intelligent action Info-tetra-panel

The dimensional representations of the genome are that the dimensional semiosis in the genome has already been identified. In 1958 Mahlon Hoagland and Paul Zamecnik isolated the “adapter” molecules that Crick had theorized three years earlier. They also found the complex proteins that establish the genetic code while preserving the necessary discontinuity between the input and output of the system. Then in 1961, Crick et al. established empirically that the genetic code was indeed a "reading frame" code with a dimensional orientation. In that same year, Marshall Nirenberg and Heinrich Matthaei began the actual process of breaking the genetic code. Their methodology was to demonstrate the relationships between the input and output of translation, and what they demonstrated at the output could never be derived from the input – even in principle.

Since those days of initial discovery, science has added to our knowledge each of the additional systematic protocols required by a dimensional semiotic system. Research has deepened our understanding of the semiotic nature of genetic translation, and it has become widely recognized that the spatial orientation of nucleotides within codons are indeed independent of the minimum total potential energy state of the nucleic medium.

All of the unique physical conditions of dimensional semiosis have already been observed and documented in the scientific literature. It is an intractable fact that a dimensional semiotic system is used to encode organic polymers inside the cell. The conclusion of intelligent action is therefore fully supported by the physical evidence, and is subject to falsification only by showing an unguided source capable of creating such a system.

The methodology used to detect an act of unknown intelligence in the cosmos is used to detect an act of unknown intelligence at the origin of life. In both of these cases the issue of authenticity (i.e. the reliability of the result) will come into play – and as it turns out, there is a meaningful correlation between the two cases.

If it came to pass that a narrow-band radio signal was received from across the vastness of space, the SETI institute would (enthusiastically) conclude that it had confirmed the presence of an unknown intelligence. If such a signal was received, there would be two things that could be objectively detected. First, there is the narrow-band “carrier” wave, and then there is the actual message encoded within that carrier wave. While it is possible that a strong carrier wave could be detected from deep space, the actual message (information) encoded within that signal would likely be either degraded or lost entirely over such an immense distance. SETI scientists understand this issue and have specifically set up their research to detect the narrow-band carrier wave because narrow-band waves are only known to be produced by artificial means. There is simply no rational conceptualization whereby inanimate forces come together to create narrow-band radio waves. They are, in fact, a distinct and reliable artifact of design.

Even so, there would likely be skeptics who would question the conclusions of the SETI scientists, given the simple fact that there is no way to actually test whether or not some unknown combination of natural forces could have created the narrow-band signal (if one was received). But those dissenting voices would surely have to concede to our universal experience – narrow-band radio signals simply do not occur in nature without intelligence. In the end, there would be little empirical basis to support their objection.

However, there is one result that SETI scientists could produce that would immediately end all objections. This would be the case if SETI not only received a narrow-band carrier signal, but was also able to retrieve and translate the encoded message within that signal. In order to accomplish this, the researchers would have to isolate the representations within the signal medium and they would have to decipher the protocols that translate those representations into meaning. SETI researchers have already anticipated this exact opportunity; suggesting that even if the message was not decipherable, they would analyze it by other methodologies, perhaps (for instance) to determine how much information the message contained.

As a matter of brute fact, it would be the discovery of this semiotic content within the signal that would immediately end all questions as to its intelligent origin. Its authenticity would become unquestionable based squarely upon the presence of that semiotic content. It simply cannot go unnoticed that the very observation that would make the SETI results unquestionable is the very observation already made within the genome of every living thing on earth. And just as it is in the case of narrow-band radio signals, there is simply no rational conceptualization whereby inanimate forces come together to create a system of spatially-oriented representations, as well as the rules to translate those representations into meaningful effects. Such things are, in fact, a distinct and reliable artifact of design.
https://web.archive.org/web/20170614192423/http://www.biosemiosis.org/index.php/a-scientific-hypothesis-of-design

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin
The physical world, from micro to macro, depends on Information

