Is there a scientific case for an Intelligent Designer?

[lucaspa]

An object can have a color because it emits light, rather than reflecting it. What color is a neon light?

 

Nice nitpicking. "An object that does not emit light of its own has a color due to the wavelengths of light it reflects."

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Maybe it's invisible to us because it has the power to hypnotically convince us it isn't there. Or it's very, very small. Or it's protected by an SEP field. Or "pink" was meant metaphorically, to mean it's homosexual or something. Or it's power is such that it needs to conform to mutual exclusivity of contrary properties (unicorns are, after all, magic, and I'm not so arrogant as to assume I know how everything works). I'm far from ready to throw in the towel on this one, thanks.

 

Welcome to ad hoc hypotheses! Ad hoc hypotheses are formulated to save hypotheses from falsification, which is what you are doing here, isn't it?

 

The key to whether an ad hoc hypothesis is valid is whether it can be tested independently of the hypothesis it is designed to save. Can any of your hypotheses be tested independently? Well, we could use a microscope to see a very small IPU. But notice that unicorns are horse-sized creatures.

 

Basically, Sisyphus, any scientific theory can be made unfalsifiable by the use of ad hoc hypotheses. So you have to be very careful about using them to avoid "throwing in the towel". Better to throw in the towel.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Reasoning away the colour of the Invisible Pink Unicorn does nothing to disprove the existence of the Unicorn itself as an entity.

 

In this case, yes. "invisible" and "pink" are depicted as essential parts of the entity. If it was not essential, then why specify pink? So, if you disprove the essential parts, then you've disproven that particular entity.

 

What you are doing is proposing a different entity: a Unicorn.

 

The only reason I chose the Invisible Pink Unicorn over the Flying Spaghetti Monster was because of the leapfrog pun, but my point still stands; we can't disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, so by your logic, it "remains on the table as a possibility".

 

Now you have an example of "a rose by any other name ..." If I say "glupforg has one proton and one electron" but you say "no, hydrogen has one proton and one electron", are we really saying different things? Have I really made a point by saying "glupforg" instead of "hydrogen"? You have "flying sphagetti monster" and "unicorn" have the same properties as "intelligent designer" or "deity". It's still an intelligent entity with the power to create a universe with the parameters we see.

 

By whatever name you call it -- "intelligent entity", "deity", "flying sphagetti monster", "Yahweh", etc.,-- yes, it remains on the table as a possibility.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

If someone posits the need for a designer because of complexity or first cause, then this question is relevant, because it reveals the tail chasing that they are engaged in.

 

First, I'm not using "designer" here for complexity. If you've read a number of my posts, complexity arises from the processes of physics, chemistry, and evolution. As I said, deity cannot be used as a hypothesis for direct action except for these two questions.

 

Second, first cause is a legitimate scientific question. What is the initial Cause that started the chain of cause and effect we see in the universe? The idea that our universe has always existed has been falsified. You need a cause for it.

 

The parameters could be arbitrary just as our earth might be arbitrary - then life adjusted to it, not the other way around.

 

This isn't the same as the earth. As Swansout and others have pointed out, the overwhelming majority of values for the parameters give a homogenous universe where life cannot exist i.e. the universe is only hydrogen or only photons.

 

Per Stenger, adjusting several constants, instead of just one at a time - can produce universes that might have life.

 

Reference, please?

 

Also, why is life special? Because we think it is? Every possible universe would be fine tuned - if no intelligent entity arises to ask the question, then it was fine tuned to be clean of this viral, messy life?

 

Sigh. This is the argument I already gave! "The universe is not required to have the constants it does. If it had different constants, we simply would not be here to observe it." This is why SAP is bad logic and cannot be used as proof of deity or an intelligent designer. Read carefully, that the constants are what they are allows the hypothesis of an intelligent entity (let's not use "designer" because that confuses this with Intelligent Design theory, and we aren't talking about that) making the universe. Until we can falsify that hypothesis, it stays on the table like all the other hypotheses we can't falsify, i.e. multiple universes.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I was meaning that the "SAP" was altered in the way I described. The "AP" as you called it is not even considered an anthopic principle at all in physics. It is just confroting data with theory.

 

I have found reference in physics papers to the AP as stated. You didn't describe how the SAP I stated was altered.

 

The classic example is the baryon asymmetry of the universe. The Standard Model doesn't have enough CP violation in it to explain why there is more matter than antimatter. If matter and antimatter were created in equal amount in the big bang, and asymmetry since has to be caused by this CP violation (and the other Sakharov conditions).

 

But one could argue, maybe there has always been more matter than antimatter and we don't need CP violation at all (in other words, maybe the big bang model is wrong).

 

Alternatively, a trivial extension of the SM would include neutrino masses, and a sterile right-handed neutrino in order to give the neutrinos a small mass via the see-saw mechanism. If so, then there could be CP violation in the neutrino sector which could provide enough CP violation to solve the problem.

 

First, I don't see how the AP is being used here to contradict the SM. Instead, we have an observation that the universe exists of matter. That's different than the fine-tuned constants.

 

Second, what you have here is 1) falsification of the SM and 2) ad hoc hypotheses to try to save the SM. The observation is CP violation in SM doesn't produce enough asymmetry to have a universe of matter: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/61

 

So, how do we "save" the SM? You give 2 ad hoc hypotheses to do so:

1. The universe started with more matter and the standard hot BB theory is wrong.

2. Extend the SM so that neutrinos have mass.

 

Both should be independently testable.

 

However, there's a third ad hoc hypothesis: matter/antimatter didn't all annihilate each other and there are pockets of anti-matter out there: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16780-antimatter-mysteries-1-where-is-all-the-antimatter.html

[john5746]

First, I'm not using "designer" here for complexity. If you've read a number of my posts, complexity arises from the processes of physics, chemistry, and evolution. As I said, deity cannot be used as a hypothesis for direct action except for these two questions.

 

Second, first cause is a legitimate scientific question. What is the initial Cause that started the chain of cause and effect we see in the universe? The idea that our universe has always existed has been falsified. You need a cause for it.

 

While we know the universe isn't static and was at one time very dense, I don't think we know that it hasn't always existed.

 

Reference, please?

 

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Briefs/FineBrief1.pdf

 

From the link

The second mistake is varying a single parameter. By allowing other

parameters to vary you can often find a place for life. For example, consider the

two parameters α and αs, the dimensionless numbers that measure the strengths

of the electromagnetic and strong nuclear forces respectively. Holding α fixed

you have only a tiny range of αs where stable nuclei, and thus any kind if

chemistry, is possible. Making αs a few percent lower and the nuclear force will

not be strong enough to overcome the electrical repulsion of protons on the

nucleus. Making αs a few percent higher and the nuclear force will be strong

enough to hold two protons together and no free hydrogen would exist.

 

Now, suppose we let α vary as well. In the first case where αs is too weak to

overcome the repulsion, simply lower α so the repulsion isn’t so great. In the

second case where αs is too strong to allow for free protons, simple raise α so the

repulsion is greater and two protons do not stick together.

 

Where people have not simply waved their hands but made actual

calculations of the characteristics of hypothetical universes with sets of different

parameters they have found that many of these hypothetical universes have

characteristics that could allow for life. In a study I made over ten years ago I

showed that if the three basic parameters that determine the lifetimes of stars are

varied randomly by ten orders of magnitude more than half the stars will have

lifetimes of ten billion years or longer, allowing sufficient time for some kind of

life to evolve.

 

Now, it is true that some parameters appear to be so fine-tuned that any

forms life would appear to be impossible if they were much different. I only have

space to discuss one of these: the relative strengths of gravity and

electromagnetism.....

[iNow]

Returning us all a bit closer to the actual thread topic... Here's a proposal for a test which speaks to the OP and thread title very plainly:

 

 

ZkED8cWRu4Q

 

 

 

Any bets on whether or not they'll find such a gene to support their case?

[JohnB]

Returning us all a bit closer to the actual thread topic

Not really. I haven't seen anybody arguing for creationism here.

[lucaspa]

If someone posits the need for a designer because of complexity or first cause, then this question is relevant, because it reveals the tail chasing that they are engaged in.

 

We don't know it is tail chasing. When Dawkins proposed this argument toward the end of The Blind Watchmaker, it was in response to a specific argument that "complexity cannot arise by chance, it must have an intelligent creator". That specific claim leads you into an infinite regress. BUT, there is no need to make that claim.

 

NONE of the hypotheses for First Cause have a cause. ALL of them could be open to the argument you are using if that argument were valid. In fact, if we would use that argument -- you can't accept an answer for a cause unless you know the cause of the cause -- then all science immediately stops.

 

IF it turns out that deity created the universe, THEN we look for a cause for deity. It is exactly the same as the situation for ekpyrotic: IF it turns out that there is a 5 D 'brane in which 4 D 'branes float, THEN it is time to ask "where did the 5 D 'brane come from?"

 

The parameters could be arbitrary just as our earth might be arbitrary - then life adjusted to it, not the other way around.

 

Yes, they could be arbitrary. It could be pure chance that the universe has these parameters. However, many of the parameters are such that life could not exist. For instance, if the strong nuclear force were different, only hydrogen would be possible. No one can imagine a scenario where you can have life with only 1 element.

 

if no intelligent entity arises to ask the question, then it was fine tuned to be clean of this viral, messy life?

 

That is essentially what I was saying: the strong AP is an error in logic. The universe is not required to have these parameters. If it did not, we simply would not be here to wonder about it. Basically, it is invalid to use the strong AP as "proof" of the existence of deity. However, that the universe has these parameters instead of some other parameters begs an explanation. The various multiverse theories are one attempt at an explanation: if there are an infinite number of universes, then one of them by chance will have the parameters of this one. We happen to be in this one.

