'Junk DNA' Intelligent Design News

American atheist feels misunderstood, attacks Uncommon Descent

Spread the love

File:A small cup of coffee.JPG

Apparently, “Angry by Choice,” the star of this post “Precious: American atheist finds ENCODE to be bullshot science,” noticed “a spike in traffic” on the post. It was actually more of a mini-spikette at our end, but never mind. Anyway, he posted a response here. We can’t quote most of it, for reasons that will be apparent. However,

I am an atheist, and proud to state that. How that relates to my post on how I perceive science is being sold seems irrelevant. I also have black hair, albeit with some gray, why not title the post: Precious: Graying American finds ENCODE to be bullshot science. I am a parent so maybe: Precious: American dad finds ENCODE to be bullshot science. I’m also a scientist, which seems relevant. It’s more relevant to my post than my views on god, my hair color, or parental status. But you know what, me being a scientist is not relevant to uncommondescent’s post. In fact, I’ld argue it undercuts the strength of their post. Pointing out I think their god is hooey, is essentially poisoning the well so that their readers, conservative christians, will not bother reading my post or thinking. (I was going to write more after ‘or thinking,’ but realized I didn’t need to.)

Spanish proverb: He who loses his temper has lost the argument.

Pos-Darwinista writes to ask,

How can such a person be an university professor?

[Is he? Really? My, my. – O’Leary for News ]

Does he use these foul mouthed words in the classroom? I bet he does. Two years ago I gave a talk about ID in a Brazilian public university for some 1.200 Biology students, and was shocked with the wild foul mouthed talk given by the evolutionist professor, that I opened my talk with these words: Professor So and So, after your joking talk, it will be pretty hard for me to sell my fish, but let’s do business here! I got profound silence from a wild laughing audience that paid close attention to my talk on ID and made a lot of questions in the Q & A section.

Well, that’s today’s Darwinism for ya: Long on profanity, short on viable ideas.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Hat tip: Pos-Darwinista

Note: One of our post authors is a learned gentleman in the Caribbean who simply will not permit his Canadian (British Commonwealth) colleague to use bad language, hence she tries to avoid it.

92 Replies to “American atheist feels misunderstood, attacks Uncommon Descent

  1. 1
    JoeCoder says:

    In that blog post Angry by Choice writes:

    Is junk DNA a prediction of evolutionary biology? No.

    I would beg to differ. His mention of e coli is irrelevant because the predictions were in regard to eukaryote genomes.

    I would love to see some publications that support the idea that junk DNA is required

    The link above has a landslide of them. T. Ryan Gregory 2014, for example: “if the rate at which these mutations are generated is higher than the rate at which natural selection can weed them out, then the collective genomes of the organisms in the species will suffer a meltdown as the total number of deleterious alleles increases with each generation… [This is] incompatible with the view that 80% of the genome is functional in the sense implied by ENCODE.”

    Granted, later in the article he says “I’ll admit there may very well be papers out there suggesting that junk DNA is required for evolutionary theory to be tenable”

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    Why be angry when he can be happy as a ‘disco clam’?

    Disco Clams Light Up the Ocean Floor – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_siqfXOSaA

    Source of disco clams’ light show discovered – June 24, 2014
    Excerpt: It didn’t take long for her to confirm that the flashing was not, as most people assumed, a form of bioluminescence – a chemical reaction inside animals like plankton that produces light similar to that of a glow stick. Instead, she found, the edge of the clam’s mantle lip is highly reflective on one side. When the clam unfurls its lip – typically twice a second – the millimeter-wide mirror is revealed and reflects the ambient light, like a disco ball.,,,
    The inside of the clam’s lip is packed with tiny spheres of silica, only 340 nanometers in diameter, that are ideal reflectors, particularly of the blue light that penetrates deeper into seawater than does red light. The outside of the lip contains no silica nanospheres, so when the lip is furled, no light is reflected.
    By repeatedly unfurling and furling the lip, the clam produces a continual rippling light show. The non-reflective back of the lip strongly absorbs blue light, so it appears dark and makes the contrast between the sides even more striking.,,,
    She could find no other instance of animals using silica nanospheres as flashing reflectors, though the white color of several insects apparently comes from a layer of silica that reflects white light.
    http://phys.org/news/2014-06-s.....clams.html

  3. 3
    Aspire to Solomon says:

    This is totally unrelated, but thought I might ask; is there a “uncommon descent” forum of some sort? There is a lot of very knowledgeable and smart ID proponents on this site, but it would be nice to talk to them and ask questions in a forum setting.

  4. 4
    JoeCoder says:

    @Aspire

    I help moderate the http://reddit.com/r/creation forum. It’s pretty active. There are usually a couple dozen posts a week and a few hundred comments.

  5. 5
    Dr JDD says:

    Is he really that non-perceptive in philosophical critical reasoning and simple logic deduction? I find this absurd.

    99.9% of my conversations with atheist friends (and just atheists in some cases) always end up coming to this sort of argument:

    “But you believe in a God and are a Christian so you are biased and interpret this how you want.”
    “You want to believe in God and have a need to believe in a God so you are simply interpreting the evidence in light of that.”
    “Your judgement is clouded because of your faith”

    All of these things I contend most atheists will always come back to and at least think in their minds if not spoken.

    This is why when religious scientists speak about things that are to do with OOL, if they do not conform to the atheistic view, they will almost instantly be dismissed as from a predetermined background and therefore not unbiased (and therefore wrong).

    This is completely illogical, because the undertone therefore is, that because they are not religious nor hold a belief to God, they are therefore unbiased and more capable of making the correct informed decisions on evidence. They look through a clear glass whereas the theist looks through a translucent one.

    Anyone applying any simple logic can see the fallacy of this. OOL science vastly impacts on one’s world view. If nature and material things can explain all around us, then the most natural conclusion is there is no God. I fully subscribe to that conclusion if the evidence showed that. What is the point of God then if material can do it itself? And if you have a belief that there is no God, why would you ever choose to favour a scientific theory that implied there must be a god of sorts? You have bias just as much as the theist does.

    Therefore, the only true “unbiased” person you could perhaps argue is an agnostic (however reasoning will probably lead you to the conclusion noone is truly unbiased on issues that directly affect their worldviews).

    But wait a minute, I am sure you will say that I am being unfair – I am assuming that someone was an atheist and interpreted the evidence in that light. Maybe, someone was agnostic or even theist and went looking for truth and as a result became an atheist – surely then they are not biased in the same way? Well yes of course that is a slightly different scenario but it is negated by the fact that it works the other way around. Plenty of athetists have changed their worldviews however the difference is most of the time the atheist camp will simply claim they have gone a bit “mad in their old age” or “lost it a bit” or have been “brainwashed by Bible bashers or similar”.

    So the most relevant thing about a scientist when they discuss data that impacts OOL evidence is in fact their faith position regarding “God”. There is no way that someone’s hair colour or anything else he mentions is more or as equally relevant.

    The most convinving or the strongest pieces of evidence for a theory are the pieces of evidence acknowledged by someone who disagrees with that theory as being evidence in favour of that theory. When an IDist says, “this does support evolution” you know that is strong evidence. When an atheist says, “this does support design” you know it is strong evidence. However in my experience atheists in particular are the last to budge and they will not budge an inch (e.g. look at what was said in times past about junk DNA then look more recently).

  6. 6
    Querius says:

    Nicely expressed, Dr JDD.

    You can easily test bias by switching the attributed author or reversing the object under discussion. For example, there’s no logical distinction between the statements that you frequently hear and to these statements:

    “But you don’t believe in a God and are an atheist so you are biased and interpret this how you want.”

    “You want to believe in materialism and have a need to believe that God doesn’t exist so you are simply interpreting the evidence in light of that.”

    “Your judgement is clouded because of your faith.” (no change)

    -Q

  7. 7
    Bateman says:

    Dr JDD,

    Nice comment. One point of contention. You said that there is no need for God if materialism can explain OOL.

    I would point out that the laws of nature and materialism existed before the Big Bang. Does that not indicate a Lawgiver? Morality and purpose; isnt there a transcendence required there in order for them to have ultimate meaning?

    I recall that the laws of physics needing to exist before the big bang may have put some doubt in Sagan’s mind.

  8. 8
    Eric Anderson says:

    One of the key practical considerations in the debate is that ID proponents accept the reality of both design and non-design in the history of life and the universe. Some things are designed; some things aren’t.

    In contrast, the materialist must, by very definition, assert that nothing is designed. His is a militant, take-no-prisoners, rigid, exclusionary theory that refuses to countenance even one act of intelligent intervention in the history of the universe or the origin and diversity of life on the Earth.

    So even if OOL were somehow explained by purely natural causes (insert laughter), it would not completely overturn ID (there are many aspects of biology that point to design; and as Bateman points out @7, there are other non-biological aspects of the universe that may indicate intelligence).

    In contrast, if OOL (or any other aspect of the universe or life) were accepted as resulting from an intelligent cause, then the materialist’s theory crumbles and he is up a creek.*

    That may seem like a disparity. It may seem that ID has somehow set itself up in an unfairly advantageous position in the debate.

    Sorry, but that is just the way the theories work. It isn’t the ID proponent’s fault that the materialist has painted himself into a corner by adopting a myopic, limited naturalistic theory that cannot even admit to the possibility of design at any point in history. The problem is not with the ID proponent. The problem is that the materialist has adopted a limiting and, frankly, a silly, logically-unsupportable position.

    So the debate over OOL takes place on uneven grounds. ID proponents are quite keen on discussing OOL, because it is a prime example of an obvious place in the history of the universe and life where intelligent intervention is required. So there is naturally a lot of interest there, although ID does not entirely rest on OOL having been designed.

    But the materialist is even more adamant about OOL. Adamant that there just must be a purely naturalistic explanation. Adamant to the point that alternative viewpoints are not even given a fair shake. Militant to the point of name calling and ad hominems and fist-pounding rhetoric about science only allowing naturalistic explanations. Adamantly opposed to the possibility of design with all the fervor of a religious zealot.

    The reason the design argument resonates with so many people and why design is starting to win the day with those who are willing to approach the subject in an objective manner is not because we design proponents are all such skilled debaters (though we would like to think we are!). No. The reason is a combination of the fact that (i) design is apparent (as even admitted by prominent anti-design people) and is supported by positive evidence, while on the other hand (ii) the materialistic creation story is just such a terrible, laughable theory.

    —–

    * The materialist could, perhaps, fall back to admitting that life on Earth was designed, while asserting that it must have been designed by an intelligent alien, which in turn came into existence purely by natural causes. However, in addition to the complete lack of support for any assertion of an alien’s non-design, this is not a particularly satisfying answer for the materialist, and is only likely to be adopted in the most dire of debating circumstances.

  9. 9
    Mark Frank says:

    Eric #8
     
    This is much the same point that you made here and this gives me an opportunity to address it in a different way.
     
    You paint a picture of materialists being philosophically unable to accept explanations involving design for any aspect of life.  It may well be that some materialists hold this position. But I don’t. For me materialism is a conclusion not a philosophical position, which might be overturned by evidence to the contrary. All I ask is that explanations involving design are subject to the same scrutiny as explanations that do not. 
     
    I use the phrase “explanations involving design” because just to offer “design” as an explanation is utterly inadequate.  If I were to say life originated by “chance” without saying anything about how chance might achieve it, you would be rightly dismissive. Purported chance explanations of OOL say something about how it happened, which enables them to be assessed; and as you note many have been dismissed as a result. Explanations involving design also need to say something about how so they too can be assessed.

  10. 10
    Joe says:

    Mark Frank:

    For me materialism is a conclusion not a philosophical position, which might be overturned by evidence to the contrary.

    A conclusion based on what, exactly?

    All I ask is that explanations involving design are subject to the same scrutiny as explanations that do not.


    The EF demands they (design inferences) are subject to more scrutiny than materialistic explanations.

    I use the phrase “explanations involving design” because just to offer “design” as an explanation is utterly inadequate.

    No it isn’t. Saying design tells us nature, operating freely, was not responsible and agency involvement was required.

    Explanations involving design also need to say something about how so they too can be assessed.

    That is also incorrect. With design the how comes AFTER design has been determined. Are you really that scientifically illiterate that you don’t understand that?

    Stonehenge- designed determined and then many decades of investigation to determine how and we still don’t know. And Stonehenge is much more simple than a living organism.

    Materialism is the position that is a step-by-step paradigm, ie a mechanistic position. ID is not.

