Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Mathematician Granville Sewell offers six top evidences for ID

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

And here’s one:

3. The Origin of Life It is often claimed that science is close to understanding how the first simple life form arose though entirely natural processes. To see how baseless this claim is, you only have to realize that with all our advanced technology we are still not close to designing any type of self-replicating machine. That is still pure science fiction. So how can we imagine that such a machine could have arisen by pure chance, even given a universe with fine-tuned laws and a planet with fine-tuned conditions? When we add technology to such a machine, to move toward the goal of reproduction, we only move the goal posts, as now we have a more complicated machine to reproduce.

Maybe some day human engineers will design a self-replicating machine, like those we see everywhere in the living world, but it will not happen in my lifetime, and it will not be simple. It will certainly not show that such a machine could have arisen without design.

Granville Sewell, “Top Six Evidences for Intelligent Design” at Mind Matters News
Comments
@Seversky: "Feel free to assume whatever you like but, if you assume the above, you should expect to be asked questions such as: a) If we are the ultimate purpose for this magnificently-designed universe then why is the vast majority of it implacably hostile to life such as ourselves? The Bible says it was created for the glory of God - that the heavens display His glory! And that this silent witness to His existence continues night and day all around the world. Ps. 19:1 Outside of that, we don't really know since we did not create it. You would need to address your question to the Creator, but just because the answer might no satisfy you or might be unknowable, or be above your pay grade, it's not a showstopper. The inability of a finite human who does not believe in God to understand or accept the reasons for God's creation is not really God's problem. b) If the magnificent design of this universe compels us to assume a Designer then shouldn’t the even more magnificent complexity of the Designer also compel us to assume a Designer’s Designer and so on? The Bible tells us that God is eternal. He existed at the beginning of the universe - but He himself has no beginning and no end. This is what the Creator Himself has revealed to us. It's His answer to your question. c) Isn’t assuming an uncaused First Cause simply to avoid an infinite causal regress a form of special pleading? Assuming an uncaused first cause is logical and makes total sense given what it is we need to explain. Just because you don't like our explanation for it doesn't mean that it's wrong. I mean, you have no sufficient explanation for it. In the end, we both have to interpret the data and decide what we think makes most sense. We have to decide what position we will take since neither side can prove their belief/hypothesis. So, we all have our own personal beliefs - we all have faith in something. We simply think our explanation makes much better sense than the Materialist story.tjguy
November 2, 2020
November
11
Nov
2
02
2020
12:19 AM
12
12
19
AM
PDT
Here is an interesting video on self-replicators, which johnnyb pointed me to some time ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCqb_hyFHEAGranville Sewell
November 2, 2020
November
11
Nov
2
02
2020
12:18 AM
12
12
18
AM
PDT
seversky:
a) If we are the ultimate purpose for this magnificently-designed universe then why is the vast majority of it implacably hostile to life such as ourselves?
1- to give us an impetus to study the universe 2- To allow us to better appreciate what we have
b) If the magnificent design of this universe compels us to assume a Designer then shouldn’t the even more magnificent complexity of the Designer also compel us to assume a Designer’s Designer and so on?
That doesn't follow. We study what we have, not what we cannot observe.
c) Isn’t assuming an uncaused First Cause simply to avoid an infinite causal regress a form of special pleading?
You definitely understand avoiding issues.ET
November 1, 2020
November
11
Nov
1
01
2020
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT
According to Einstein matter and energy are just different manifestations of the same thingET
November 1, 2020
November
11
Nov
1
01
2020
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT
BobRyan: Energy cannot be created or destroyed. It is an absolute law of physics That's strange . . . are you sure? I do believe Black Holes can create matter out of energy.JVL
November 1, 2020
November
11
Nov
1
01
2020
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT
Seversky: If there is no designer, there is no explanation for the existence of a single law. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. It is an absolute law of physics. The same energy that exists in the universe today existed when the universe began. If energy cannot be created, which is an absolute, where did it come from? Those laws, including energy, were put in place by something with far greater intellect than man. The hypothesis: Is there evidence of ID in the universe? The laws themselves answer that question. Have the laws been witnessed? Yes. Have the laws been replicated? Yes. A scientific hypothesis that has been witnessed and replicated is a valid scientific theory.BobRyan
November 1, 2020
November
11
Nov
1
01
2020
01:16 AM
1
01
16
AM
PDT
Isn’t assuming an uncaused First Cause simply to avoid an infinite causal regress a form of special pleading?
No, it is an explanation. One does not have to agree but is there a good alternative? The real problem is why anything should exist. I’ve brought the following up before several times.
The Last Question by Isaac Asimov
https://www.multivax.com/last_question.htmljerry
October 31, 2020
October
10
Oct
31
31
2020
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT
So why not assume a first cause that can explain what was caused: a universe with magnificently designed physical laws that are extremely fine-tuned for the magnificently designed plants and animals, and intelligent, conscious humans, that arose on our magnificently designed Earth?
Feel free to assume whatever you like but, if you assume the above, you should expect to be asked questions such as: a) If we are the ultimate purpose for this magnificently-designed universe then why is the vast majority of it implacably hostile to life such as ourselves? b) If the magnificent design of this universe compels us to assume a Designer then shouldn't the even more magnificent complexity of the Designer also compel us to assume a Designer's Designer and so on? c) Isn't assuming an uncaused First Cause simply to avoid an infinite causal regress a form of special pleading?Seversky
October 31, 2020
October
10
Oct
31
31
2020
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT
It was a good list, but wish Sewell would have expanded on physical laws, or added a 7th point. No one denies the laws of physics exist, but where did they originate. ID is the only theory the explains not just the existence of physical laws, the known and those yet to be known through future discovery, but also the origin of the laws. If energy cannot be created or destroyed, energy should not exist at all.BobRyan
October 30, 2020
October
10
Oct
30
30
2020
11:10 PM
11
11
10
PM
PDT

Leave a Reply