There does exist a world (of universals or the form of the Good, which you can identify with God), which transcends the physical empirical world, and this world of intelligible forms is responsible for the “enforcement” of mathematical order in the physical world. Thus, intelligibility is responsible for the physical world. The universe is about information and information processing, and it's matter that emerges as a secondary concept. Simple rules generate what we see in nature. Information is a far more fundamental quantity in the Universe than matter or energy. The atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts. The smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas that can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language. Physical atoms are made up of vortices of energy that are constantly spinning and vibrating, each one radiating its own unique energy signature. This is also known as "the Vacuum" or "The Zero-Point Field." Matter as described by the Standard Model of Physics as a kind of epiphenomenon arising out of an informational substrate. I call this theory “informationism” to distinguish it from materialism. What are the basic building blocks of the cosmos? Atoms, particles, mass-energy? Quantum mechanics, forces, fields? Space and time — space-time? Tiny strings with many dimensions? Mathematics is a product of our minds, in exactly the same way that chess, fictional stories, myths, musical compositions, etc, are products of our minds. Thus, upon this conception, the miracle is that the universe happens to conform to our mind generated realities, that the universe is governed, structured, ordered by a mind generated reality. Therefore we can infer the universe is in fact ordered by a like mind upon the basis of the mind-resonating, that is, resonance and conformity to mind-generated realities of mathematics, which the universe possesses.

1. Nature and the universe is mathematical and based on physical laws and rules. Instantiating mathematical laws and rules depends on Information
2. Proteins are molecular machines that have specific purposes. Their making depends on genetic information
3. A variety of biological events are performed obeying complex biochemical and biomechanical signals containing instructional information. Those include, for example, cell migration, cell motility, traction force generation, protrusion forces, stress transmission, mechanosensing and mechanotransduction, mechanochemical coupling in biomolecular motors, synthesis, sorting, storage, and transport of biomolecules
4. In living cells, information is encoded through at least 33 genetic, and 43 epigenetic codes and languages.
5. Some convergent informational systems are bat echolocation in bats, oilbirds, and dolphins. That points to a common designer. 
6. The Big bang, subatomic particles, the fundamental forces of the universe, the Solar System, the earth, and the moon, in order to permit life, require finely tuned physical parameters, based on information
7. Setting up life essential error check and repair mechanisms to maintain genetic stability, and minimizing replication, transcription and translation errors, and permit organisms to pass accurately genetic information to their offspring, depends on the error-correcting code, and information to set up the system. 
8. Science has unraveled, that cells, strikingly, are cybernetic, ingeniously crafted cities full of factories. Cells contain information, which is stored in genes (books), and libraries (chromosomes). Cells have superb, fully automated information classification, storage, and retrieval programs ( gene regulatory networks ) that orchestrate strikingly precise and regulated gene expression. Cells also contain hardware - a masterful information-storage molecule ( DNA ) - and software, more efficient than millions of alternatives ( the genetic code ) - ingenious information encoding, transmission, and decoding machinery ( RNA polymerase, mRNA, the Ribosome ) - and highly robust signaling networks ( hormones and signaling pathways ) - awe-inspiring error check and repair systems of data ( for example mind-boggling Endonuclease III which error checks and repairs DNA through electric scanning ). Information systems, which prescribe, drive, direct, operate, and control interlinked compartmentalized self-replicating cell factory parks that perpetuate and thrive life.  In order to be employed at the right place, once synthesized, each protein receives an instructional information tag with an amino acid sequence, and clever molecular taxis ( motor proteins dynein, kinesin, transport vesicles ) load and transport them to the right destination on awe-inspiring molecular highways ( tubulins, actin filaments ). 

The (past) action or signature of an intelligent designer can be detected when we see all the above things. These things are all actions pre-programmed by intelligence in order to be performed autonomously.

Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
Acts 17:28: For in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’
Romans 11:36 For from him and through him and for him are all things.
John 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
Colossians 1:16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin
A Positive, Testable Case for Intelligent Design

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1288-a-positive-testable-case-for-intelligent-design


the theory of intelligent design begins with observations of how intelligent agents act when designing things. By observing human intelligent agents, there is actually quite a bit we can learn know and understand about the actions of intelligent designers. Here are some observations:

Table 1. Ways Designers Act When Designing (Observations):
(1) Intelligent agents think with an "end goal" in mind, allowing them to solve complex problems by taking many parts and arranging them in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information):

   "Agents can arrange matter with distant goals in mind. In their use of language, they routinely 'find' highly isolated and improbable functional sequences amid vast spaces of combinatorial possibilities." (Meyer, 2004 a)

   "[W]e have repeated experience of rational and conscious agents-in particular ourselves-generating or causing increases in complex specified information, both in the form of sequence-specific lines of code and in the form of hierarchically arranged systems of parts. ... Our experience-based knowledge of information-flow confirms that systems with large amounts of specified complexity (especially codes and languages) invariably originate from an intelligent source from a mind or personal agent." (Meyer, 2004 b))

(2) Intelligent agents can rapidly infuse large amounts of information into systems:

   "Intelligent design provides a sufficient causal explanation for the origin of large amounts of information, since we have considerable experience of intelligent agents generating informational configurations of matter." (Meyer, 2003.)

   "We know from experience that intelligent agents often conceive of plans prior to the material instantiation of the systems that conform to the plans--that is, the intelligent design of a blueprint often precedes the assembly of parts in accord with a blueprint or preconceived design plan." (Meyer, 2003.)

(3) Intelligent agents re-use functional components that work over and over in different systems (e.g., wheels for cars and airplanes):

   "An intelligent cause may reuse or redeploy the same module in different systems, without there necessarily being any material or physical connection between those systems. Even more simply, intelligent causes can generate identical patterns independently." (Nelson and Wells, 2003.)

(4) Intelligent agents typically create functional things (although we may sometimes think something is functionless, not realizing its true function):

   "Since non-coding regions do not produce proteins, Darwinian biologists have been dismissing them for decades as random evolutionary noise or 'junk DNA.' From an ID perspective, however, it is extremely unlikely that an organism would expend its resources on preserving and transmitting so much 'junk.'" (Wells, 2004.)

So by observing human intelligent agents, there is a lot we can know and understand about intelligent designers. These observations can then be converted into hypotheses and predictions about what we should find if an object was designed. This makes intelligent design a scientific theory capable of generating testable predictions, as seen in Table 2 below:
Table 2. Predictions of Design (Hypothesis):

(1) Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information).
(2) Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors.
(3) Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in different and unrelated organisms.
(4) Much so-called "junk DNA" will turn out to perform valuable functions.

Dr. McPeek says, "Science is having hypotheses and then testing them." There's nothing wrong with that statement. He goes on to say that "science can only support or refute hypotheses that are empirically testable." There's nothing wrong with that statement either. The problem is when he says that ID "is not" such a testable hypothesis. But as seen in the quote above, this accusation is made right after Dr. McPeek made his inaccurate statement that we can "never empirically know or understand the actions of ... any ... Intelligent Designer." On the contrary, if we can empirically know and understand the actions of intelligent agents, then we can make testable predictions about what we should find if intelligent causation was at work.

That's exactly what ID proponents do. And the predictions of ID can be put to the test, as discussed in Table 3:
Table 3. Examining the Evidence (Experiment and Conclusion):