  11. 11
    Eric Anderson says:

    Mark @9:

    Joe has addressed your comments pretty well, but I’d like to add some thoughts as well.

    It may well be that some materialists hold this position. But I don’t. For me materialism is a conclusion not a philosophical position, which might be overturned by evidence to the contrary.

    Excellent. I applaud your willingness to consider design. Can you identify for us an example of something in the history of the universe or the origin and diversity of life on Earth that you consider to be designed?

    If, on the other hand, you think there is only evidence for materialism (which is why you conclude materialism), then — despite what you say — it puts the lie to the claim of objectivity and shows that your materialism is borne of an a priori philosophical position, rather than a careful review of the evidence.

    I use the phrase “explanations involving design” because just to offer “design” as an explanation is utterly inadequate. If I were to say life originated by “chance” without saying anything about how chance might achieve it, you would be rightly dismissive. Purported chance explanations of OOL say something about how it happened, which enables them to be assessed; and as you note many have been dismissed as a result. Explanations involving design also need to say something about how so they too can be assessed.

    This sounds all well and good, until we realize the following logical facts:

    1. The question of how something was designed is logically separate from, and subsequent to, the question of whether it was designed. ID is not an attempt to answer all questions. It is a limited inquiry into whether something was designed. Questions about who, why, how, when are all interesting second-order questions that can be asked only after an inference to design is drawn. You may want, deeply in your heart of hearts, for ID to answer all of those questions. But that is a failure of your expectations, not ID itself.

    2. Design does not have to answer a “how” in the same way that purely natural explanations need to. That is because we are dealing with two different domains. Design is not a mechanistic theory. It is a theory about choice, about intentionality, about intelligence. You don’t need to know how the ancients built the pyramids or stonehenge, or the precise design and manufacturing process for how a solid state flash drive was built, to know that such things were designed.

    In stark contrast, chance and natural-law-driven processes are all about the mechanism. They are purely mechanistic theories that live or die by identifying a natural physical mechanism.

    Many materialists (because, again, they can’t see past their materialism), want to demand that ID provide some kind of detailed mechanistic explanation for design. That demand is based on a misunderstanding, because ID is not a mechanistic theory. That is not a failure of ID. It is a failure by the materialist to understand the different domains we are dealing with.

  12. 12
    Dr JDD says:

    Bateman @ #7 – you raise a good point and one reason I hesitated whilst I typed that statement. However for me personally, the abiogenesis problem is the greatest problem (excluding the fine-tuning of the universe). The problem of macro-evolution in my mind is huge, but no-where near as big as abiogenesis (I strongly disagree with Dawkins on this one). Why? Because, at least with macro-evolution you have some material to work with. It is astonishing to believe that you could upwards generate complexity by chance (and contrary to everything we can and do currently observe), but that is still more believable to me when compared with generating self-sustaining, self-replicating, self-correcting machine (life) through chance. This is because by definition that chance is working on raw materials whereas macro-evolution is working on improving and adding to existing materials. That is not me supporting macro-evolution – rather it is my definition of the order of difficulty to overcome. Therefore, if someone could demonstrate how the simplest organism could arise through abiogenesis that satisfies the qualities of life, from raw non-living constituent components then macro-evolution become very believable and is not the hurdle to overcome. Observation of a true OOL event by chance would destroy my belief in God.

    That said, you can then say well what about the fine-tuning of the universe and that still supports a designer/god? Yes it does and that is a separate argument. However if the problem of life coming by chance from nothing on earth can be overcome without the need for a designer, then I would question the validity of the fine-tuning problem itself as I would be under the impression that something in nature perhaps then gives the appearance of design but is not design, and therefore we do not understand the laws of nature as purely random. Thus the possibility of the universe coming about through natural means is greatly elevated if life on earth can indeed be satisfactorily shown to also do so.

    Moving away from ID and towards the religious slant that comes from accepting a designer often I would side with RC Sproul on his logic argued in “Not a Chance…” book. Similar to this, from my own point of view, if chance was shown to be able to explain the OOL and subsequent origin of all the different organisms and species, and that therefore humans are but chance from a lesser species, there is no sovereign God and there is no real truth. Therefore if there is a “god” of sorts that even started off the universe, this god is none of those described in the Bible or any religion and as such we have no knowledge of this god and therefore no moral compass or understanding of how to live our lives in any way. It is hence all guesswork and the whole religion thing has no basis. How would we know what is “good” and “evil”? How would we know what might happen to our soul/self-consciousness when we die? The only option then, is for us to say that there is no real truth outside what we can see around us. Therefore the only positive we can take from life is that we have a brief stint of but a breath’s length here on earth so we should live the way we want, do what we want when we want and not worry or have any thought to the consequences of our actions. There is no real meaning as even if there is a god he has no true control as chance rules our lives in every single way from its generation to its completion.

    There are aspects of my faith that I wish were not true. People often say “You want to believe this is true, hence why you are a Christian.” That is not entirely true though, there are plenty of parts of Christianity I do not want to be true, but I accept them as true because of the evidence. To me the evidence demonstrates that there must be a designer, this designer must be transcendent if true, and that life cannot arise by itself from material things or naturalistic processes. If there is a transcendent God/designer, we can only know a very small bit about Him and His character by studying what He designed. That is not sufficient though, as it simply speaks to order, complexity and immense power – it does not speak to morals and guilt and right and wrong and our inherent different nature to other animals (self-consciousness, morally aware, meaningful relationships, etc) that makes us supremely unique. Therefore, you must search theological texts that claim to be from God. One of those such collection of texts claims to be from God and the evidence (to me) stands up to those claims therefore in fact we can know a sufficient amount about God and His character and the other matters that we desire to know about the transcendent God. Consequently, if you accept that text (the Bible) as truly from God and about Him rather than man’s words you have to humble yourself and accept those things that you do not want to be true, but you accept because of who says it (for example, there is a Hell). You cannot pick and choose what you want, accepting what you like and rejecting what you do not like. That is illogical.

    Therefore, the process is cyclic – examine the evidence, conclude there must be a designer, find out if such a designer has revealed themselves and if so, their revelation must be taken seriously. Notice how the process starts with evidence though – not blind faith.

  13. 13
    Mark Frank says:

    Eric

    Excellent. I applaud your willingness to consider design. Can you identify for us an example of something in the history of the universe or the origin and diversity of life on Earth that you consider to be designed?
    If, on the other hand, you think there is only evidence for materialism (which is why you conclude materialism), then — despite what you say — it puts the lie to the claim of objectivity and shows that your materialism is borne of an a priori philosophical position, rather than a careful review of the evidence.

    Why? As it happens I have never come across any convincing evidence that anything has been designed other than things designed by humans.  If the evidence points that way  what should I do?  Pretend I think something is designed to appear “objective”?

    1. The question of how something was designed is logically separate from, and subsequent to, the question of whether it was designed. ID is not an attempt to answer all questions. It is a limited inquiry into whether something was designed. Questions about who, why, how, when are all interesting second-order questions that can be asked only after an inference to design is drawn. You may want, deeply in your heart of hearts, for ID to answer all of those questions. But that is a failure of your expectations, not ID itself.

    This where our ways part. I think it is not scientific to assert hypotheses that cannot be scrutinised. If you assert something was designed and you place no limits on the powers and motives of the designer then anything might be designed (even things that have apparently natural explanations). And this is the key difference between ID and an assertion of design by the archaeologist or forensic scientist. If they assert something was designed it is possible to assess their assertion by asking who, when, how, etc.

    2. Design does not have to answer a “how” in the same way that purely natural explanations need to. That is because we are dealing with two different domains. Design is not a mechanistic theory. It is a theory about choice, about intentionality, about intelligence. You don’t need to know how the ancients built the pyramids or stonehenge, or the precise design and manufacturing process for how a solid state flash drive was built, to know that such things were designed.

    This is pretty much the same point again.  You may not need a lot of detail but if you cannot describe any aspect of the design process in any way then your only evidence is that this could not have been done by a known natural process.

    In stark contrast, chance and natural-law-driven processes are all about the mechanism. They are purely mechanistic theories that live or die by identifying a natural physical mechanism.
    Many materialists (because, again, they can’t see past their materialism), want to demand that ID provide some kind of detailed mechanistic explanation for design. That demand is based on a misunderstanding, because ID is not a mechanistic theory. That is not a failure of ID. It is a failure by the materialist to understand the different domains we are dealing with.

    I don’t understand what you mean by a mechanistic theory.  Do you just mean a theory that doesn’t deign to deal with what is actually possible?  How are we to tell whether it was possible to design life? Or do we take that for granted?

  14. 14
    Joe says:

    Mark Frank:

    As it happens I have never come across any convincing evidence that anything has been designed other than things designed by humans.

    Thankfully you are not an investigator.

    I think it is not scientific to assert hypotheses that cannot be scrutinised.

    And the design inference can be scrutinized.

    If you assert something was designed and you place no limits on the powers and motives of the designer then anything might be designed (even things that have apparently natural explanations).

    If something can be explained via purely materialistic processes then we do not infer it was designed. That is how it works in archaeology, forensics and SETI.

    If they assert something was designed it is possible to assess their assertion by asking who, when, how, etc.

    ID doesn’t stop anyone from asking those questions, Mark. They are just separate from the detection and study of design, which is what ID is about.

    You may not need a lot of detail but if you cannot describe any aspect of the design process in any way then your only evidence is that this could not have been done by a known natural process.

    That is incorrect. It has to also meet the design criteria or else we say “we don’t know at this time”.

    I don’t understand what you mean by a mechanistic theory.

    It’s a theory that is all about the mechanisms, Mark. Yours is such a position, ID is not, for the reasons discussed.

    How are we to tell whether it was possible to design life?

    It’s called evidence, Mark. ID has a methodology to determine design from nature, operating freely. And that is all that it needs.

    Most, if not all, anti-IDists always try to force any theory of intelligent design to say something about the designer and the process involved BEFORE it can be considered as scientific. This is strange because in every use-able form of design detection in which there isn’t any direct observation or designer input, it works the other way, i.e. first we determine design (or not) and then we determine the process and/ or designer. IOW any and all of our knowledge about the process and/ or designer comes from first detecting and then understanding the design.

    This is a virtue of design-centric venues. It allows us to neatly separate whether something is designed from how it was produced and/ or who produced it (when, where, why):

    “Once specified complexity tells us that something is designed, there is nothing to stop us from inquiring into its production. A design inference therefore does not avoid the problem of how a designing intelligence might have produced an object. It simply makes it a separate question.”
    Wm. Dembski- pg 112 of No Free Lunch

    Stonehenge- design determined; further research to establish how, by whom, why and when.
    Nasca Plain, Peru- design determined; further research to establish how, by whom, why and when.
    Any artifact (archeology/ anthropology)- design determined; further research to establish how, by whom, why and when- that is unless we have direct observation and/ or designer input.
    Fire investigation- if arson is determined (ie design); further research to establish how, by whom, why and when- that is unless we have direct observation and/ or designer input.

    An artifact does not stop being an artifact just because we do not know who, what, when, where, why and how. But it would be stupid to dismiss the object as being an artifact just because no one was up to the task of demonstrating a method of production and/ or the designing agent.

    And even if we did determine a process by which the object in question may have been produced it does not follow that it will be the process used.

  15. 15
    Dr JDD says:

    Hi Mark,
    I am very curious, as I always am with all naturalists, to ask them what they consider would be adequate proof of either a god or design? My curiosity is genuine – I believe that design is the best, most rational and logical conclusion. Even atheists such as Dawkins will say it has “appearance of design”. So I am very interested to know if you don’t see any evidence for design, what would you consider to be evidence?

    Also, how do you tally up that science can say that we may never know or be able to test if there is a multiverse or not yet present it as a valid scientific theory, however a transcendent designer is rejected as a valid theory because it is currently untestable?

    Thanks

  16. 16
    jerry says:

    Dr. JDD,

    Mark Frank has been making the same objection here for 7 or more years. He says show me the designer and the specific way he did it. Until then ID is nonsense. This objection is not rational but it is his way of denying ID as valid and not giving an inch.

    You can use logic, probability, emotional appeals, sarcasm, irony and none will work till you produce proof of the actual designer and how it was done.

  17. 17
    Bateman says:

    Thanks for the generous answer, Dr JDD.

  18. 18
    jerry says:

    Here is some sarcasm used with Mark Frank about 5 years ago.

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-305339

    Mark Frank and Adel, you people are just too good to be true. Next they will be accusing us of having planted you people here.

