# Understanding intelligent design



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

This is long, and perhaps a little dry with the scientific discussion, but worth the read. I noticed that many scientists think religion is closed minded. However, many of those same scientists look at the evolutionary process as law and not theory. That's closed minded. This is a good article that will help you decide what you believe.

http://www.intellectualconservative.com ... nt-design/



> Natural laws are adequate to explain how the order in life, the universe, and even a microwave oven operates, but mere undirected natural laws cannot fully explain the origin of such order.
> 
> Imagine finding a planet where robots are programmed so that they can make other robots just like themselves from raw materials.
> 
> Now, imagine an alien scientist visitor coming to the planet and, after many years of studying these robots, the alien scientist visitor comes to the conclusion that since science can explain how these robots work, operate, function, and reproduce there's no reason to believe that there was an ultimate intelligent designer behind them.


----------



## adokken (Jan 28, 2003)

:roll:


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

adokken said:


> :roll:


 I agree.

Basically, it boils down to the fact that Intelligen Design cannot be tested. Period. A basic tenet of science is test hypotheses. Can't do so in ID.

From the article:

"The question is how could life or the cell come into existence naturally when there was no directing mechanism in Nature."

But there is a directing mechanism. It's called selection, and when it occurs over eons and eons, a lot can happen. Even in the last 50 years there is documentation of pathogens that have evolved to be parasitic on completely different hosts because of transfer of just a short bit of DNA.

"Chance physical processes can produce some level of order but it is not rational to believe that the highest levels of order in life and the universe are by chance."

Sure it is. An organism benefits (i.e. selected) from being less random (i.e higher level of order) if there is selection pressure to be so.

"There is no innate chemical tendency for the various amino acids to bond with one another in a sequence. Any one amino acid can just as easily bond with any other. The only reason at all for why the various amino acids bond with one another in a precise sequence in the cells of our bodies is because they're directed to do so by an already existing sequence of molecules in our genetic code. Without being in a proper sequence, protein molecules will not function."

I have no idea the point the author is trying to make here. Yes, DNA directs mRNA to make amino acids that fold into proteins. so what?

"Furthermore, without DNA there cannot be RNA, and without RNA there cannot be DNA. And without either DNA or RNA there cannot be proteins, and without proteins there cannot be DNA or RNA. "

You can have RNA without DNA (RNA viruses - and these might have been a powerful evolutionary force since viruses transmit their own DNA into the genome of the host). 
You can have DNA without RNA (of course you can. We have loads of DNA that isn't being turned into RNA in every cell of our body).

"Natural selection can only "select" from biological variations that are produced and which have survival value. The real issue is what biological variations can be naturally produced. "

I guess the author does touch on this. Good. Answer: mutation. Happens constantly. A single point mutation in a DNA-encoding gene can (but not always), change the amino acid and therefore change the protein structure/function. If this happens, it either is advantageous to the organism or is disadvantage (usually the latter). But in some situations, that change in the protein can be just what the organism needs to survive just a bit better than its peers. And the mutation can be passed along to the offspring.

Anyway, I've stopped reading the article at this point.

To get back to plainsman's points -- many many scientists are both religious and are scientists. I do not see why a person cannot be both. Calling scientists close-minded because they believe in evolution and not ID is disingenuous because ID really can't belong in the realm of scientific debate. But not because scientists are above talking about ID, just because it cannot be tested.


----------



## adokken (Jan 28, 2003)

Couldn't of said better myself.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

I haven't had a chance to read the article yet. But I thought the idea of Intelligent Design was the attempt to open the scientific door, which also does not allow creation into a scientific debate which also cannot be tested.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

cwoparson said:


> I haven't had a chance to read the article yet. But I thought the idea of Intelligent Design was the attempt to open the scientific door, which also does not allow creation into a scientific debate which also cannot be tested.


Basically, yes. I believe that ID is saying that some things (certain structures I think, like a euglena flagellum) are so complex that there is no way that they could have occured by evolving from something simpler. So, because they say it couldn't have evolved, and because there may be no immediate scientific answer for what occured, it must have been created. But there is no way of designing an experiment to see if something has been divinely created.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

cwoparson said:


> I haven't had a chance to read the article yet. But I thought the idea of Intelligent Design was the attempt to open the scientific door, which also does not allow creation into a scientific debate which also cannot be tested.


Absolutely correct.



> To get back to plainsman's points -- many many scientists are both religious and are scientists. I do not see why a person cannot be both.


Again absolutely correct. However, I don't say that some evolutionary processes do not happen, but many who look at evolution as the only answer are closed minded. I think scientists need to keep an open mind. Have we not learned from the closed minds of history?



> Calling scientists close-minded because they believe in evolution and not ID is disingenuous because ID really can't belong in the realm of scientific debate.


Not all scientists, just the ones that think they have the answer. I would hope that until we have answers scientists would consider all possibilities.



> But not because scientists are above talking about ID, just because it cannot be tested.


If evolution could be proven it wouldn't be considered theory. My biggest concern is that if we think we have the answers we don't look as hard anymore. If everyone thought that way we would still think the world was flat.

I think Intelligent design simply meshes science and religion. It gives a scientist a way to believe both. Otherwise one must be rejected. I guess above all else I am always skeptical. I don't think science has half the answers they think they do. It's like when my father had his first heart attack doctors insisted he use hydrogenated corn oil. Now we find that hydrogenated oils may be worse than butter.

Without a doubt in 100 years they will look back and laugh at what all of us thought was real. We don't continue to look for answers when we think we already have them. It simply comes down to that I am not satisfied with current guess, I want more. Even when we think we have the answers keep looking, even if for no other reason than to validate our current theory.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> It gives a scientist a way to believe both. Otherwise one must be rejected.


Absolutely not.

You seem to think my view of science is close-minded, but of course, I can also say that your view of religion is close-minded.

We can keep it at that.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

seabass said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > It gives a scientist a way to believe both. Otherwise one must be rejected.
> ...


I have no idea if your view of science is closed minded. It would be my guess that it is not. When I say close minded I refer to those who say evolution is the only answer and that religion is entirely wrong. If I thought there was no way evolution fit in then that also would be closed minded. I think somehow there is an answer that rejects neither. Maybe I misunderstand your point. As a matter of fact I think we agree more than disagree. Maybe I am expressing myself wrong.

Mostly I just don't want science to stop searching. There are things I could be 99% sure of yet I am not satisfied. Only the foolish are completely sure.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> Only the foolish are completely sure


 :lol: Guess I'm a little foolish then. I'm pretty sure this topic will never be settled to everyones satisfaction.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> Mostly I just don't want science to stop searching. There are things I could be 99% sure of yet I am not satisfied. Only the foolish are completely sure.


Scientists don't say they are completely sure about much of anything. But, after years and years of data suggesting something, it tends to be understood as a very resonable hypothesis. For example, whole genomes of various organims are getting sequenced all the time. People called Bioinformaticists take the reams of genetic code you get from sequencing progjects and compare it to sequence data from other organisms. In such a way, you can get very good estimations on when species diverged from each other by constructing a phylogenetic tree. Not trying to be a wise guy here, but I'd recommend looking at research articles on this topic (published practically every day), rather than the Intellectual Conservative.

You can be sure that scientists are not stopping the search regarding evolution and how it has shaped the world we see today. That's why nearly every university in every state has a department like, say for example, the University of Minnesota's Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> You can be sure that scientists are not stopping the search regarding evolution and how it has shaped the world we see today.


That's good to hear from another perspective. My experience was a behind chewing when some people found out I went to church. Then they make you out to be an idiot because of religion. I don't think that's any of their business. I know I am a little touchy on this subject. I once had a fellow (from another country) working with me. He asked what the buildings were that said Lutheran, Methodist, Catholic etc. I told him they were churches. He asked what's a church? I said a religious place to worship. He said, oh, are they Muslim? I said no, they are Christian. That was it nothing else, and I got reamed for an hour, and threatened about performance. 
Thanks for your perspective seabass. It's evident from your posts that there are scientists that can still respect people if they are Christian. Thanks for bringing me a little more up to speed on what's happening also. I always think scientists need to have a more open mind than anyone, but like everyone else they are not all alike. 
Oh, one other example. When the Alaskan pipeline went in the scientists I know said it would destroy the Porcupine caribou herd. The herd population continues to climb. I bought into that hook, line, and sinker. Fool me ounce shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. I lost a lot of confidence in those people.


----------