(1) Language-based codes can be revealed by seeking to understand the workings of genetics and inheritance. High levels of specified complexity and irreducibly complexity are detected in biological systems through theoretical analysis, computer simulations and calculations (Behe & Snoke, 2004; Dembski 1998b; Axe et al. 2008; Axe, 2010a; Axe, 2010b; Dembski and Marks 2009a; Dembski and Marks 2009b; Ewert et al. 2009; Ewert et al. 2010; Chiu et al. 2002; Durston et al. 2007; Abel and Trevors, 2006; Voie 2006), "reverse engineering" (e.g. knockout experiments) (Minnich and Meyer, 2004; McIntosh 2009a; McIntosh 2009b) or mutational sensitivity tests (Axe, 2000; Axe, 2004; Gauger et al. 2010).
(2) The fossil record shows that species often appear abruptly without similar precursors. (Meyer, 2004; Lonnig, 2004; McIntosh 2009b)
(3) Similar parts are commonly found in widely different organisms. Many genes and functional parts not distributed in a manner predicted by ancestry, and are often found in clearly unrelated organisms. (Davison, 2005; Nelson & Wells, 2003; Lönnig, 2004; Sherman 2007)
(4) There have been numerous discoveries of functionality for "junk-DNA." Examples include recently discovered surprised functionality in some pseudogenes, microRNAs, introns, LINE and ALU elements. (Sternberg, 2002, Sternberg and Shapiro, 2005; McIntosh, 2009a)

Finally, in a later section of his article, Dr. McPeek writes: "if God's hand were accepted as the scientific explanation for some complexity of nature, scientific inquiry into that complexity -- by definition -- stops." Again, nothing could be further from the truth. Below are about a dozen or so examples of areas where ID is helping science to generate new scientific knowledge and open up new avenues of research. Each example includes citations to mainstream scientific articles and publications by ID proponents that discuss this research:

   ID directs research which has detected high levels of complex and specified information in biology in the form of fine-tuning of protein sequences. This has practical implications not just for explaining biological origins but also for engineering enzymes and anticipating / fighting the future evolution of diseases. (See Axe, 2004; Axe, 2000; Axe, 2010 ba)

   ID predicts that scientists will find instances of fine-tuning of the laws and constants of physics to allow for life, leading to a variety of fine-tuning arguments, including the Galactic Habitable Zone. This has huge implications for proper cosmological models of the universe, hints at proper avenues for successful "theories of everything" which must accommodate fine-tuning, and other implications for theoretical physics. (See Gonzalez 2001; Halsmer, 2009.)

   ID has helped scientists to understand intelligence as a scientifically studyable cause of biological complexity, and to understand the types of information it generates. (See Meyer, 2004b; Dembski, 1998b; McIntosh, 2009a.)

   ID has led to both experimental and theoretical research into how limitations on the ability of Darwinian evolution to evolve traits that require multiple mutations to function. This of course has practical implications for fighting problems like antibiotic resistance or engineering bacteria. (See Behe & Snoke, 2004; Gauger et al. 2010).

   ID implies that there are limits to the information-generative powers of Darwinian searches, leading to the finding that the search abilities of Darwinian processes are limited, which has practical implications for the viability of using genetic algorithms to solve problems. This particular example is relevant because Dr. McPeek cites the evolution of anti-biotic resistance, antiviral drug resistance, and insecticide resistance as his prime examples of the utility of Darwinian evolution. Ironically, one of the primary the ways that scientists combat such forms of resistance is based upon the premise that there are LIMITS to the amount that organisms can evolve. If biological realities like limits to evolution did not exist, it would be pointless for medical doctors to try to combat antibiotic resistance or antiviral drug resistance, because evolution could always produce an adaptation such that the target organism would become resistant without incurring a fitness cost. So ID's predictions about the existence of limits to evolution is what helps combat antibiotic, antiviral and pesticide resistance--not knowledge of Darwinian evolution. (See: Dembski and Marks 2009a; Dembski and Marks, 2009b; Ewert et al. 2009; Ewert et al. 2010; Axe et al. 2008.; Axe 2010a; Axe 2010b; Meyer 2004b; McIntosh 2009a; and many others.)

   ID thinking has helped scientists properly measure functional biological information, leading to concepts like complex and specified information or functional sequence complexity. This allows us to better quantify complexity and understand what features are, or are not, within the reach of Darwinian evolution. (See, for example, Meyer, 2004b; Durston et al. 2007; Chiu and Thomas 2002.)