    Yes, I make sarcastic remarks because absurdity deserves it. If I hear one more person wanting to know what FSCI is, I will scream. I explained it to my niece in 4th grade and she understood it and thought it was neat. But she is really a bright kid.

    Someone actually wants the laboratory techniques used 3.8 billion years ago. You talk about bizarre. I say a thousand as hyperbole and Mark in all seriousness says there is probably only a dozen. Mark wants the actual technique used a few billion years ago.

    Mark, I got word from the designer a few weeks ago and he said the original lab and blue prints were subducted under what was to become the African plate 3.4 billion years ago but by then they were mostly rubble anyway. The original cells were relatively simple but still very complex. Subsequent plants/labs went the same way and unfortunately all holograph videos of it are now in hyper space and haven’t been looked at for at least 3 million years. So to answer one of your questions, no further work has been done for quite awhile and the designer expects future work to be done by the latest design itself. The designer travels via hyper space between his home and our area of the universe when it is necessary.

    The designer said the techniques used were much more sophisticated than anything dreamed of by current synthetic biologist crowd but in a couple million years they may get up to speed and understand how it was actually done. The designer said it is actually a lot more difficult than people think especially since this was a new technique and he had to invent the DNA/RNA/protein process from scratch but amazingly they had the right chemical properties. His comment was “Thank God for that” or else he doesn’t think he wouldn’t have been able to do it. It took him about 200,000 of our years just experimenting with amino acid combinations to get usable proteins. He said it will be easier for current scientists since they will have a template to work off.

    This is why the labs that were originally used to create life are no longer available.

  19. 19
    Acartia_bogart says:

    “It’s a theory that is all about the mechanisms, Mark. Yours is such a position, ID is not, for the reasons discussed.”

    Are you suggesting that there is no mechanism to “design”? If not, then it is indistinguishable from magic.

  20. 20
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Just jumping into the conversation if you don’t mind:

    @#13

    As it happens I have never come across any convincing evidence that anything has been designed other than things designed by humans.

    Will you accept that animal & insect intelligences design things? (Beaver dams, ant colony organizational structures, bee hives, birds nests)?

  21. 21
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Design = with or for a purpose. As opposed to purposeless chance.

    What is the mechanism that causes purposeful action?

  22. 22
    OldArmy94 says:

    Crop circles. Paranormal advocates say they are alien designed. Skeptics say they are human designed. Note that NO ONE says they are a result of pure chance or any natural contingency. Why is that? Because they are both complex AND specified. Design is the only logical conclusion, and it the question then becomes, “WHO is the designer?”

  23. 23
    Joe says:

    Acartia_bogart:

    Are you suggesting that there is no mechanism to “design”?

    No. I am saying that we don’t have to know how the design was implemented before we can infer that design exists. BTW, design is a mechanism.

  24. 24
    Eric Anderson says:

    Mark @13:

    Why? As it happens I have never come across any convincing evidence that anything has been designed other than things designed by humans. If the evidence points that way what should I do? Pretend I think something is designed to appear “objective”?

    Ironically, even ardent Darwinists like Dawkins acknowledge that biological systems appear designed. So you should at least be willing to consider the possibility of design. And I don’t mean in some untouchable, theoretical “sure, if I were to be convinced of design then I would be convinced” tautological sense. I mean as a live possibility. If not, then it betrays a philosophical, mental roadblock to considering design.

    This where our ways part. I think it is not scientific to assert hypotheses that cannot be scrutinised.

    What makes you think a design inference cannot be scrutinized? The design inference is rebutted all the time by competing theories in situations in which a chance or law-like process can demonstrably account for the artifact in question. Furthermore, the design inference itself can be challenged by looking at the probabilities and real-world experience. What you appear to be saying (without saying it) is that you are — yet again — looking for a mechanism.

    If you assert something was designed and you place no limits on the powers and motives of the designer then anything might be designed (even things that have apparently natural explanations). And this is the key difference between ID and an assertion of design by the archaeologist or forensic scientist. If they assert something was designed it is possible to assess their assertion by asking who, when, how, etc.

    First of all, you need to go back and look at how the design inference works. ID has never claimed to be able to identify every instance of design. It is certain that ID will end up with many false negatives. That is OK. ID isn’t in the business of identifying everything that is designed; only that some things rise to a threshold where we can confidently infer design. Furthermore, ID proponents are perfectly happy acknowledging that lots of stuff in the universe and in life are not designed.

    As to your last sentence, again, you need to acknowledge that those how, who, when, why questions are separate from and come after the inference of design. I’m not sure why you are having such difficulty separating those in your mind. Pretty basic logic 101 stuff.

    This is pretty much the same point again. You may not need a lot of detail but if you cannot describe any aspect of the design process in any way then your only evidence is that this could not have been done by a known natural process.

    Again, please stop and think. The question of ‘how’ is separate from the question of ‘whether.’ For the sake of all of us here, please take time to think through this before conflating them again.

    And your description of the design inference is completely false. As has been explained to you on multiple occasions, the inference to design is not simply based on the lack of a natural process. If you cannot grasp this simple fact, then please take time to learn a bit more about the design inference before making false claims. We have gone over this again and again and again.

  25. 25
    Eric Anderson says:

    jerry @16;

    Thanks for the reminder of Mark’s long-standing misunderstandings and red herring arguments. I guess I’ve fallen prey this time around to thinking that if we could just explain it one more time than something would click, a light bulb would go on. Sadly, perhaps a lost cause.

    Hopefully, there might be a sincere, objective onlooker out there who stumbles across the exchange and for whom the review, yet again, of what the design inference is and isn’t will be helpful.

  26. 26
    Eric Anderson says:

    Silver Asiatic @21:

    Why are you asking for a mechanism? Take some time to think about why you phrased the question the way you did and you will realize that you are wedded to a mechanistic outlook.

    But it doesn’t matter, because we never have to get to the mechanism to infer design.

    There are lots of ways that designers design, but we need to keep the focus on the basics for now because some people in this thread can’t seem to get it straight that ‘whether’ is separate from ‘how’ or ‘who’ or ‘when’, etc.

    —–

    BTW, while you’re at it, please explain what mechanism caused you to write your comment @21. And don’t give some vague unscrutinizable claim about neurons firing and such. We’re looking for a concrete, detailed mechanism that caused you to write what you did, as opposed to some other different comment. Inquiring minds want to know.

  27. 27
    Dr JDD says:

    Jerry – Thanks for your comments and laying out the situation.

    However, I have always assumed since fighting this battle with naturalists/atheists for many years and after seeing the same responses, that the logic I see as natural is not entertained by such people. I never think that I will convince them of their proposed folly and why I think I am right. Quite the opposite – I expect them to hold their ground.

    I am genuinely interested in the atheist’s response to that question ” what would existence of god/a designer look like in your opinion / what would the evidence look like for you to consider it evidence of design?” I have yet to hear a very good answer to it, least of all convincing as a reason for rejecting current design inferences.

    However I come back to the first point. Whilst having debated for a long time with atheists over this subject, what I realise is that forums and discussion websites like these are read by far more people that are searching than those who post. The overwhelming number of reads are often not posters. I believe that when someone is genuinely open to, and searching for truth, if you do not at least follow the argument through (even if you know they will not accept your argument) to a point that gives enough information to a genuinely inquisitive reader to leave and not think that you have lost that argument then you are doing them a dis-service.

    So where possible, I try to keep dialogue open even if I know someone I am speaking with will not change, as this is a record that literally 100s if not 1000s of people can view. If you stop replying too early and do not make a decent enough point, your arguments will be assuming invalidated by those neutrals who perhaps are more easily swayed one way or another. At least give them what you think is a full story and/or highlight the error of the logic of other arguments, if there is error there.

    That’s just my personal view. Give people a full picture so they can make a fully informed decision.

  28. 28
    Mark Frank says:

    Eric #24

    What makes you think a design inference cannot be scrutinized? The design inference is rebutted all the time by competing theories in situations in which a chance or law-like process can demonstrably account for the artifact in question.

    But that is not scrutinising the design inference – that is looking only at the alternatives.  The way the design inference works as you describe it you could conclude that an object was designed because all conceivable alternatives appear too improbable without stopping for a moment to consider whether it was possible that it could be designed.

    Furthermore, the design inference itself can be challenged by looking at the probabilities and real-world experience.

    How is this different from checking there are no conceivable natural processes?

    What you appear to be saying (without saying it) is that you are — yet again — looking for a mechanism.

    Yes I am looking for a mechanism.

    First of all, you need to go back and look at how the design inference works. ID has never claimed to be able to identify every instance of design. It is certain that ID will end up with many false negatives. That is OK. ID isn’t in the business of identifying everything that is designed; only that some things rise to a threshold where we can confidently infer design. Furthermore, ID proponents are perfectly happy acknowledging that lots of stuff in the universe and in life are not designed.

    That does not contradict what I wrote. If you accept no limits on the designer then anything could be designed. True?

    As to your last sentence, again, you need to acknowledge that those how, who, when, why questions are separate from and come after the inference of design. I’m not sure why you are having such difficulty separating those in your mind. Pretty basic logic 101 stuff.

    The whole point is that I dispute that 101 stuff.  I don’t think you can make a valid inference of design without some consideration of who, how, when etc. Take a most extreme example, Joe’s Nasca plain figures. Yes we all agree that they were designed not accidental, but that is a valid inference because we know that it is quite possible that there were people around when they were constructed and people are much more likely to deliberately create representations of things than nature is to unintentionally create them and it is not impossible that people could have created such things. We know a bit about people, their motives and capabilities. If the same figures were found in a place where people could not possibly have created them e.g. the other side of the moon, then we would have to start thinking seriously about some natural explanation. We would probably still prefer some design hypothesis e.g. aliens in preference to a natural explanation – but the less plausible the design hypothesis the more seriously we would look for natural explanations –  the important thing is you need to compare them.

    Again, please stop and think. The question of ‘how’ is separate from the question of ‘whether.’ For the sake of all of us here, please take time to think through this before conflating them again.

    It is the same point. Do you really think I have not stopped and thought about this?  I would ask you to stop and think whether you can really decide that something is designed without any idea of what did the designing, why they did it, and what capabilities they had.
     

    And your description of the design inference is completely false. As has been explained to you on multiple occasions, the inference to design is not simply based on the lack of a natural process. If you cannot grasp this simple fact, then please take time to learn a bit more about the design inference before making false claims. We have gone over this again and again and again

    And I have refuted the point again and again.  All the talk of CSI, FSCI, dFSCI, IC is a way of deciding there is no natural process and then disguising it in jargon and maths so you fool yourselves. It is most obvious in CSI where the actual calculation requires the probability of an alternative to be low.  But think of it this way.  How can you refute a design inference other than by showing that the result could be achieved through natural processes?

  29. 29
    Mark Frank says:

    Jerry #16

    You are right that I have been making the same point for years. I believe I am correct but it is fairly pointless going over the arguments all over again. My excuse is that I am suffering from shingles and debating distracts me from the considerable pain.

  30. 30
    Joe says:

    Mark Frank:

    But that is not scrutinising the design inference – that is looking only at the alternatives.

    And looking at the alternatives is scrutinizing the design inference.

    The way the design inference works as you describe it you could conclude that an object was designed because all conceivable alternatives appear too improbable without stopping for a moment to consider whether it was possible that it could be designed.

    Except that is NOT how the design inference works. There also needs to be a reason, ie a POSITIVE case, for the design inference. Just as the EF mandates.

    Yes I am looking for a mechanism.

    Design is a mechanism.

    If you accept no limits on the designer then anything could be designed. True?

    Then all deaths are murders, all fires are arsons and all rocks are artifacts. True?

    I would ask you to stop and think whether you can really decide that something is designed without any idea of what did the designing, why they did it, and what capabilities they had.

    Absolutely. All it really takes is knowledge of cause and effect relationships to determine whether or not mother nature did it or an intelligent agency was required.

    How can you refute a design inference other than by showing that the result could be achieved through natural processes?

    Why is more than one way to refute a design inference required?

    So it all boils down to Mark’s position has nothing but he wants us to wait because he is sure materialism will eventually sort it out.

    Tell us Mark, how can we refute materialism other than proving Design?

  31. 31
    Joe says:

    Mark Frank:

    You are right that I have been making the same point for years.

    And it has been refuted for years. That seems to be a common thread with the anti-ID mob.

  32. 32
    jerry says:

    This is a very long post but gets at the heart of what ID is and at those who object to it.

    How can you refute a design inference other than by showing that the result could be achieved through natural processes?

    Mark Frank has been here as long as I have and knows every nuance of ID but continues to misrepresent it. Is Mark not capable of knowing what ID is about? Hard to imagine as Mark worked for IBM in computers and should be able to follow basic logic.

    This is a series of comments I made several years to go to clarify just what ID is. This is nothing new but apparently must be told continually. It comes from a thread over 5 years ago:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-318723

    “I wonder how many times this will need to be repeated? The above is a test of the alternative theory, not of ID. It would not follow from the failure of the alternative that ID is correct. Both can be wrong. The entire population of U.D., USA seems to be particularly dense on this point.”

    This is a rather stupid statement and indicates a lack of understanding of the issues. My reply to this is rather long so if no one wants to read it, I understand because I am mainly clarifying my thoughts by writing this. I will make this reply in three rather long comments and if anyone wants to comment, feel free.

    There are two choices for any phenomenon, both of them rather broad. One is that certain things happened naturally, the mechanism to be discovered. The second is that these things were produced through intelligent input. And by the way a lot of what may be considered natural, could be the result of a designed process allowed to proceed naturally. For some simple examples, pearl farmers seed their shell fish with an irritant and the let nature do the rest and beavers dam the course of a river and the ensuing wetlands provide an enhanced habitat for the beavers and other animals and plants..

    But in general it is mainly one or the other but what appears to be natural could also be great design. There are no other choices unless you want to proffer some. As I said these are rather broad categories. It is almost impossible to eliminate the intelligent input option. It is not a theory such as gravity, the Standard Model, the Laws of Thermodynamics, Kinetic theory of Gases, Information theory or Plate Tectonics etc yet people keep on asking for some hypotheses and predictions. ID is simply that intelligence is an input at some time in the history of being, the universe, the world, life etc. Some hypothesize that it was in the design of the universe itself and the initial conditions and subsequent boundary conditions of the Big Bang were such fantastic design that it enables natural processes to produce everything we see including this very rare planet, the origin of life and the evolutionary progression through subsequent natural consequences. Some hypothesize that the input was ongoing and there were various events that reflect an intelligent input. This input could have been minimal and then natural processes were allowed to do the rest. To disprove an intelligent input, one has to show natural processes at every turn. It is a difficult job. All ID has to do is show that naturalistic processes fail at some point and that an intelligent input is more reasonable. They only need one point.

    That is the nature of the discussion. It seems unfair to some who whine that ID is unfalsifiable. But that is it. Because ID is more of a logic process and not a specific scientific theory it does not have the usual domain of interest such as plate tectonics, cosmology or even evolution. After all an intelligence could create life or modify a genome to guide life maybe only once and that is not the making of some theory. To create life or modify it is not too hard to understand as it appears to be within human capability in the near future.

    Thus, the possibility of an intelligence creating and modifying life is not an issue. It is whether it ever happened or not that is at issue. If we had a video camera at the time of an intelligent input, we could settle it once and for all but such an event does not exist and we have had people here and at other places demanding such evidence. Short of this something else has to be done.

    Part 2 – We have observed a lot of phenomena through out history that could possibly be explained by an intelligent input and the challenge for science is to verify if there may be a natural cause for each. For most of history it was thought that God was personally responsible for most, much, or a lot of these phenomena. From Zeus throwing lightning bolts in anger and the various gods determining the fates of various personalities such as Odysseus to Newton’s hypothesis that God sent comets to stabilize the orbits of the planets. Newton’s laws and then LaPlace’s theory of the heavens seemed to show that all was under control of natural laws. So it was assumed from then on by many that everything must be under control of natural laws. We have no need for Zeus and lightning bolts and for comets stabilizing orbits.

    And we get the conventional wisdom that everything is due to natural laws and chance and it is only a matter of time before science gets around to explaining it. And science has a good track record. But what is glaringly obvious is that science has some spectacular failures in one particular area. So while science continues to chalk up win after win there seems to be one opponent which gets the better of it every time. Consequently, one has to reevaluate the conventional wisdom and maybe consider an alternative to natural processes. ID only exists because science loses most of the time to the heavy weights in this one area, namely life. It does wonderfully well in some important areas of life, specifically medicine, food production and genetics but it is badly outperformed by the problems in the areas of macro evolution and origin of life. Why this failure here? Is there an alternative to naturalistic processes in these two domains. Is intelligence an explanation?

    Hence, every time science fails in these areas it adds credence to the alternative. At this moment in the realm of logic and reason both alternatives exist. Which is more feasible? Every time we see the failure of one alternative it raises the possibility of the other. After all it is possible. We just cannot identify the intelligence. So each failure for a natural pathway raises the probability of the alternative, namely an intelligent input.

    And the rationale for an intelligent input has been bolstered by the knowledge that what underlies life is different from every other area of nature, specifically information. Information is not present in any other area of nature except life.

    Part 3 – Now this game of supporting the ID premise is played two ways and both use the tools of science, logic and reason. One shows that time after time that certain naturalistic processes have failed. The second way is to show why naturalistic processes have failed. Both use science and point to the inadequacy of natural processes. There is a third way which one group says must be present before an intelligent input can be accepted and that is evidence for the specific event where there was an input of intelligence.

    The first way above is to challenge each natural explanation for the phenomenon as flawed and show why the explanation could not have possibly happened. This is the frequent challenges to Darwinian macro evolution we have seen not only by the ID people but also by the anti ID people as well as the creationists. It is represented here on this site and in the academic and popular literature by the lack of any coherent demonstration that Darwinian macro evolution ever took place. Now macro evolution did take place and no one is denying that here but there is no evidence for it happening by Darwinian processes or any other known natural processes. All the processes of science are brought to bear in this examination so to declare it non scientific is ludicrous.

    The second way is to use observations of the world and then to complement these observations with some form of analysis, mainly probability, and some understanding of natural processes to illustrate why the failure of naturalistic processes is not only reasonable but to be expected. To this end a couple of different approaches are in their infancy but have showed some reasonable results. One is being developed by Behe and is showing that there does not exist the probabilistic resources to create the changes needed in macro evolution. Behe’s two books, Darwin’s Black Box and Edge of Evolution, are aimed at this objective. Namely, that life is extremely complicated and naturalistic processes seem unable to climb the hurdles necessary to produce macro evolution.

    Another is being done by Dembski and others trying to show something similar using mathematical and probabilistic approaches to show that reaching the complexity necessary for life is beyond the probabilistic resources of the universe. So in lots of way the two approaches are similar but using different methodologies to attack the same problem.

    To argue that this is not science is also ludicrous. One may argue that the techniques by these scientists are flawed or that the interpretation of the results are invalid but to say that they are not using science is absurd.

    Now the naturalists respond with their challenges. The best challenge would always be to show that the phenomena probably arose by naturalistic means but this is rarely done because there seems to be little evidence supporting any particular mechanism. The main challenge is to use something similar to what I described above as the first approach, namely that the intelligent input scenario is flawed just as ID people point out that each naturalistic input is flawed. The creator could not be omniscient, or no one would design such an imperfect system or make these childish mistakes etc. They also point to science’s track record in other areas and that the work on the problem is just getting started etc.

    So we have two broad approaches and any evidence in one camp reduces the likelihood of the other. It is one that won’t be solved any time soon but to assume your side is right a priori is ridiculous. ID is the more reasonable side as far as I can see. They are willing to accept naturalistic explanations when it is demonstrated but are not willing to accept an arbitrary demand of absolute dismissiveness for intelligent inputs that is imposed by the naturalists. One side is flexible and reasonable while the other side is intransigent and unmoving.

    I added the following comments to these three comments in response to another inane challenge.

    “And in my experience ID “considering” these issues consists of time in an armchair parasitically reinterpreting data obtained by others – in a way that, once again, generates no testable assertions and hence no further research. That isn’t science.”

    The best term I can use for this attitude is “clueless.” When science takes on one more additional possible explanation, it does not mean it eliminates all the other explanations. Maybe we should speak in shorter sentences so you may be able to understand.

    ID does not eliminate anything that current science does.

    ID can do any experiment that current science does.

    ID can do additional experiments that current science might not do.

    ID can come to the same conclusions as current science does.

    ID can also come to some different conclusions than current science.

    ID will come to a naturalistic explanation in nearly all experiments.

    But in fact naturalistic explanations can be used to support intelligence based conclusions.

    ID will do some things differently than current science about its conclusions.

    For example, it will not make up any unsupported conclusions.

    It will not use the words “it evolved”, “it was selected”, “it was exapted”, “it emerged” to explain an unknown event or transition.

    ID will not use its imagination as evidence in science.

    Now that you understand some of the things that ID will add to science you may try some other non sequiturs to your array of arguments. But I suggest you try to understand instead. ID adds, it does not subtract. Your point of view subtracts and restricts and oppresses and misinforms.

    So please try an honest and logical argument. It is getting tiresome. No one is asking you to agree with an ID conclusion even if it is completely logical and well supported, but try to represent it reliably instead of distorting it. You might learn something.

    The anti-ID people are desperate to find some fault with ID that they misrepresent nearly everything and attribute some remarks by people as representing ID in total. It is a game of “gotcha.” But that is all they have. They have no positive support for what they believe

  33. 33
    kairosfocus says:

    JDD, very well put. KF

    Jerry, quite a blast from the past. KF

  34. 34
    Upright BiPed says:

    MArk,

    If the same figures were found in a place where people could not possibly have created them e.g. the other side of the moon, then we would have to start thinking seriously about some natural explanation.

    What would you do if you found something symbolic or representational in a place that man had never been? You can come up with whatever you think would convince you that it was a representation, perhaps something that depicts the position of the stars, or perhaps something numerical scratched across the surface of a flat rock. Whatever it is, it is not the question here – we have to assume that there is at least some organization of an object that would convince you it was representational. The question is, what would you do then? Would you look for an “natural explanation”?

  35. 35
    Upright BiPed says:

    Good grief.

    I now go back and read what “figures” Mark was talking about. If Mark Frank found imagery of birds, spiders, and monkeys etched into the suface of the dark side of the moon, he says he would begin looking for natural explanations.

    Is there anything that more clearly demonstrates a clinically-frozen closed mind?

  36. 36
    kairosfocus says:

    MF @ 28:

    I don’t think you can make a valid inference of design without some consideration of who, how, when etc.

    Really!

    If I were to find on Mars, say a Periodic Table or a drawing of a spaceship or a LGM or a dinosaur, I would immediately infer design on the FSCO/I involved, as an empirically reliable and analytically plausible sign of design. For reasons outlined here . . . yet again.

    What you are doing is taking up an irrelevancy in the teeth of a cogent inductive argument. If you could show that FSCO/I is not such a reliable sign, that would be one thing. Obviously, you don’t have that — and we both know that in past years there were dozens of failed attempts.

    What you have done instead is to go off after a red herring led out to a strawman that you have proceeded to pummel.

    Please, after all these years, do better than that.

    KF

  37. 37
    kairosfocus says:

    UB, prezactly. KF

  38. 38
    Joe says:

    Upright Biped:

    I now go back and read what “figures” Mark was talking about. If Mark Frank found imagery of birds, spiders, and monkeys etched into the suface of the dark side of the moon,…

    Far side of the Moon. You know, where Gary Larson writes from… 😎

  39. 39
    Mung says:

    Eric Anderson:

    One of the key practical considerations in the debate is that ID proponents accept the reality of both design and non-design in the history of life and the universe. Some things are designed; some things aren’t.

    I’m not one of those ID proponents. Some things lead to an inference of design and some don’t. It doesn’t follow that the things that don’t lead to an inference of design are not designed.

    If we had perfect design detection methods we would see that everything is designed, but we don’t. Science is tentative like that.

    Science has not and never will develop a test of “unguidedness” or “undesignedness.”

  40. 40
    Eric Anderson says:

    Mark @28:

    . . . without stopping for a moment to consider whether it was possible that it could be designed.

    But, Mark. You just told us above that anything could be designed. So, which is it? 🙂

    Furthermore, are you really staking out a position that we can’t possibly infer that something like a 4-bit digital coding system with storage, retrieval and translation mechanisms might have been designed unless we know for a fact that it could have been designed? You are going to take that position in spite of the blatantly obvious fact that (i) designers are known to produce systems of that type, and (ii) no natural process has ever come close to producing such a system?

    Additionally, human designers are now doing things like storing digital information in DNA, even researching the possibility of using DNA storage for computing applications. So, to anyone not blinded by silliness, yes, it is quite obvious that many things in biology could have been designed.

    Lastly, let’s pursue your objection to its logical conclusion. Are you going to go on record and acknowledge that if and when humans eventually build a functional DNA-based data storage and retrieval mechanism (to give but one example), that you will then acknowledge that the DNA-based data storage and retrieval mechanisms in living organisms may have been designed?

    Hint: If you are willing to go on record, please say so. If not, then your a priori philosophical baggage is showing.

    Yes I am looking for a mechanism.

    Finally. Thank you for acknowledging this.

    Unfortunately, it means you do not understand the design inference, so until you get on board with what intelligent design is about (whether or not you agree with it), I fear there may not be much point in continuing.

    If you accept no limits on the designer then anything could be designed. True?

    Yes, in a purely theoretical sense. So? I have already explained, and it has no doubt been explained to you before, that ID is not in the business of identifying everything that is designed. ID leaves lots of false negatives by the wayside in order to focus on those situations in which design is clear. Again, this goes back to a basic understanding of what ID is about. It is not a valid criticism of ID to note that some things that don’t look designed might in fact be designed. We already know that. It is well acknowledged in the ID literature. It is not an issue for ID.

    I don’t think you can make a valid inference of design without some consideration of who, how, when etc.

    Well, all I can say then, is that you need to think through it more clearly. Maybe get out a piece of paper and draw a flowchart for yourself or something.

    Example #1: Hiker in the Amazon jungle comes across a large rock lying on the trail. Hiker immediately, quickly, clearly and without any significant intellectual effort concludes that the rock was not designed. Hiker moves on his way, never proceeding to the subsequent questions of ‘how’, ‘why’, ‘who’, etc., precisely because those questions are not needed in order to draw the initial inference about whether the object was designed.

    Example #2: Hiker in the Amazon jungle comes across a round disc-shaped stone with pictographs and symbols on it. Hiker immediately, quickly, clearly and without any significant intellectual effort concludes that it was designed. Hiker then, and only then, starts to contemplate ‘how’, ‘why’, ‘who’, etc., precisely because those questions only arise once an inference to design has been drawn..

    This is pretty basic stuff, but I realize it can be confusing to those who are wedded to the (false) notion that we have to know all kinds of things about the designer, or the design process, or the motives, personality or capabilities of the designer in order to infer design in the first place.

  41. 41
    Eric Anderson says:

    Mung @39:

    Well, if you prefer to imagine design in everything that is your prerogative. Hmmm . . . Mark thinks nothing is designed; Mung thinks everything is. I think I’ll start calling you the “Anti-Mark”! Good thing his name isn’t Christopher or something like that. 🙂

    Regardless, we can get out of your personal definitional conundrum. Just humor us by referring to two different kinds of design (i) “design 1” = what nearly everyone else in the world understands as design and what the dictionary refers to, and (ii) “design 2” = the other stuff that you think is also designed, although admittedly it can never be detected as such, and for which nearly everyone else in the English-speaking world uses words like “chance” and “necessity”. [Hint: when we talk about design on this forum generally, we are talking about design 1.]

    There, that should do it. 🙂

    —–

    BTW, just so onlookers are clear, this is quite separate from the question Mark and I were discussing about whether some things may be designed that don’t appear designed. That is clearly the case, and relates to the false negatives I mentioned in detail.

  42. 42
    Mung says:

    MF, I wish you a speedy recovery and soon departure from UD.

    Well at least the first part is true! The second I’m rather ambivalent about. How have you managed to avoid banation?

    What, precisely, is the evidence for materialism?

    Heck, even matter is isn’t made of matter. What more evidence do you need that materialism is false?

    All I ask is that explanations involving design are subject to the same scrutiny as explanations that do not.

    LOL! You are so incredibly transparent. Nice try.

    As it happens I have never come across any convincing evidence that anything has been designed other than things designed by humans.

    So?

    That’s how the design inference works.

    That’s why it’s called an inference.

    Do you have something against inference? Is it not scientific? Are other explanations not also based upon inference?

    Anyways, I hope you’re just “under the weather” and it’s nothing serious.

    At least you admit that design is a real concept and not just an illusion. But how is it that you limit design to humans? Is there something shared by humans to the exclusion of all other natural species that allows them to “design”?

  43. 43
    Mung says:

    Eric:

    Well, if you prefer to imagine design in everything that is your prerogative.

    What does imagination have to do with it?

    Natural disasters are not uncommon. Why are they called natural disasters? Is it due to lack of imagination? Is it because we can’t imagine God doing such a thing?

    Mark thinks nothing is designed;

    Well, you could call Mark the anti-Mung!

    But that’s not true. Mark believes humans are designers and that design is real, but limited (in his experience) to human action.

    Of course, that’s the entire basis of the inference to intelligent design. So I don’t know what his problem is.

    Regardless, we can get out of your personal definitional conundrum. Just humor us by referring to two different kinds of design…

    I’m not the one that is conflicted here. This is ID 101.

    There are not different kinds of design as you as using the term. If there was, then design as used by ID would be meaningless.

    You are asking me to describe some event which can scientifically be placed into the category of not designed when I have denied that such a thing is even possible.

    Mung (the Anti-Mark!):

    Some things lead to an inference of design and some don’t. It doesn’t follow that the things that don’t lead to an inference of design are not designed.

    Science has not and never will develop a test of “unguidedness” or “undesignedness.”

    Ooh, Christians fear THE MARK.

    So sure, call me THE ANTI-MARK!

  44. 44
    Mung says:

    Eric Anderson:

    ID leaves lots of false negatives by the wayside in order to focus on those situations in which design is clear. Again, this goes back to a basic understanding of what ID is about. It is not a valid criticism of ID to note that some things that don’t look designed might in fact be designed. We already know that. It is well acknowledged in the ID literature. It is not an issue for ID.

    I agree.

    I assume these “some things that don’t look designed might in fact be designed” must fall into your category of everything that everyone knows is not designed?

    EA:

    for which nearly everyone else in the English-speaking world uses words like “chance” and “necessity”.

  45. 45
    Mark Frank says:

    Eric @40:

    But, Mark. You just told us above that anything could be designed. So, which is it?

    I said that if you assume a designer with unlimited powers then it is possible that anything could be designed.  You need to describe the designer and the implementation process to see if it is really possible that the output was designed.

    Furthermore, are you really staking out a position that we can’t possibly infer that something like a 4-bit digital coding system with storage, retrieval and translation mechanisms might have been designed unless we know for a fact that it could have been designed? You are going to take that position in spite of the blatantly obvious fact that (i) designers are known to produce systems of that type, and (ii) no natural process has ever come close to producing such a system?

    The phrase “unless we know for a fact it could have been designed” is too extreme. I can have degrees of confidence that something could be designed (indeed my whole point is we need to compare the degree of confidence with our confidence it was created by natural processes). Although humans have designed 4-bit digital coding systems that is very far from having designed life and anyway there were no humans around 4 billion years ago.  So I need some idea of who and how – at least a hypothesis. 

    Additionally, human designers are now doing things like storing digital information in DNA, even researching the possibility of using DNA storage for computing applications. So, to anyone not blinded by silliness, yes, it is quite obvious that many things in biology could have been designed.
    Lastly, let’s pursue your objection to its logical conclusion. Are you going to go on record and acknowledge that if and when humans eventually build a functional DNA-based data storage and retrieval mechanism (to give but one example), that you will then acknowledge that the DNA-based data storage and retrieval mechanisms in living organisms may have been designed?
    Hint: If you are willing to go on record, please say so. If not, then your a priori philosophical baggage is showing.

    This would provide a mechanism but not a designer as there were no humans around 4 billion years ago.  But at least it leads to a discussion about might be possible. What kind of thing could have designed the first life in the universe? Bear in mind that this thing cannot itself be a life form.

    Finally. Thank you for acknowledging this.

    I am not sure why write “finally”. I have never denied I was looking for a mechanism.

    Unfortunately, it means you do not understand the design inference, so until you get on board with what intelligent design is about (whether or not you agree with it), I fear there may not be much point in continuing.

    My experience over the years is that I understand the design inference and its limitations better than most ID proponents. I know that the design inference tries to conclude design without getting into the mechanism. My point is that this is invalid reasoning.  But if your response to this criticism is to just say I don’t understand ID then you are right there is little point in continuing (if there ever was).

    MF: If you accept no limits on the designer then anything could be designed. True?
    Eric:Yes, in a purely theoretical sense. So?

    That’s fine. I just want to establish your agreement to that statement.  We can deal with the consequences later.

    Well, all I can say then, is that you need to think through it more clearly. Maybe get out a piece of paper and draw a flowchart for yourself or something.

    No doubt both of us need to think more clearly. Neither of us are perfect.

    Example #1: Hiker in the Amazon jungle comes across a large rock lying on the trail. Hiker immediately, quickly, clearly and without any significant intellectual effort concludes that the rock was not designed. Hiker moves on his way, never proceeding to the subsequent questions of ‘how’, ‘why’, ‘who’, etc.,precisely because those questions are not needed in order to draw the initial inference about whether the object was designed.
    Example #2: Hiker in the Amazon jungle comes across a round disc-shaped stone with pictographs and symbols on it. Hiker immediately, quickly, clearly and without any significant intellectual effort concludes that it was designed. Hiker then, and only then, starts to contemplate ‘how’, ‘why’, ‘who’, etc., precisely because those questions only arise once an inference to design has been drawn..
    This is pretty basic stuff, but I realize it can be confusing to those who are wedded to the (false) notion that we have to know all kinds of things about the designer, or the design process, or the motives, personality or capabilities of the designer in order to infer design in the first place.

    There is a difference between what makes an inference valid and the mental process that people go through when coming a conclusion. We often jump to conclusions without examining our logic. There is no harm in this – in fact it is necessary to function at all. We couldn’t possibly think through the grounds of every conclusion we come to. The hiker correctly concludes whether the objects are designed are not. This is reasonable because in #1 there are many natural processes which are more likely to produce the rock than any process involving deliberate design. In case #2 the reverse it true. People are known to like making regular objects with decorations and are quite capable of doing it and there are plenty of them! However, the hiker does not consciously go through all these steps to come to his conclusion.

    When it comes down it my whole position is one of what is valid logic.
    The ID inference can be summarised thus (I have omitted the natural law possibility to keep it simple):

    1) X is extremely unlikely given all known natural processes.
    2) X shows characteristics such as CSI and IC which are associated with objects humans have designed.
    3) Therefore X was designed.
    I say this is invalid logic for two reasons:
    (2) is just a way of restating (1) but so dressed up in maths and jargon it fools ID proponents
    You cannot conclude (3) from (1) without addressing the probability of X given all known processes involving design. As a special case it might turn out that X is impossible given all known processes involving design and yet the design inference would still conclude X because it never examines the plausibility of the design side.

  46. 46
    Dr JDD says:

    1) X is extremely unlikely given all known natural processes.
    2) X shows characteristics such as CSI and IC which are associated with objects humans have designed.
    3) Therefore X was designed.
    I say this is invalid logic for two reasons:
    (2) is just a way of restating (1) but so dressed up in maths and jargon it fools ID proponents
    You cannot conclude (3) from (1) without addressing the probability of X given all known processes involving design. As a special case it might turn out that X is impossible given all known processes involving design and yet the design inference would still conclude X because it never examines the plausibility of the design side.

     

    This is a non-argument. Why? a) because the same criticisms can be made in the field of “science” and b) as explained before the inference of design always precedes the mechanism. Design is a resultant conclusion not a mechanistic conclusion (as pointed out above). You are confusing what design is with what laws of nature do.

    With regards to a) we could easily apply many current scientific hypotheses to the list that made the same error that you describe here. As I have pointed out above, the multiverse hypothesis.

    The universe is extremely unlikely by chance given known natural processes

    The universe shows characteristics of extreme improbable by chance laws

    Therefore the universe must be the result of many universes to account for the fine-tuning

    (2) is just a way of restating (1) but dressed up in maths and laws so it makes people feel clever, and you cannot conclude (3) from (1) without the addressing the probability of the universe occurring as we know it given all known processes involving universe generation. As a special case it may turn out that everything we know about universe generation means this universe existing is impossible yet we will still conclude that the multiverse must be real because it never examines the plausibility of something generating infinite universes.

    Now you will say, “but we just don’t know yet” i.e. we cannot yet assess “universe generating” but that is no different to saying “we cannot assess a transcendent designer that is outside the physical laws and constraints placed on our universe, therefore mechanism is currently impossible to establish” just like multiverse generation mechanisms are conceded as probably impossible for us to establish from within our universe.

    Therefore, if modern science will accept one such approach it cannot deny a similar approach lacking mechanism to design.

    With regards to b) Design is usually inferred as a deductive reasoning exercise. That is not mechanism first, rather design implication first. For example, you do not need to know nor logically understand nor be able to describe how Stonehenge was designed. It is a deduction from the fact it is perceived to be unable to arise through natural processes. Likewise with a computer, a car, any machine. You do not have to have the first bit of understanding about a computer to know that it is designed and could not happen by accident. Lack of mechanistic explanation does not negate the initial conclusion. However, the opposite can occur. You can think something is designed but on further interrogation discover a natural process that made it appear that way. Then you can reject design. The argument within evolutionary biology vs design is not the false observation that things appear designed but rather the debate whether upon interrogation it actually could arise naturally. However your interpretation is vastly different to even other atheists who maintain it appears designed but is actually not (just has appearance). Your summation gives the impression that design can never be inferred if no mechanism is examined.

    The argument then between IDers and you is whether mechanism precludes a design inference. Clearly, even mechanism does not preclude naturalistic science as proven by abiogenesis, multiverse, string theory, etc. Therefore, you already have an uneven playing field laid out and this refutes your demands. Secondly though, I (and others) would strongly disagree that a mechanism is required for a valid design conclusion when that design is inferred to from a designer not constrained by our known laws of nature (which a designer for the universe must by definition be in terms of contingency and need for transcendence to address the fine-tuning problem).

    Finally, I contest the mechanism needed for proof of design as based on this, you have created for yourself a win-win scenario. As we could only ever explain or understand a design mechanism based on our understanding of the known universe in terms of its laws and nature, we would be held hostage then to the interpretation of such a mechanism as being completely plausible by nature itself (as it would be described by natural means). Therefore, you have not simply moved the goalposts – you have removed the IDer’s goalpost all together as you would inevitably reject the need for a designer with or without a mechanism for design, described by those constrained to the laws of this universe.

  47. 47
    Upright BiPed says:

    Mark Frank,

    referring to #28 and #34 above,

    Is it true that if you found symbolic material in a place that man had never been, you’d start looking for “natural causes” for that symbolic material?

  48. 48
    Mark Frank says:

    Dr JDD @46
    Thanks for you interesting comment. My responses below.

    This is a non-argument. Why? a) because the same criticisms can be made in the field of “science” and b) as explained before the inference of design always precedes the mechanism. Design is a resultant conclusion not a mechanistic conclusion (as pointed out above). You are confusing what design is with what laws of nature do.
    With regards to a) we could easily apply many current scientific hypotheses to the list that made the same error that you describe here. As I have pointed out above, the multiverse hypothesis.
    The universe is extremely unlikely by chance given known natural processes
    The universe shows characteristics of extreme improbable by chance laws
    Therefore the universe must be the result of many universes to account for the fine-tuning
    (2) is just a way of restating (1) but dressed up in maths and laws so it makes people feel clever, and you cannot conclude (3) from (1) without the addressing the probability of the universe occurring as we know it given all known processes involving universe generation. As a special case it may turn out that everything we know about universe generation means this universe existing is impossible yet we will still conclude that the multiverse must be real because it never examines the plausibility of something generating infinite universes.

    I think you are confusing prior probabilities with likelihoods. As you say, we clearly don’t know anything about the prior probability of a single universe or multiverse arising. Some people think we can say something about the chances of a single universe having fine tuning parameters and of a multiverse having fine tuning parameters (as it happens I think this pretty ropey as well – but let’s go with it). Given that you can compare the two likelihoods and and conclude there is strong evidence for a multiverse. This is using both sets of likelihoods. It is not arguing there single universe is unlikely therefore there must be a multiverse.

    Now you will say, “but we just don’t know yet” i.e. we cannot yet assess “universe generating” but that is no different to saying “we cannot assess a transcendent designer that is outside the physical laws and constraints placed on our universe, therefore mechanism is currently impossible to establish” just like multiverse generation mechanisms are conceded as probably impossible for us to establish from within our universe.

    If your design hypothesis is that life was designed by a transcendent designer that is outside the physical laws and constraints placed on our universe then you have said something about your designer. I thought the design inference was able to come to a conclusion without any such assumption. If you prepared to come out and say that is your design hypothesis then the problem is a different one (basically that is a completely ad hoc hypothesis that could explain anything).

    Therefore, if modern science will accept one such approach it cannot deny a similar approach lacking mechanism to design.

    I think I have shown that at least in the case of multiverses modern science has not accepted such an approach.

    With regards to b) Design is usually inferred as a deductive reasoning exercise. That is not mechanism first, rather design implication first. For example, you do not need to know nor logically understand nor be able to describe how Stonehenge was designed. It is a deduction from the fact it is perceived to be unable to arise through natural processes. Likewise with a computer, a car, any machine. You do not have to have the first bit of understanding about a computer to know that it is designed and could not happen by accident. Lack of mechanistic explanation does not negate the initial conclusion. However, the opposite can occur. You can think something is designed but on further interrogation discover a natural process that made it appear that way. Then you can reject design. The argument within evolutionary biology vs design is not the false observation that things appear designed but rather the debate whether upon interrogation it actually could arise naturally. However your interpretation is vastly different to even other atheists who maintain it appears designed but is actually not (just has appearance). Your summation gives the impression that design can never be inferred if no mechanism is examined.

    I have said in other comments why I believe you cannot validly deduce design for anything without characterising the designer/design process to some extent.

    The argument then between IDers and you is whether mechanism precludes a design inference. Clearly, even mechanism does not preclude naturalistic science as proven by abiogenesis, multiverse, string theory, etc. Therefore, you already have an uneven playing field laid out and this refutes your demands. Secondly though, I (and others) would strongly disagree that a mechanism is required for a valid design conclusion when that design is inferred to from a designer not constrained by our known laws of nature (which a designer for the universe must by definition be in terms of contingency and need for transcendence to address the fine-tuning problem).

    This is the same point you made above.  I do not agree that you can have evidence for any hypothesis about abiogenesis, multiverses, string theory or whatever without calculating the likelihood of what we observe given the hypothesis.

    Finally, I contest the mechanism needed for proof of design as based on this, you have created for yourself a win-win scenario. As we could only ever explain or understand a design mechanism based on our understanding of the known universe in terms of its laws and nature, we would be held hostage then to the interpretation of such a mechanism as being completely plausible by nature itself (as it would be described by natural means). Therefore, you have not simply moved the goalposts – you haveremoved the IDer’s goalpost all together as you would inevitably reject the need for a designer with or without a mechanism for design, described by those constrained to the laws of this universe.

    Well if the designer is to be outside the laws and nature of the universe then there are certainly problems with knowing what would be evidence for it. But this is to do with the nature of the hypothesis not the design inference which is usually presented as not having implications for the nature of the designer. 

  49. 49
    Upright BiPed says:

    Well okay.

    Mark Frank says that if he found representations of monkeys and spiders and birds etched into the surface of the far side of the moon, he would “have to start thinking seriously about some natural explanation.”

    I asked him twice to clarify that if he found such symbolic material in a place that man has never been, he would be inclined to search for a “natural cause” to explain that symbolic material … and he refuses to answer.

    Oh well. Given his priors, I suppose I can understand his reluctance.

  50. 50
    Joe says:

    Strange, that when all it would take to refute Intelligent Design is actually present positive evidence for materialism, the materialists refuse to take that route.

    That tells us all we need to know about materialism and materialists.

  51. 51
    Mark Frank says:

    #49 UB

    There are rather a lot of people to respond to on this thread and you are quite low down my priority list. However, the answer to your question is “yes”.

  52. 52
    Upright BiPed says:

    Mark,

    I can certainly imagine why you wouldn’t want to talk to me Mark, I might stoop to asking about your experience with natural processes creating symbols of monkeys and birds. Given what is entirely obvious to any rational person – that you have no such experience – I can see how it would be a topic to avoid for someone in your position.

  53. 53
    Upright BiPed says:

    Mark,

    Is there a conceptually plausible “natural explanation” for the symbolic image of a monkey to appear on the far side of the moon?

    I know you’re very busy, but the only reason I ask is because you take the position that there is such a thing.

    Is there?

  54. 54
    Mark Frank says:

    #52 UB

    Of course I have no experience with natural processes creating symbols of monkeys and birds. I doubt anyone has. So what?

    We are talking about a hypothetical case that will never happen – symbols appearing when there is no possibility that any person created them. Those circumstances are so extraordinary we would have to consider the most outlandish explanations, including explanations which no one had experience.

  55. 55
    velikovskys says:

    joe,
    Strange, that when all it would take to refute Intelligent Design is actually present positive evidence for materialism, the materialists refuse to take that route.

    Not really. Just because something can be caused thru natural processes doesn’t mean it could not be designed. And since ID is not mechanistic it cannot eliminate natural processes as the means of design.

  56. 56
    Upright BiPed says:

    We are talking about a hypothetical case that will never happen – symbols appearing when there is no possibility that any person created them.

    But Mark, that is exactly where we are at in the 21st Century. We have documented semiosis in the cell (i.e. the cell cannot be organized without it) and mankind is obviously not the source.

  57. 57
    velikovskys says:

    up,
    Is there a conceptually plausible “natural explanation” for the symbolic image of a monkey to appear on the far side of the moon?

    How about the image of Jesus on a piece of toast?

  58. 58
    bornagain77 says:

    velikovskys, What if something is not caused by natural processes? Would that present a problem for Darwinism? Or is Darwinism forever unfalsifiable in your mind? (excuse me, foprever unfalsifiable in your deterministic robot brain?)

    Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA – short video
    https://vimeo.com/92405752

    Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012
    Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”
    http://www.quantumlah.org/high.....uences.php

    Closing the last Bell-test loophole for photons – Jun 11, 2013
    Excerpt:– requiring no assumptions or correction of count rates – that confirmed quantum entanglement to nearly 70 standard deviations.,,,
    http://phys.org/news/2013-06-b.....otons.html

  59. 59
    Dr JDD says:

    Those circumstances are so extraordinary we would have to consider the most outlandish explanations, including explanations which no one had experience.

    Exactly! This is the point! So a perfect little picture of a fly on a fly’s wings so when it flaps it looks like a fly moving is not so extraordinary as a whole host of epigenetic information, multiple “convergent” events and mathematic impossibility?!

    There you go folks, the logic of a committed naturalist.

  60. 60
    Joe says:

    Strange, that when all it would take to refute Intelligent Design is actually present positive evidence for materialism, the materialists refuse to take that route.

    velikovskys

    Not really.

    Yes really. Both Newton’s four rules of scientific investigation and the explanatory filter show that if purely materialistic processes can account for something then we do not add an intelligent agency to the mix- the design inference is never considered.

    Science 101.

  61. 61
    Upright BiPed says:

    velikovskys, I don’t really get your point.

    We are talking about Mark Frank suggesting that if the Nazsca lines were discovered on the far side of the moon, he would look for a “natural explanation” for that find.

    Are you equating the Nazsca lines found in Peru to someone saying they saw Jesus on a piece of toast?

  62. 62
    velikovskys says:

    joe,
    Both Newton’s four rules of scientific investigation and the explanatory filter show that if purely materialistic processes can account for something then we do not add an intelligent agency to the mix

    Not really, since Newton’s rule apply to natural mechanistic theories, and ID is neither.

    Second,one can not refute an explanation by merely proposing an alternative. To refute ID one would have to show an unknown designer would be incapable of producing a materialistic process, since known intelligent designers use materialistic processes in design, ID can not be refuted.

    I will concede that ID may be useless as scientific explanation without complete knowledge of all possible materialistic processes and what those processes are capable of.

  63. 63
    Mark Frank says:

    UB #56

    I know you think that there is some kind of symbolism going in a cell. You are wrong. But this has been discussed endlessly elsewhere I will not pursue it.

  64. 64
    velikovskys says:

    ub,
    Are you equating the Nazsca lines found in Peru to someone saying they saw Jesus on a piece of toast?

    No, though there is the case of the Face on Mars, I was responding to your question

    Is there a conceptually plausible “natural explanation” for the symbolic image of a monkey to appear on the far side of the moon?

    Pareidolia is a psychological phenomenon involving a vague and random stimulus (often an image or sound) being perceived as significant

    We are talking about Mark Frank suggesting that if the Nazsca lines were discovered on the far side of the moon, he would look for a “natural explanation” for that find.

    Joe contends per Newton’s Rules and the explanatory filter that is the proper way to proceed

  65. 65
    Mark Frank says:

    Joe #50

    Strange, that when all it would take to refute Intelligent Design is actually present positive evidence for materialism, the materialists refuse to take that route.

    Yes. The only way of refuting ID is to show that an alternative works. There is no way of showing if the design alternative works or not.

    PS Do you mean evidence for materialism or for evolution by natural processes?

  66. 66
    Upright BiPed says:

    I will not pursue it.

    Mark, there is a whole growing segment of biology that knows that the cell is semiotic. As for dealing with me about it, I can again understand our reluctance. You cannot provide a refutation of the evidence I present, just as no one else has. No one.

  67. 67
    Joe says:

    vel:

    Not really, since Newton’s rule apply to natural mechanistic theories, and ID is neither.

    Reference please.

    Second,one can not refute an explanation by merely proposing an alternative.

    If two theories are opposite then demonstrating one refutes the other.

    To refute ID one would have to show an unknown designer would be incapable of producing a materialistic process, since known intelligent designers use materialistic processes in design, ID can not be refuted.

    Known designers don’t use materialistic processes- well if materialistic processes produced them then they would be using materialistic processes. And there isn’t any evidence for that.

    IDists have said exactly what will refute ID.

    I will concede that ID may be useless as scientific explanation without complete knowledge of all possible materialistic processes and what those processes are capable of.

    I will concede that you are scientifically illiterate.

  68. 68
    Joe says:

    Mark Frank:

    Yes. The only way of refuting ID is to show that an alternative works.

    That is how it works in archaeology, forensics and SETI.

    Again, how do we refute materialism?

    There is no way of showing if the design alternative works or not.

    I don’t even know what that means. We can show that design works. We cannot show that sheer dumb luck works.

    PS Do you mean evidence for materialism or for evolution by natural processes?

    Materialism as the OoL is very much part of the design inference and the OoL dictates the subsequent evolution.

  69. 69
    velikovskys says:

    Ba,
    What if something is not caused by natural processes?

    For instance?

    Would that present a problem for Darwinism?

    It might be

    Or is Darwinism forever unfalsifiable in your mind? (excuse me, foprever unfalsifiable in your deterministic robot brain?)

    I can think of several ways evolutionary theory could be falsified, can you in your dualistic mind falsify the immaterial explanation ?

  70. 70
    Joe says:

    Mark Frank to Upright Biped:

    I know you think that there is some kind of symbolism going in a cell.

    It is a fact that there is symbolism going on inside of the cell. The fact that codons encode/ represent amino acids (do not become them) is proof of that.

    You are wrong.

    Then all of biology is wrong. Congratulations.

  71. 71
    Upright BiPed says:

    If Mark wants to merely deny semiosis during protein synthesis, he is free to do so. Empiricism isn’t suited for everyone.

    However, if he wants his denial to have any substance whatsoever, then perhaps he can start by telling us why the system requires the discontinuity between the arrangment of nucleotides in the codon and the presentation of a specific amio acid for binding. Surely those who deny semiosis have a coherent model to explain this. What is it?

    Even better yet, he can tell us why the system must preserve that discontinuity.
    Surely he has a model. What is it?

  72. 72
    Joe says:

    All materialists have to deny semiosis or have to say that purely materialistic processes produced it and we will figure that out some time in the future. However seeing that living organisms depend on the timely delivery of proteins it seems very unlikely that living organisms existed without the current semiotic system up and running.

    The model is Yaris, et al., and a huge bowl of faith.

  73. 73
    bornagain77 says:

    velikovskys, The empirical falsification of Darwinism is as such. Darwinian presuppositions hold that all the information, (and even consciousness), in life is merely an ‘emergent’ property of a material basis, but it is now found that beyond space and time, non-local, ‘quantum information’, which is not reducible to a material basis, is found in molecular biology. Moreover, this ‘spooky’ non-local quantum information, though at first thought to be impossible to maintain in ‘hot and noisy’ cells, is now found in molecular biology on a massive scale, in every DNA and protein molecule:

    Quantum entanglement in hot systems – 2011
    Excerpt: The authors remark that this reverses the previous orthodoxy, which held that quantum effects could not exist in biological systems because of the amount of noise in these systems.,,, Environmental noise here drives a persistent and cyclic generation of new entanglement.,,, In summary, the authors say that they have demonstrated that entanglement can recur even in a hot noisy environment. In biological systems this can be related to changes in the conformation of macromolecules.
    http://quantum-mind.co.uk/quan.....t-systems/

    Quantum entanglement holds together life’s blueprint – 2010
    Excerpt: When the researchers analysed the DNA without its helical structure, they found that the electron clouds were not entangled. But when they incorporated DNA’s helical structure into the model, they saw that the electron clouds of each base pair became entangled with those of its neighbours. “If you didn’t have entanglement, then DNA would have a simple flat structure, and you would never get the twist that seems to be important to the functioning of DNA,” says team member Vlatko Vedral of the University of Oxford.
    http://neshealthblog.wordpress.....blueprint/

    Does DNA Have Telepathic Properties?-A Galaxy Insight – 2009
    Excerpt: DNA has been found to have a bizarre ability to put itself together, even at a distance, when according to known science it shouldn’t be able to.,,, The recognition of similar sequences in DNA’s chemical subunits, occurs in a way unrecognized by science. There is no known reason why the DNA is able to combine the way it does, and from a current theoretical standpoint this feat should be chemically impossible.
    per daily galaxy

    DNA Can Discern Between Two Quantum States, Research Shows – June 2011
    Excerpt: — DNA — can discern between quantum states known as spin. – The researchers fabricated self-assembling, single layers of DNA attached to a gold substrate. They then exposed the DNA to mixed groups of electrons with both directions of spin. Indeed, the team’s results surpassed expectations: The biological molecules reacted strongly with the electrons carrying one of those spins, and hardly at all with the others. The longer the molecule, the more efficient it was at choosing electrons with the desired spin, while single strands and damaged bits of DNA did not exhibit this property.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....104014.htm

    Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA – short video
    https://vimeo.com/92405752

    Coherent Intrachain energy migration at room temperature – Elisabetta Collini and Gregory Scholes – University of Toronto – Science, 323, (2009), pp. 369-73
    Excerpt: The authors conducted an experiment to observe quantum coherence dynamics in relation to energy transfer. The experiment, conducted at room temperature, examined chain conformations, such as those found in the proteins of living cells. Neighbouring molecules along the backbone of a protein chain were seen to have coherent energy transfer. Where this happens quantum decoherence (the underlying tendency to loss of coherence due to interaction with the environment) is able to be resisted, and the evolution of the system remains entangled as a single quantum state.
    http://www.scimednet.org/quant.....d-protein/

    Physicists Discover Quantum Law of Protein Folding – February 22, 2011
    Quantum mechanics finally explains why protein folding depends on temperature in such a strange way.
    Excerpt: First, a little background on protein folding. Proteins are long chains of amino acids that become biologically active only when they fold into specific, highly complex shapes. The puzzle is how proteins do this so quickly when they have so many possible configurations to choose from.
    To put this in perspective, a relatively small protein of only 100 amino acids can take some 10^100 different configurations. If it tried these shapes at the rate of 100 billion a second, it would take longer than the age of the universe to find the correct one. Just how these molecules do the job in nanoseconds, nobody knows.,,,
    Their astonishing result is that this quantum transition model fits the folding curves of 15 different proteins and even explains the difference in folding and unfolding rates of the same proteins.
    That’s a significant breakthrough. Luo and Lo’s equations amount to the first universal laws of protein folding. That’s the equivalent in biology to something like the thermodynamic laws in physics.
    http://www.technologyreview.co.....f-protein/

    etc..

    That quantum entanglement, which conclusively demonstrates that ‘information’ in its pure ‘quantum form’ is completely transcendent of any time and space constraints (Bell Aspect, Leggett, Zeilinger, etc..), should be found in molecular biology on such a massive scale is a direct empirical falsification of Darwinian claims, for how can the quantum entanglement ‘effect’ in biology possibly be explained by a material (matter/energy) ’cause’ when the quantum entanglement ‘effect’ falsified material particles as its own causation in the first place? Appealing to the probability of various ‘random’ configurations of material particles, as Darwinism does, simply will not help since a timeless/spaceless cause must be supplied which is beyond the capacity of the material particles themselves to supply!

    Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012
    Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”
    http://www.quantumlah.org/high.....uences.php

    Closing the last Bell-test loophole for photons – Jun 11, 2013
    Excerpt:– requiring no assumptions or correction of count rates – that confirmed quantum entanglement to nearly 70 standard deviations.,,,
    http://phys.org/news/2013-06-b.....otons.html

    etc.. etc..

    In other words, to give a coherent explanation for an effect that is shown to be completely independent of any time and space constraints one is forced to appeal to a cause that is itself not limited to time and space! i.e. Put more simply, you cannot explain a effect by a cause that has been falsified by the very same effect you are seeking to explain! Improbability arguments of various ‘special’ configurations of material particles, which have been a staple of the arguments against neo-Darwinism, simply do not apply since the cause is not within the material particles in the first place!

    Moreover, is important to learn that ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, quantum entanglement (A. Aspect, A. Zeilinger, etc..) can be used as a ‘quantum information channel’,,,

    Quantum Entanglement and Information
    Quantum entanglement is a physical resource, like energy, associated with the peculiar nonclassical correlations that are possible between separated quantum systems. Entanglement can be measured, transformed, and purified. A pair of quantum systems in an entangled state can be used as a quantum information channel to perform computational and cryptographic tasks that are impossible for classical systems. The general study of the information-processing capabilities of quantum systems is the subject of quantum information theory.
    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-entangle/

  74. 74
    bornagain77 says:

    And by using this ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, ‘quantum information channel’ of entanglement, physicists have reduced material to quantum information. (of note: energy is completely reduced to quantum information, whereas matter is semi-completely reduced, with the caveat being that matter can be reduced to energy i.e. e=mc2).

    Ions have been teleported successfully for the first time by two independent research groups
    Excerpt: In fact, copying isn’t quite the right word for it. In order to reproduce the quantum state of one atom in a second atom, the original has to be destroyed. This is unavoidable – it is enforced by the laws of quantum mechanics, which stipulate that you can’t ‘clone’ a quantum state. In principle, however, the ‘copy’ can be indistinguishable from the original (that was destroyed),,,
    http://www.rsc.org/chemistrywo.....ammeup.asp

    Atom takes a quantum leap – 2009
    Excerpt: Ytterbium ions have been ‘teleported’ over a distance of a metre.,,,
    “What you’re moving is information, not the actual atoms,” says Chris Monroe, from the Joint Quantum Institute at the University of Maryland in College Park and an author of the paper. But as two particles of the same type differ only in their quantum states, the transfer of quantum information is equivalent to moving the first particle to the location of the second.
    http://www.freerepublic.com/fo.....1769/posts

    How Teleportation Will Work –
    Excerpt: In 1993, the idea of teleportation moved out of the realm of science fiction and into the world of theoretical possibility. It was then that physicist Charles Bennett and a team of researchers at IBM confirmed that quantum teleportation was possible, but only if the original object being teleported was destroyed. — As predicted, the original photon no longer existed once the replica was made.
    http://science.howstuffworks.c.....ation1.htm

    Quantum Teleportation – IBM Research Page
    Excerpt: “it would destroy the original (photon) in the process,,”
    http://researcher.ibm.com/view_project.php?id=2862

    In fact an entire human can, theoretically, be reduced to quantum information and teleported to another location in the universe:

    Quantum Teleportation Of A Human? – video
    https://vimeo.com/75163272

    Will Human Teleportation Ever Be Possible?
    As experiments in relocating particles advance, will we be able to say, “Beam me up, Scotty” one day soon? By Corey S. Powell|Monday, June 16, 2014
    Excerpt: Note a fascinating common thread through all these possibilities. Whether you regard yourself as a pile of atoms, a DNA sequence, a series of sensory inputs or an elaborate computer file, in all of these interpretations you are nothing but a stack of data. According to the principle of unitarity, quantum information is never lost. Put them together, and those two statements lead to a staggering corollary: At the most fundamental level, the laws of physics say you are immortal.
    http://discovermagazine.com/20.....eportation

    Thus not only is information not reducible to a energy-matter basis, as is presupposed in Darwinism, but in actuality both energy and matter ultimately reduce to a information basis as is presupposed in Christian Theism (John1:1).

    Or related note, encoded ‘classical’ digital information, such as what William Dembski and Robert Marks demonstrated the conservation of,

    Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II
    http://www.evoinfo.org/index/

    ,,i.e. classical ‘digital’ information, such as what we find encoded in computer programs, and yes, as we find encoded in DNA,

    Every Bit Digital: DNA’s Programming Really Bugs Some ID Critics – Casey Luskin
    Excerpt: “There’s a very recognizable digital code of the kind that electrical engineers rediscovered in the 1950s that maps the codes for sequences of DNA onto expressions of proteins.”
    http://www.salvomag.com/new/ar.....uskin2.php

    The Digital Code of DNA and the Unimagined Complexity of a ‘Simple’ Bacteria – Rabbi Moshe Averick – video
    https://vimeo.com/35730736

  75. 75
    bornagain77 says:

    ,,this classical ‘digital’ information is found to be a subset of ‘non-local’ (i.e. beyond space and time) quantum entanglement/information by the following method:

    Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy – June 2011
    Excerpt: No heat, even a cooling effect;
    In the case of perfect classical knowledge of a computer memory (zero entropy), deletion of the data requires in theory no energy at all. The researchers prove that “more than complete knowledge” from quantum entanglement with the memory (negative entropy) leads to deletion of the data being accompanied by removal of heat from the computer and its release as usable energy. This is the physical meaning of negative entropy. Renner emphasizes, however, “This doesn’t mean that we can develop a perpetual motion machine.” The data can only be deleted once, so there is no possibility to continue to generate energy. The process also destroys the entanglement, and it would take an input of energy to reset the system to its starting state. The equations are consistent with what’s known as the second law of thermodynamics: the idea that the entropy of the universe can never decrease. Vedral says “We’re working on the edge of the second law. If you go any further, you will break it.”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....134300.htm

    ,,,And here is evidence that quantum information is in fact ‘conserved’;,,,

    Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time
    Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....tally.html

    Quantum no-deleting theorem
    Excerpt: A stronger version of the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem provide permanence to quantum information. To create a copy one must import the information from some part of the universe and to delete a state one needs to export it to another part of the universe where it will continue to exist.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.....onsequence

    Besides providing direct empirical falsification of neo-Darwinian claims as to the generation of information, the implication of finding ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, and ‘conserved’ quantum information in molecular biology on a massive scale is fairly, and pleasantly, obvious:

    Does Quantum Biology Support A Quantum Soul? – Stuart Hameroff – video (notes in description)
    http://vimeo.com/29895068

    Quantum Entangled Consciousness – Life After Death – Stuart Hameroff – video
    https://vimeo.com/39982578

    Verse and Music:

    John 1:1-4
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.

    Moriah Peters – You Carry Me – music
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2H-zQjgurQ

  76. 76
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: The empirical testability of the key design inference is very simple — show FSCO/I credibly coming about by blind chance and mechanical necessity. And MF impliues that in suggesting if he saw a spider or monkey drawing etched into the far side of the moon he would look for “natural” causes. That is actually the first step (and the two defaults) in the design inference explanatory filter. First, does lawlike regularity tracing to mechanical necessity explain it. High contingency does not fit this. The second default — all of this has been pointed out to MF, EL et al endless times — is that high contingency comes about by blind chance. But for reasons again outlined here such does not credibly explain FSCO/I. Where also, FSCO/I is commonly observed coming about, consistently by design. And as the simple fact that Beavers do limited designs indicates, we cannot equate design to human activity. If we were to see diagrams like MF suggested on the Moon, we would rapidly rule out necessity, and chance would not be a good candidate for FSCO/I. This would point to design. We can then go about trying to figure out whodunit, when how etc. KF

  77. 77
    Mung says:

    Mark Frank:

    #49 UB

    There are rather a lot of people to respond to on this thread and you are quite low down my priority list.

    But higher than me. Congratulations Upright BiPed!

  78. 78
    Mung says:

    How does one get the attention of a materialist?

    Is hitting a materialist over the head with a rock more or less effective than placing before the materialist a reasoned logical argument? Why?

  79. 79
    Mung says:

    Mark Frank:

    You [Eric #8] paint a picture of materialists being philosophically unable to accept explanations involving design for any aspect of life. It may well be that some materialists hold this position. But I don’t. For me materialism is a conclusion not a philosophical position, which might be overturned by evidence to the contrary.

    Mung:

    What, precisely, is the evidence for materialism?

    Mark Frank: silence …

    Mark believes that materialism is a conclusion which might be overturned by evidence to the contrary.

    Mark believes that materialism is not a philosophical position, which might be overturned by evidence to the contrary.

    Does anyone else see the humor in this?

  80. 80
    Mung says:

    Mark Frank:

    Of course I have no experience with natural processes creating symbols of monkeys and birds. I doubt anyone has. So what?

    And yet humans create symbols of monkeys and birds. You have no experience of this?

    You attribute this to non-natural processes?

    But you’re an avowed materialist. So what is this vision of non natural materialism that you embrace? How is it to be distinguished from ID?

  81. 81
    Mark Frank says:

    A few people above have asked what is my evidence for materialism. Of course it depends a bit what you mean by materialism but broadly speaking it seems to me the domain of supposed immaterial phenomena has gradually shrunk as science progresses and there is no reason why should not continue until there is nothing left that could be immaterial. That’s not a very good description – but I am short of time and sleep.

  82. 82
    bornagain77 says:

    “Atoms are not things”
    Werner Heisenberg

  83. 83
    Joe says:

    Mark Frank:

    A few people above have asked what is my evidence for materialism.

    Don’t feel bad if you cannot present any- nobody ever has.

    Of course it depends a bit what you mean by materialism …

    LoL!

    …but broadly speaking it seems to me the domain of supposed immaterial phenomena has gradually shrunk as science progresses and there is no reason why should not continue until there is nothing left that could be immaterial.

    That is Mark’s opinion and it isn’t evidence

  84. 84
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Eric @ #26

    Why are you asking for a mechanism? Take some time to think about why you phrased the question the way you did and you will realize that you are wedded to a mechanistic outlook.

    Right – that was my point. I believe someone else on this thread asked about “the mechanism of design”, or something like that.

    BTW, while you’re at it, please explain what mechanism caused you to write your comment @21. And don’t give some vague unscrutinizable claim about neurons firing and such. We’re looking for a concrete, detailed mechanism that caused you to write what you did, as opposed to some other different comment. Inquiring minds want to know.

    Again, that’s the key point. There is no mechanism that causes the choices I made in writing a comment. I designed the comment for a purpose. We speak about doing something “by design” – it means, “for a purpose”. So it’s not only that my choices of words was not determined by a mechanism, but the actual purpose or intention for writing was not a function of a mechanism.

    So to ask for the mechanism that causes design is a philosophical problem more than a scientific one.

  85. 85
    Mung says:

    Mark Frank:

    A few people above have asked what is my evidence for materialism. Of course it depends a bit what you mean by materialism but broadly speaking it seems to me the domain of supposed immaterial phenomena has gradually shrunk as science progresses and there is no reason why should not continue until there is nothing left that could be immaterial.

    Of course it depends a bit what you mean by immaterial.

    As pointed out above, even matter isn’t made up of matter.

    That’s not a very good description – but I am short of time and sleep.

    That is completely immaterial.

  86. 86
    velikovskys says:

    Joe,
    Reference please.

    That Newton’s rules are natural and mechanistic,or that ID is neither?

    If two theories are opposite then demonstrating one refutes the other.

    True but since evolution is mechanistic and ID is not, they cannot be opposite. An unknown designer does not refute evolution as its design mechanism, unless one knows the goal and abilities of the designer which ID cannot speak to.

    Known designers don’t use materialistic processes-

    They use immaterial processes to create material designs?

    IDists have said exactly what will refute ID.

    One cannot refute that an unknown designer with unknown capabilities for unknown reasons at an unknown time could design an unknown something.

    I will concede that you are scientifically illiterate.

    I would only worry if you thought otherwise

  87. 87
    Joe says:

    vel:

    That Newton’s rules are natural and mechanistic,or that ID is neither?

    Thanks for admitting that you don’t know what you are talking about. Newton’s rules refer to causes and design is a known cause.

    True but since evolution is mechanistic and ID is not, they cannot be opposite.

    Since ID is goal oriented and evolutionism is not, they are opposite.

    An unknown designer does not refute evolution as its design mechanism,

    Unguided evolution is not a design mechanism.

    They use immaterial processes to create material designs?

    Yes, thoughts and concepts are immaterial.

    One cannot refute that an unknown designer with unknown capabilities for unknown reasons at an unknown time could design an unknown something.

    One can refute any given design inference by demonstrating purely materialistic processes can account for it. That is how it works in archaeology, forensic science and SETI.

    Just because you are unable to do so is not ID’s problem.

  88. 88
    Eric Anderson says:

    Silver Asiatic @84:

    Thanks for the clarification (and your patience). I apologize if my sarcasm filter was not attuned. I now realize you were making my same point with your prior comment.

  89. 89
    velikovskys says:

    joe,
    Thanks for admitting that you don’t know what you are talking about. Newton’s rules refer to causes and design is a known cause

    Mechanism” a natural or established process by which something takes place or is brought about.”

    Newton’s rules are a mechanism of scientific reasoning. As for ID, I am just deferring to your expertise”Materialism is the position that is a step-by-step paradigm, ie a mechanistic position. ID is not.”

    Since ID is goal oriented and evolutionism is not, they are opposite.

    Evolutionism? Nice try, it is the theory of evolution , not evolutionism. Now if you want to say ID is philosophy not science, OK.

    But since ID deals only with an unknown designer and therefore has no basis to determine what goals the unknown designer might have, one cannot rule out evolution as a mechanism for those goals. ID with an unknown designer is not the opposite of evolution.

    Unguided evolution is not a design mechanism.

    Every child is a slightly different design from it parents, reproduction is a major mechanism of evolution.

    Yes, thoughts and concepts are immaterial.

    Maybe, but unless what you are designing is immaterial, design requires manipulation of material processes. That process is design as well.

    One can refute any given design inference by demonstrating purely materialistic processes can account for it

    Still wrong, human designs can mimic nature. And since you cannot say anything about your designer, you cannot be sure It cannot manipulate those materialistic processes undetected to actualize its designs. Correct?

    That is how it works in archaeology, forensic science and SETI.

    But those fields makes assumptions about the capabilities of the designers . This option is not available to ID. Unless you are saying because a person can fall out of a boat by accident,it disproves the possibility that they were pushed.

  90. 90
    Eric Anderson says:

    velikovskys:

    But those fields makes assumptions about the capabilities of the designers.

    Nope. Not in any meaningful sense. In fact, it is by seeing and studying the designed artifacts that the investigator learns about the capabilities of the designer.

    As my Russian colleagues would say, you have it “exactly right, but backwards.”

  91. 91
    Eric Anderson says:

    Also, this:

    “reproduction is a major mechanism of evolution”

    is not true.

    But we’ll have to wait for another post another day to flesh it out.

  92. 92
    Joe says:

    vel:

    Evolutionism? Nice try, it is the theory of evolution , not evolutionism.

    Can you please link to this alleged theory? Or is Darwin’s all you have? If so that is evolutionism.

    BTW evolution by design is still evolution and it would be opposite of evolution via differing accumulations of genetic accidents (again, evolutionism).

    But since ID deals only with an unknown designer and therefore has no basis to determine what goals the unknown designer might have, one cannot rule out evolution as a mechanism for those goals. ID with an unknown designer is not the opposite of evolution.

    Yes, it is and for the reasons provided. Deal with them.

    Every child is a slightly different design from it parents, reproduction is a major mechanism of evolution.

    You have no idea what ID is and you have no idea what you are talking about. Heck your position has to start with reproduction as it can’t explain it.

    Maybe, but unless what you are designing is immaterial, design requires manipulation of material processes.

    So what? The immaterial thoughts, ideas and concepts are the key to design.

    One can refute any given design inference by demonstrating purely materialistic processes can account for it

    Still wrong,

    You are wrong.

    human designs can mimic nature.

    Can they? Example please.

    But those fields makes assumptions about the capabilities of the designers .

    IDists can also.

    This option is not available to ID.

    LoL! It is available to people. Just because ID doesn’t care about the designer, for obvious reasons, doesn’t stop anyone from assuming/ speculating about it.

    Unless you are saying because a person can fall out of a boat by accident,it disproves the possibility that they were pushed.

    If there isn’t any evidence the person was pushed then we don’t add a pusher.

Leave a Reply