 

Another attempt at an explanation -- another hypothesis -- is that the universe is created and these parameters were chosen. NEITHER hypothesis has been disproven. Both are on the table.

[rockman]

Intelligent Design

 

Ever wonder what it will be like a couple thousand years from now? Assuming we can exist for that long.

 

What if by then we have figured out how to move across galaxies by some kind of warp, wormhole, or some other unforseen way.

 

If space travel and time was not a problem..then imagine.

 

If we could do that much, then would it be a problem to find a solar system with a similiar setup as ours? Imagine there are many such solar systems where intelligent life does not exist because planets are either too far or too close to their sun, etc. Would it be impossible to re-arrange the planets in an order more hospitable to developing life forms? Imagine engineering a solar system to sustain "us".

 

If we can do that much, could we not introduce life to a planet? How would we do this? Wouldn't "evolution" be a perfect system to introduce? I wonder if we would bring the genetic substance from earth herself. So imagine "creating" if you will, a world very much like our own. Populated with species and plants very much like our own. In this way, the planet would not be "alien" to us.

 

Would we not people our planet? Can you imagine the implications of that? Imagine our new planet like a garden, where everything is set up to grow, evolve, and flourish on it's own. Without our help.

 

But, the primitive man, who has evolved enough to know who he is, we help along until his numbers have grown enough to sustain himself. We show him how to live, clothe himself, govern himself, etc. We give him some laws to follow, for his own good. Who are "we" to our primitive man? How do we explain to primitive man who we are? How do we set our primitive man on the right social path to insure his survival as well as his knowledge?

 

Can we tell our primitive man, who has very little understanding, that he is on a planet, that we moved, and that he is "designed" by us? Basically, just saying I am God who created everything, is about all our primitive man will understand.

 

Intelligent Design to me, can mean we are "seeded". Our solar system could be "designed" for us. We could be getting a little help from time to time by our "creators". We would help our primitive man with as little intrusion as possible, so our creators may do the same.

 

If we could travel the universe and move planets, we most likely would seed life. We are intelligent designers. Knowing that, we could very well be the product of it.

[mooeypoo]

Intelligent Design

 

Ever wonder what it will be like a couple thousand years from now? Assuming we can exist for that long.

 

What if by then we have figured out how to move across galaxies by some kind of warp, wormhole, or some other unforseen way.

 

If space travel and time was not a problem..then imagine.

 

If we could do that much, then would it be a problem to find a solar system with a similiar setup as ours? Imagine there are many such solar systems where intelligent life does not exist because planets are either too far or too close to their sun, etc. Would it be impossible to re-arrange the planets in an order more hospitable to developing life forms? Imagine engineering a solar system to sustain "us".

 

If we can do that much, could we not introduce life to a planet? How would we do this? Wouldn't "evolution" be a perfect system to introduce? I wonder if we would bring the genetic substance from earth herself. So imagine "creating" if you will, a world very much like our own. Populated with species and plants very much like our own. In this way, the planet would not be "alien" to us.

 

Would we not people our planet? Can you imagine the implications of that? Imagine our new planet like a garden, where everything is set up to grow, evolve, and flourish on it's own. Without our help.

 

But, the primitive man, who has evolved enough to know who he is, we help along until his numbers have grown enough to sustain himself. We show him how to live, clothe himself, govern himself, etc. We give him some laws to follow, for his own good. Who are "we" to our primitive man? How do we explain to primitive man who we are? How do we set our primitive man on the right social path to insure his survival as well as his knowledge?

 

Can we tell our primitive man, who has very little understanding, that he is on a planet, that we moved, and that he is "designed" by us? Basically, just saying I am God who created everything, is about all our primitive man will understand.

 

Intelligent Design to me, can mean we are "seeded". Our solar system could be "designed" for us. We could be getting a little help from time to time by our "creators". We would help our primitive man with as little intrusion as possible, so our creators may do the same.

 

If we could travel the universe and move planets, we most likely would seed life. We are intelligent designers. Knowing that, we could very well be the product of it.

 

That's very similar to what Erich von Daniken wrote. I love this mythological story it's entertaining and interesting and it would make a heck of a good movie (as it did, with Stargate the movie and the series) but it makes very poor science hypothesis for the following reasons:

 

 

1. There is no proof to even suggest this is so.
   I would assume that we would find *something* that would hint that this type of scenario is true, if it was. For instance, we would find a huge inexplicable leap in the evolution of certain animal types (which we do not see) or some sort of inexplicable event in our history. So far, all such "inexplicable events" have much better supported hypotheses to them than "aliens did it and called themselves god".
   
2. It is unfalsifiable.
   Even if it were true, there's not only no proof but there is no way to OBTAIN the proof, and both having proof and NOT having proof "prove it", which makes it absolutely moot scientifically.
   So, in essence, if I claim that there's no proof, the proponents of this hypothesis can say that the reason I don't see any proofis because htis is how the "designers" designed things (for me not to see the proof) -- which means that whether I find a proof or DON'T - IE, regardless of reality - this hypothesis is always true. That's not science.
   
3. The solar system, Earth and life in general are *FAR* from perfect
   In other words, if they *WERE* designed by something, that something/someone did a very lousy job. From our genitals (who the heck thought it was a good idea to mix the "waste" pipes with the sexual pipes? so many problems arise from this), to the orbit of the earth (it wobbles, and it is also tilted, and it is also not a perfect circles, and yet very close to one), and more and more.
   It's not just not perfect, there are certain things that you would expect to be COMPLETELY different if they were intentionally designed - specifically in the solar system.
   

So, to summarize, if you're dealing with science-fiction, this is awesome. If you want science, this is moot.

 

~moo

Edited August 20, 2009 by mooeypoo

[rockman]

I know there is no proof and science requires it, to be science.

 

If we were designed I don't think it was a lousy job. We can think enough to be critical. The planet does indeed wobble. What would the scenario be if it didn't? Did it have to be perfectly round?

 

The point I was trying to make is that if we stand back and become the designers we may learn a little more about why things are the way they are. We have zero experience designing solar systems, yet we are sure things would be completely different if we designed it. And I certainly can't disagree with that. Better might be debatable. We're doing a splendid job making our planet better!

 

Perfection, which we are not, is in the eye of the beholder. I probably would not assume a designer to be perfect, because we are not perfect.

 

So far I gather, we would get rid of the tilt and the wobble, and make the earth a more perfect circle. Then we would move our sexual organs to a more convenient place on our bodies. That ought to be interesting.

 

We are designers. Assuming we can go and design solar systems, how many solar systems would we design by trial and error before we got it right? Life sustaining systems are very complex. If our first 10 solar systems are not "perfect", then would that be proof to the inhabitants of such that we do not exist, and if we did, then we did a lousy job?

 

There is no proof, and I certainly agree with you on that. Why that is may have more to do with our own inabilities to recognize the proof if we seen it, rather than it being designed to prevent us from seeing it.

 

The lack of a missing link in evolution does not mean that is proof evolution is wrong. It simply means we have not found it, or we are not recognizing it.

[ydoaPs]

The lack of a missing link in evolution does not mean that is proof evolution is wrong. It simply means we have not found it, or we are not recognizing it.

 

Every form is transitional or terminal. Thanks for playing; try again.

[mooeypoo]

If we were designed I don't think it was a lousy job. We can think enough to be critical. The planet does indeed wobble. What would the scenario be if it didn't? Did it have to be perfectly round?

Yes. If someone *designed* it, then it was intentional - for a purpose. That means that the object - the Earth or Human beings - would be perfectly (or *almost* perfectly) designed for its purpose.

 

Even if you would define the Earth to have a purpose - say, to rotate around the sun so it can support us - has a lot of flaws in doing what it's "supposed" to do. Flaws that are not all that hard to pre-emptively prevent. For instance, if you're designing a planet to go around to Sun in a circular orbit, you would put it on a PERFECTLY circular orbit, not on an orbit that shifts from almost-a-perfect-circle to slightly-closer-to-an-ellipse. You would either make it an ellipse, or a circle.

 

If anyone intelligent created biological life, they didn't do a very good job. As I said before, a good example is our genitals. The fact that the penis serves as the "pipe" for both waste (urine) and propogation of the species (semen) is - quite frankly - a terrible design. It produces a bunch of possible complications and is just stupid. Even us "simple" humans figured out the meaning and importance of separating waste from everything else (SPECIALLY potential children..) in our design.

 

So if we were designed, either the designer was careless, incompetent or the designer screwed the design up on purpose. Or we weren't designed.

 

Whatever it is, it's DEFINITELY far from being "proof" of design.

 

The point I was trying to make is that if we stand back and become the designers we may learn a little more about why things are the way they are. We have zero experience designing solar systems, yet we are sure things would be completely different if we designed it. And I certainly can't disagree with that. Better might be debatable. We're doing a splendid job making our planet better!

We know why most things are the way the are when we consider evolution. Most of our biology is *perfectly* explained using the theory of evolution, and is quite well proven.

 

We didn't really require the notion of a "designer", since we can see how things were created naturally through the laws of nature. We can also see how planets are formed, and we *predict* those creations using the laws of nature and physics quite well.

 

Biology, too, is a predictive science. The assumption of a designer was never really needed.

 

Perfection, which we are not, is in the eye of the beholder. I probably would not assume a designer to be perfect, because we are not perfect.

Maybe not perfect, but we should be much more precise if we were designed.

 

Continuing your analogy, let's take things we actually DO design. Like a clock, for example. Clocks aren't perfect, but they're very efficient in doing what they're doing.

 

They don't have unnecessary parts, for example - we do (tail bone is only one of them).

They don't have redundant responses or inefficient responses. We do (getting "goose bumps" is a good example. It has no purpose at all, unless you have fur. Which we did, a few million years ago).

They don't have, built-in processes that can damage them. We do (read up about the "waste" pipes in our bodies as a good example).

 

We designed clocks, so we built them in a way that might not be perfect, but is at least not severely reckless. Our bodies have redundant organs and weird instinctive reactions that make no sense unless you factor in the evolutionary process that transformed us - slowly - from Apes to Humans.

 

That's not design. It's nature.

 

So far I gather, we would get rid of the tilt and the wobble, and make the earth a more perfect circle. Then we would move our sexual organs to a more convenient place on our bodies. That ought to be interesting.

 

And how does that add any sort of proof to an intelligent designer? This thread is about seeing whether or not there can be a scientific proof for an intelligent designer, and the answer - so far - is no. You're not changing much of the conclusion.

 

We are designers. Assuming we can go and design solar systems, how many solar systems would we design by trial and error before we got it right? Life sustaining systems are very complex. If our first 10 solar systems are not "perfect", then would that be proof to the inhabitants of such that we do not exist, and if we did, then we did a lousy job?

If that's the case, then the designer was quite reckless and we are a mistake of creation. Interesting concept. In any case, other than an intriguing philosophical science fiction, it has no bearing on whether or not an intelligent design has any scientific case. That's what this thread is about, and the answer so far is an absolute no.

 

 

There is no proof, and I certainly agree with you on that. Why that is may have more to do with our own inabilities to recognize the proof if we seen it, rather than it being designed to prevent us from seeing it.

Hang on a second, though. We have proof of many weird phenomena we only begin to understand; Things like quantum mechanics are only the tip of the iceberg in that aspect. We might not be able to explain everything, but we *DO* recognize when things don't add up.

 

In terms of the design of humans or the earth, there is really nothing that doesn't add up. It all adds up *PERFECTLY* by our current knowledge of Physics, Astrophysics, Biology, Chemistry, and other subjects. We can EXPLAIN how things happen, we can PREDICT how things will happen and we can use those to better our lives and our understanding of the universe.

 

There was never a need, in science, to declare things as "designed" by an external designer not because science is "anti" design, but because things are PERFECTLY WELL EXPLAINED by natural occurrences.

 

The lack of a missing link in evolution does not mean that is proof evolution is wrong. It simply means we have not found it, or we are not recognizing it.

.... what? There is no missing link in evolution, so that's a proof that we haven't found a missing link? How does that make any sense?

 

If you want to propose a hypothesis, you need to understand that science doesn't just go on the base of logic, it goes on the base of predictions, as well. Evolution doesn't just rely on the fact that there are no missing links, it is validated CONSTANTLY and repeatedly by the fact that it is ABSOLUTELY predictable, and we are using it -- and have been using it without properly defining it, for centuries. Breeding dogs and horses is a direct consequence of evolution with human selection rather than natural selection. Creating vaccines is directly using evolution and predicting through it.

 

You can say that everything is possible, even a pink invisible unicorn, but until you produce some evidence *AND* a predictive ability, the claim is not even considered a proper hypothesis yet.

 

This thread is about whether or not Intelligent Designer has a scientific case. The answer so far is clearly no.

 

~moo

[tawhid]

 

If anyone intelligent created biological life, they didn't do a very good job.....

 

So if we were designed, either the designer was careless, incompetent or the designer screwed the design up on purpose. Or we weren't designed.

 

 

I am not sure what mooeypoo is talking about. The most complex, intricate and well thought out design on this planet is the human being. I do not wish to enter into the argument of what we were as that is far from clear. However, what we are is a miracle even by the standards of science today.

 

One simple example, which mooeypoo hasn't heard of judging by his/her unscientific comment, would be proprioception. Humans can pin point locations in 3 dimensional space with extreme precision. To do this via any manmade process even with our best scientific tools is impossible. Was this a random event in the existence of mankind? The example given by mooeypoo is not really valid because there coud be many reasons for having the same "pipe" delivering various biological fluids. The "birth fluid" and the "waste fluid" passing through that same pipe certainly does not harm the human, and if mooeypoo wants to know what the purpose is, he/she should make some effort and speak to a urologist.

 

Next, I would like to ask a question. If we were to see an unidentified mechanical object lying on the road, would we at any point in time consider this to be randomly evolved without any specific designer? If the answer to this question is no, then it would be very ridiculous to answer yes for a far more complex biological object.

 

In summary, what is happening in current science is that theories that have circulated for long enough are now being considered to be fact and it is these theoretical facts (an oxymoron) that are being used to support the new theories that have been discussed in this forum.

[iNow]

The most complex, intricate and well thought out design on this planet is the human being.

This assertion is completely vacuous, hollow, and baseless. It is completely meaningless, as it's being presented as some objective fact despite the fact that is merely a subjective opinion. It also assumes a priori that humans are designed without providing a single shred of evidence that this is the case.

 

 

One simple example, which mooeypoo hasn't heard of judging by his/her unscientific comment, would be proprioception. Humans can pin point locations in 3 dimensional space with extreme precision.

That's not what proprioception means. Proprioception refers to our ability to spatially locate our own bodies, and to know where all of our limbs are without looking at them. It basically refers to the ability to sense oneself, not to "pin point locations in 3D space" as you've suggested above.

 

 

I suggest you study more if you wish to present arguments in such absolute terms. If you don't, you will be quickly embarrassed in a community as capable and well educated as this one.

[tawhid]

That's not what proprioception means. Proprioception refers to our ability to spatially locate our own bodies, and to know where all of our limbs are without looking at them. It basically refers to the ability to sense oneself, not to "pin point locations in 3D space" as you've suggested above.

 

Of course when we locate objects in 3D space, then we are doing so simply because we know where our body is in 3D space. For example, if I know where a glass is on a table, I can reach for it without looking, because I know where that position of my limb was in 3D space. So knowing how the various parts of my body 'communicate' among one another also leads to a projection towards the position of physical objects around me.

 

Finally, I had not anticipated the need of this explanation on such a forum, but I guess I overestimated the capacity for spatial thought of its members

[Edtharan]

I am not sure what mooeypoo is talking about. The most complex, intricate and well thought out design on this planet is the human being. I do not wish to enter into the argument of what we were as that is far from clear. However, what we are is a miracle even by the standards of science today.

There are several mistakes of reasoning you are making here.

 

Firstly: You are assuming that the Human being is a "miracle" by the standards of science. Miracles has a very specific meaning, especially when used in terms of Intelligent design. What miracles means is "beyond science".

 

As evolution is sufficient to explain the development of humans (whether or not there was a designer), biochemistry is sufficient to explain the biological processes of humans and neurobiology is able to explain how the brain works, there is nothing that is "beyond science" about humans.

 

What you are doing here is using the word "miracle" to stand for "unlikely" or "I don't understand therefore it can't occur". As the biology and development of Humans can be explained without reference to an Intelligent Designer (even if there was one), then there is nothing at all "miraculous" about humans.

 

Secondly: You are assuming that Humans are well thought out. It might seem to you that they are, when you don't understand the processes that go on in humans (biology and such). If you know even a small amount of human biology you know that we are not well designer or thought out.

 

For instance. The pelvic bones of women are too small for the size of babies heads. This cases trauma to both infants and mothers and can result in the deaths of one or both. It is only though "well thought out" medical interventions that we don't have massive mortality during childbirth.

 

Before these medical technologies were developed, infant mortality and death of the mother during child birth was very common.

 

Historically maternal mortality during child birth was around 1% and peeked in the 1800s at around 40%. Compare that to today (because of medical intervention) we have a mortality rate of around 0.00011%.

 

[sarcasm] We are so well designed that even our feeble medical science can not improve on it at all. 0.00011% mortality rate as compared to 1% is no improvement on the "natural" design... [/sarcasm]

 

But hey, lets just look at other "designs" that exist. Eagles have a visual acuity far in excess of humans, it would be an improvement on humans to ahve the visual acuity of an egal. We4 are hunters so such an advantage would certainly be an improvement.

 

Also, canines (dogs, wolves, etc) have far greater acuity in their smell and hearing. These too would be an improvement to the basic human "design" as a hunter.

 

So even if we just stuck to what already exists as structures that we could improve humans from, then we can be said to be poorly designed.

 

There is so much evidence against the claim that Humans are well designed that it is a perfectly valid argument to state that if we were design, then we were designed very badly.

 

One simple example, which mooeypoo hasn't heard of judging by his/her unscientific comment, would be proprioception. Humans can pin point locations in 3 dimensional space with extreme precision. To do this via any manmade process even with our best scientific tools is impossible.

Actually, lots of robots can position themselves in 3D space faster and more accurately than any human. Some can do so down to distances of less than the diameter of an atom.

 

Also Human nerve impulses are extremely slow compared to many other animals, so even looking at what already exists in nature and not human made objects, we can still disprove your claim.

 

So this claim by you is absolutely false.

 

Was this a random event in the existence of mankind? The example given by mooeypoo is not really valid because there coud be many reasons for having the same "pipe" delivering various biological fluids. The "birth fluid" and the "waste fluid" passing through that same pipe certainly does not harm the human, and if mooeypoo wants to know what the purpose is, he/she should make some effort and speak to a urologist.

Would you think it was a good idea putting a "Recreational Park" or a "Maternity Hospital" in the middle of a sewage works? Well this is what exists in humans. because of this we can get many life threatening infections and diseases.

 

Evolution has an explanation, but I can not see any reason that a competent designer would do this. There is no real need to do so and there are many organisms that separate their reproductive anatomy from their waste management anatomies. There is no biological need for it, but evolution does have a reason (it wasn't bad enough to cause a severe enough hazard - even though it does cause some).

 

If there is no need to put reproductive anatomy connected to waste processing anatomy, then why do it? An "intelligent" designer would understand that and so would avoid it if there were making a "intricate and well thought out design" as you stated humans are.

 

Either we are not a "intricate and well thought out design" or we weren't designed and instead evolved. But, as the main argument behind Intelligent design is that we are an "intricate and well thought out design" that it is proof that we were designed. If we are no longer "well thought out", then the core of their argument falls down and evolution becomes the more likely explanation.

 

Next, I would like to ask a question. If we were to see an unidentified mechanical object lying on the road, would we at any point in time consider this to be randomly evolved without any specific designer? If the answer to this question is no, then it would be very ridiculous to answer yes for a far more complex biological object.

This just shows your lack of understanding of evolution and why it explains how and why we are.

 

There is a major difference between living organisms (like humans) and mechanical objects:

- Living organisms are seen to reproduce and mechanical object have not been seen to reproduce

 

If I had seen this mechanical object reproducing itself then I would conclude that it could have evolved. As an example have a look at this YouTube video:

 

In summary, what is happening in current science is that theories that have circulated for long enough are now being considered to be fact and it is these theoretical facts (an oxymoron) that are being used to support the new theories that have been discussed in this forum.

Evolution is not a Theory: It is an Algorithm.

 

An algorithm is a essentially a set of rules for solving problems.

 

The algorithm that is evolution is:

1) Make lots of copies of an object and each copy has a slight variation in it

2) Remove the objects that lest fit a set of given criteria.

3) Repeat steps 1 and 2

 

That is evolution in a nutshell, and it is also an algorithm. the important thing about an algorithm is that if you have the structures to implement the algorithm it doesn't matter what those structures are made from. It could be silicon (like in computer chips), or it could be on paper (with pens or pencils), or it could in DNA (like in biology).

 

We know the Algorithm of Evolution works (that is really trivial to test), so if the algorithm works in Silicon and the same algorithm can be implemented by living organisms, then why do you find it so hard to accept that living organisms can evolve?

[tawhid]

Actually, lots of robots can position themselves in 3D space faster and more accurately than any human. Some can do so down to distances of less than the diameter of an atom.

 

Not true, no robotic arm can return to an initial random position once displaced to another at random. To counter my argument please cite one example only of this.

[mooeypoo]

I must remind the people of the thread that the topic here is whether or not Intelligence Design has any scientific case. That is, can we provide any scientifically valid evidence for Intelligent Design.

Please stay on topic and please stop avoiding the issue that is the scientific discussion.

 

We are not discussing theology or mythology or the philosophical possibility of a designer. We are discussing the scientific case of a designer. And we have been for 140 posts. Keep up.

 

It is by no means a place to throw random ad-hoc assertions at one another or to counter each others claims without evidence. This is a science forum and not a theology discussion board. As much as some assertions may *FEEL* as if they really can't be true, feelings have no bearing on science. Evidence does.

 

Can anyone in this thread point to a valid, substantial scientific evidence as to the merit of such theory as "Intelligent Design" without resorting to empty claims? If so, now is the time, people.

 

We are a science forum, and we are scientifically rigorous because that's what we do. We have always been scientifically rigorous in any sort of hypothesis that was ever raised in this forum, and this is no different.

 

We've been discussing this "hypothesis" for seven pages, and every now and then a new member decides to jump in without reading the actual thread or, it appears, the question the OP is raising, and claim there is proof in design without supplying the actual proof. The bottom line, people, is that you can claim there is a scientific case all you want but without providing us with one, the claims are moot.

 

Please stay on topic, please don't insult everyone's intelligence by ignoring a seven-page-long thread and pretending nothing was said in it, and please - please - read about the meaning of a "scientific case" and what actually constitutes one.

 

So far the vast majority of the claims here were utterly non scientific, baseless and repetitive. That's not making any sort of case - specially not a scientific one - for Intelligent Design.

 

~moo

Edited August 21, 2009 by mooeypoo

[Mokele]

Just about any robot can do that. It's called "feedback", using sensors to detect movement and then check that against an internal position map.

 

In fact, I have something like that downstairs. It's not actually motorized, but has superior proprioception to humans, called a digital arm laser scanner. We use it to make 3-D scans of bones - a laser sheet detects the bone surface as you move it, and sensors in the arm detect the position and orientation of the laser. It's so precise it can make micrometer-level accuracy scans on bones the size of one of your fingernail clippings.

 

Proprioception is nothing species, just a series of sensors in our muscles and tendons, integrated into a 'mental map'. And humans are worse than most at this - it takes us *years* to fully integrate our proprioceptors to give accurate feedback (or do you think kids can walk the moment they're born). Other species are born/hatched with a fully mapped-out system.

[wgasa]

I don't think there is evidence of an Intelligent Designer and there is no need for one, as far as I can tell all processes from the physical to the ecological could have very plausibly arisen by them selves without the need of an intelligent designer.

ID Argument: You find a watch out on a field and you think to yourself, "this watch has a designer, it could not have formed by itself." In the same manner, you see elements of design out in nature. For example the golden ratio being applied to sunflower seed arrangement and to facial structure and you can then assume that the sunflower had a designer much in the same way the watch you found out in the field has a designer.

Response: There are a few problems with this argument. Notice you do not have direct evidence that a creator designed the sunflower or facial geometry, it is only assumed based on your (limited) knowledge of what design is. In order for a watch to have been made, its designer must have had to expend energy to create it. Much in the same way that the watchmaker expended energy to create the watch, so the sun has expended its energy to drive the life giving processes that we observe in nature and it is not a stretch of the imagination to think that the sun had an influence on the formation of the first living organisms. (Earths heat core is also a source of energy). Also, we've seen speciation with out observation of designer intervention.

[JohnB]

I think that there are a few unspoken assumptions here.

 

Firstly, a designer for the universe does not imply a designer for humans.

 

Secondly, if there was a designer for humans, we don't know the rules or intent.

Even if you would define the Earth to have a purpose - say, to rotate around the sun so it can support us - has a lot of flaws in doing what it's "supposed" to do. Flaws that are not all that hard to pre-emptively prevent. For instance, if you're designing a planet to go around to Sun in a circular orbit, you would put it on a PERFECTLY circular orbit, not on an orbit that shifts from almost-a-perfect-circle to slightly-closer-to-an-ellipse. You would either make it an ellipse, or a circle.

 

That would depend on intent, would it not? Without knowing what an item is intended to do, how can you comment on how well the design fulfils it's function?

 

If anyone intelligent created biological life' date=' they didn't do a very good job. As I said before, a good example is our genitals. The fact that the penis serves as the "pipe" for both waste (urine) and propogation of the species (semen) is - quite frankly - a terrible design. It produces a bunch of possible complications and is just stupid. Even us "simple" humans figured out the meaning and importance of separating waste from everything else (SPECIALLY potential children..) in our design.

 

So if we were designed, either the designer was careless, incompetent or the designer screwed the design up on purpose. Or we weren't designed.[/quote']

 

Assuming a "non magical" designer, this is not neccessarily true. There must be rules governing the arrangement of genes on the DNA helix. For example, why is the gene for blue eyes where it is on the helix?

 

What you call poor design may be nothing more than the result of other parts of the helix being arranged in a certain way to meet a certain end. Again, if humans were designed, we don't know the purpose of the design.

 

Consequently, once you arrange the parts of the helix that are required for the design goals to be achieved, all the other bits (and their unintended results) don't matter because they don't effect the end purpose. It could be that rather than poor design, it's simply unimportant WRT final function.

 

Personally, I think the question of whether there is a scientific case for an Intelligent Designer is not currently a scientific question. We simply do not know enough to be able to test the hypothesis. The question is currently unanswerable and untestable and as such falls outside science.

[iNow]

Actually, John... supporters of ID have put forward hypotheses, and each have been falsified (see bacterial flagellum and recent story on mitochondria evolution which I shared just this morning in another ID thread).

[sananda]

there is certainly a case to suggest that intelligent life exists on other planets...

 

once we have the technology we will travel to other worlds and make them habitable by us... perhaps we will need to merge with a life form on the planet there in order to survive there...

 

if this is the case then we can suggest the same thing might have happened here... our mythology suggests that zoroastrians, christians, etc. etc. all have myths about the gods coming down, mating with the life forms here and producing mighty offspring...

 

Genesis 6 is worth reading, it is the chapter that talks about how man was limited to 120 years by the intelligent designer, they needed to cull the entire population with a flood and select a family for the future regeneration of the species... at this time they limited our age apparently.

 

Crazy stuff to be written thousands of years ago don't you think?

 

Great to read the bible with a star trek cap on

[JohnB]

Sorry iNow, I should have been clearer. I meant a designer for the Universe.

 

You were arguing the old "irreducable complexity" thing? You poor person. Go have a spoonful of honey to take the sour taste out of your mouth.

 

Genesis 6 is worth reading, it is the chapter that talks about how man was limited to 120 years by the intelligent designer, they needed to cull the entire population with a flood and select a family for the future regeneration of the species... at this time they limited our age apparently.

Actually, I prefer the original.

[mooeypoo]

I prefer to avoid treating a book that says the world is flat or that light was created before the sun (among other things) as valid in a scientific discussion.

 

 

Move along now, folks, there's nothing to see here.

[winner]

Hey Guys,

 

I joined a long while back but did not participate.

 

I know bringing up the idea of the possibility of an intelligent designer of the universe on a science forum is not exactly a good idea.

 

Anyway I see that it could fit into the bracket of pseudoscience

 

So lets bounce off the topic ans see where it goes if anywhere

 

My case (in a totally a non irreligious way) could be the exactitude of the cosmological constants, that if even one differed minutely we would never have come into existence

 

Alan

 

Yes, Alan,

 

Do you know BMD, Alan?

[mooeypoo]

Yes, Alan,

 

Do you know BMD, Alan?

Do you mind sharing with the rest of us?

 

What's BMD?