   ID has caused scientists to investigate computer-like properties of DNA and the genome in the hopes of better understanding genetics and the origin of biological systems. (See Sternberg, 2008; Voie, 2006; Abel & Trevors, 2006.)

   ID serves as a paradigm for biology which helps scientists reverse engineer molecular machines like the bacterial flagellum to understand their function like machines, and to understand how the machine-like properties of life allow biological systems to function. (See for example Minnich and Meyer, 2004); McIntosh, 2009a.)

   ID causes scientists to view cellular components as "designed structures rather than accidental by-products of neo-Darwinian evolution," allowing scientists to propose testable hypotheses about causes of cancer. (See Wells, 2005.)

   ID leads to the view of life as being front-loaded with information such that it is designed to evolve, expecting (and now finding!) previously unanticipated "out of place" genes in various taxa. (See, for example, Sherman, 2007; de Roos, 2005; de Roos, 2007; de Roos, 2006.)

   ID explains the cause of the widespread feature of extreme degrees of "convergent evolution," including convergent genetic evolution. (See Lönnig, 2004; Nelson, & Wells, 2003; Davison, 2005.)

   ID explains causes of explosions of biodiversity (as well as mass extinction) in the history of life. (See Lönnig, 2004; Meyer, 2004b; Meyer et al., 2003.)

   ID has quite naturally directed scientists to predict function for junk-DNA, leading to various types of research seeking function for non-coding "junk"-DNA, allowing us to understand development and cellular biology. (See Wells, 2004; McIntosh, 2009a); Seaman and Sanford, 2009.)

While it seems clear that Dr. McPeek's criticisms of ID are based upon severe misunderstandings of the theory, don't expect him to admit he's wrong. Dr. McPeek holds a prestigious position at an Ivy League school where he pursues research related to evolutionary biology. If Thomas Kuhn's ideas hold any merit, he's not likely to admit the veracity of a new, competing paradigm of biology. Also, his article makes it clear he's capitulated to the NOMA construct which pretends that, as he puts it, "science can only be mute on these issues, since we cannot empirically test the existence, actions or methods of God." While we might not be able to scientifically identify the designer as God, we can certainly find signs of intelligent action in nature.

Dr. McPeek might feel that it is impossible to scientifically test for the prior action of an intelligent agent, but a lot of other scientists disagree with him. Many of their peer-reviewed scientific publications are cited among the references below.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/a_closer_look_at_one_scientist045311.html

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin
1. Implementing things based on regular behavior, order, mathematical rules, laws, principles, physical constants, and logic gates
2. Something purposefully and intentionally developed and made to accomplish a specific goal(s). That includes specifically the generation and making of building blocks, energy, and information.
3. Repeating a variety of complex actions with precision based on methods that obey instructions, governed by rules.
4. The making of irreducibly complex, integrated, and interdependent systems or artifacts composed of several interlocked, well-matched  parts contributing to a higher end of a complex system 
5. Artifacts which use might be employed in different systems (a wheel is used in cars and airplanes)
6. Things that are precisely adjusted and finely-tuned to perform specific functions and purposes
7. Arrangement of materials and elements into details, colors, forms to produce an object or work of art able to transmit the sense of beauty, that pleases the aesthetic senses, especially the sight.
8. Establishing a language, code, communication, and information transmission system
9. Any scheme where instructional information governs, orchestrates, guides, and controls the performance of actions of constructing, creating, building, and operating. 
10. Designed objects exhibit “constrained optimization.” The optimal or best-designed laptop computer is the one that is the best balance and compromise of multiple competing factors.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin
Stephen C. Meyer: SCIENCE AND EVIDENCE FOR DESIGN IN THE UNIVERSE
Rational agents produced the inscriptions on the Rosetta Stone; insurance fraud investigators detect certain “cheating patterns” that suggest intentional manipulation of circumstances rather than “natural” disasters; and cryptographers distinguish between random signals and those that carry encoded messages. Systems or sequences that are both “highly complex” (or very improbable) and “specified” are always produced by intelligent agents rather than by chance and/or physical-chemical laws.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum