What does Intelligent Design prove?

[man]

What does Intelligent Design prove?

I must have asked that question a thousand times in various forms and comment sections and not one single person has ever said, It proves there is a god.

Why is that?

[Delphi]

Thus, someone was responsible for designing the brain to work, and that person is far greater than you and I.

Pray tell!

[man]

Thank you for this information, theStudent. We are all aware of this info, but it is always amazing to hear it again.

We can all agree that we are very complex organisms.

Unfortunately, one cannot logically connect biological complexity to the concept of a deity.

This seems like a big fat god of the gaps argument to me.

The glaring problem is that you cannot show that your creator exists, you cannot demonstrate by what means your creator created, and this entire postulation cannot be demonstrated, verified, nor falsified by any means.

The elephant in this epistemological room is that there is NO evidence that any of any supposed designer(s) had a hand in creating anything. ANYTHING.

You can assert that Joe built my brain, but if you can't even show that Joe exists you've got a major problem.

No.
The evidence has been demonstrated.
Just because someone shuts their eyes to evidence, does not nullify it.

Here is another simple demonstration of that.
If I saw a huge rock, or rocks carved out in a concave close to the sea.
I could easily conclude that over time, the salt water from the sea as it's waves bashed against the rocks, caused that effect. Same with nearby caves.
I can say this because I see it demonstrated.

It is demonstrated, that a simple house requires a builder.
In fact, not only a house, everything, inducing sculpted rock, machinery artificial flowers, etc.
Thus, someone was responsible for designing the brain to work, and that person is far greater than you and I.
So to complain that no one has brought him and shown you, is a poor excuse to an obvious no contest.
It's obviously grabbing at straws.

Science is extremely useful, it's given us so many things that there is literally nothing around us that wasn't either invented by science or improved by science in some way.

How can Intelligent Design be used to advance science?

If it can't advance science in what way can Intelligent Design be useful to us?

[Delphi]

How can Intelligent Design be used to advance science?

If it can't advance science in what way can Intelligent Design be useful to us?

These are exactly the correct questions to be asking.

But for me, the most important question is "is Intelligent Design actually TRUE?".

How do we determine that 1- there is a designer and 2-that this particular designer physically created the creation at hand.

Pointing out complexities is a non sequitur. That is classic god-of-the-gaps fallacious reasoning.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 12 by man]

Science is extremely useful, it's given us so many things that there is literally nothing around us that wasn't either invented by science or improved by science in some way.

How can Intelligent Design be used to advance science?

If it can't advance science in what way can Intelligent Design be useful to us?

There was a guy, who once said to me, "Men build computers, even super computers, but which is greater, the computer, or the brain that built it?
And I thought that was so reasonable.
Where would computers be, if man had no brain?

Does that answer your questions.
There is a question that arises when persons consider what scientists copy, in order to develop their gadgets - Who designed/did it first?



What are scientist learning with, and what are they learning from?
See the answer here: Was Life Created?

[man]

[Replying to post 12 by man]

Science is extremely useful, it's given us so many things that there is literally nothing around us that wasn't either invented by science or improved by science in some way.

How can Intelligent Design be used to advance science?

If it can't advance science in what way can Intelligent Design be useful to us?

There was a guy, who once said to me, "Men build computers, even super computers, but which is greater, the computer, or the brain that built it?
And I thought that was so reasonable.
Where would computers be, if man had no brain?

Does that answer your questions.
There is a question that arises when persons consider what scientists copy, in order to develop their gadgets - Who designed/did it first?



What are scientist learning with, and what are they learning from?
See the answer here: Was Life Created?

No, you did not answer my questions.

In fact I find it hard to believe that ANYONE would think you answered my questions.

If you do not have an answer to my questions the proper response is, I don't know.

[Donray]

There was a guy, who once said to me, "Men build computers, even super computers, but which is greater, the computer, or the brain that built it?
And I thought that was so reasonable.
Where would computers be, if man had no brain?

Acutely today computers are designing computers.

So, why did your god design faulty brains? Why didn't your god make brains perfect?

Don't respond that Eve eating some fruit that knew she eat caused the problem.

[man]

How can Intelligent Design be used to advance science?

If it can't advance science in what way can Intelligent Design be useful to us?

These are exactly the correct questions to be asking.

But for me, the most important question is "is Intelligent Design actually TRUE?".

How do we determine that 1- there is a designer and 2-that this particular designer physically created the creation at hand.

Pointing out complexities is a non sequitur. That is classic god-of-the-gaps fallacious reasoning.

Whether or not Intelligent Design is true is a situation where the answer is inaccessible.

You would be better served to invest your time in studying things that ARE accessible.

You will learn a lot more about Intelligent Design by studying existing sciences then you will learn by any other method.

[H.sapiens]

This conversation is backward. Excellence in design is demonstrated by simplicity not by complexity. Complex and end-run solutions are not demonstrations of intelligent design, quite the opposite in fact.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 15 by man]

Then, in all honestly, I don't understand your question(s).
Perhaps you could rephrase it, in a more simplified way.
I would really like to understand.

[theStudent]

How can Intelligent Design be used to advance science?

If it can't advance science in what way can Intelligent Design be useful to us?

These are exactly the correct questions to be asking.

But for me, the most important question is "is Intelligent Design actually TRUE?".

How do we determine that 1- there is a designer and 2-that this particular designer physically created the creation at hand.

Pointing out complexities is a non sequitur. That is classic god-of-the-gaps fallacious reasoning.

This is quite interesting.

I find that when any evidence is provided that completely shuts down the evolution theory, that evidence is totally ignored, and the chants continue, as though nothing else matters than, "science is the real religion, down with God religion."
That's the objective.

Here you are, despite being given demonstrative evidence of an intelligent creator.
The thing about this evidence, is that it is all positive - scientific, logical, reasonable.
Yet you are crying out,"I see no evidence of God. Show me the evidence of God doing this or that."

Scientists tell you, "Oh, life on earth began from a worm (sorry for those who have a problem with this word - Worm. That's what I choose to call it), where all life forms descanded. Oh, the universe began from a big bang."
I don't hear you asking them to show you this big bang happening.
I don't see you asking them to show you this worm, producing different species.
But you start chanting, "There is evidence. There is evidence."

There is a word for that in society.
What does society call it?

Here are the facts... again.

7 Theories on the Origin of Life

Primordial soup
Life on Earth began more than 3 billion years ago, evolving from the most basic of microbes into a dazzling array of complexity over time. But how did the first organisms on the only known home to life in the universe develop from the primordial soup?

One theory involved a "shocking" start. Another idea is utterly chilling. And one theory is out of this world!

Inside you'll learn just how mysterious this all is, as we reveal the different scientific theories on the origins of life on Earth.

Electric Spark
Lighting may have provided the spark needed for life to begin.

Electric sparks can generate amino acids and sugars from an atmosphere loaded with water, methane, ammonia and hydrogen, as was shown in the famous Miller-Urey experiment reported in 1953, suggesting that lightning might have helped create the key building blocks of life on Earth in its early days. Over millions of years, larger and more complex molecules could form. Although research since then has revealed the early atmosphere of Earth was actually hydrogen-poor, scientists have suggested that volcanic clouds in the early atmosphere might have held methane, ammonia and hydrogen and been filled with lightning as well.

Or could simple clay have fueled lifes beginning? Read on to find out.

Community Clay
The first molecules of life might have met on clay, according to an idea elaborated by organic chemist Alexander Graham Cairns-Smith at the University of Glasgow in Scotland. These surfaces might not only have concentrated these organic compounds together, but also helped organize them into patterns much like our genes do now.

The main role of DNA is to store information on how other molecules should be arranged. Genetic sequences in DNA are essentially instructions on how amino acids should be arranged in proteins. Cairns-Smith suggests that mineral crystals in clay could have arranged organic molecules into organized patterns. After a while, organic molecules took over this job and organized themselves.

Or maybe life began at the bottom of the sea. Keep going to learn how.

Deep-Sea Vents
The deep-sea vent theory suggests that life may have begun at submarine hydrothermal vents spewing key hydrogen-rich molecules. Their rocky nooks could then have concentrated these molecules together and provided mineral catalysts for critical reactions. Even now, these vents, rich in chemical and thermal energy, sustain vibrant ecosystems.

The next idea is a chilling thought. Read on!

Chilly Start
Ice might have covered the oceans 3 billion years ago, as the sun was about a third less luminous than it is now, scientists say. This layer of ice, possibly hundreds of feet thick, might have protected fragile organic compounds in the water below from ultraviolet light and destruction from cosmic impacts. The cold might have also helped these molecules to survive longer, allowing key reactions to happen. [Related: The Ingredients of Life]

Understanding lifes origin may involve unravelling the mystery of DNA's formation, as we explain next.

RNA World
Nowadays DNA needs proteins in order to form, and proteins require DNA to form, so how could these have formed without each other? The answer may be RNA, which can store information like DNA, serve as an enzyme like proteins, and help create both DNA and proteins. Later DNA and proteins succeeded this "RNA world," because they are more efficient.

RNA still exists and performs several functions in organisms, including acting as an on-off switch for some genes. The question still remains how RNA got here in the first place. And while some scientists think the molecule could have spontaneously arisen on Earth, others say that was very unlikely to have happened. Other nucleic acids other than RNA have been suggested as well, such as the more esoteric PNA or TNA.

A study in 2015 suggests the missing link in this RNA puzzle may have been found.

We have two last ideas to throw at you . . .

Simple Beginnings
Instead of developing from complex molecules such as RNA, life might have begun with smaller molecules interacting with each other in cycles of reactions. These might have been contained in simple capsules akin to cell membranes, and over time more complex molecules that performed these reactions better than the smaller ones could have evolved, scenarios dubbed "metabolism-first" models, as opposed to the "gene-first" model of the "RNA world" hypothesis.

The final theory is truly out of this world. Check out the next slide.

Panspermia
Perhaps life did not begin on Earth at all, but was brought here from elsewhere in space, a notion known as panspermia. For instance, rocks regularly get blasted off Mars by cosmic impacts, and a number of Martian meteorites have been found on Earth that some researchers have controversially suggested brought microbes over here, potentially making us all Martians originally. Other scientists have even suggested that life might have hitchhiked on comets from other star systems. However, even if this concept were true, the question of how life began on Earth would then only change to how life began elsewhere in space.

Oh, and if you thought all that was mysterious, consider this: Scientists admit they don't even have a good definition of life!

The origin of life is a scientific problem which is not yet solved. There are plenty of ideas, but few clear facts.
Yet they say, "Oh, we have evidence of common ancestor."
I say like you, "Show me the physical evidence."

The Big Bang theory depends on two major assumptions...
Then they say, "Oh, we ran test, and the evidence strongly supports the big bang theory."
I say like you, "Show me the physical evidence."

So again... Why is it, you are so eager to dismiss evidence of intelligent design?

Let me quote someone, to answer that.
G. Tyler Miller, Energetics, Kinetics and Life: An Ecological Approach (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Pub. Co., 1971), p. 233

We know so little about our tiny portion of the universe and have observed it for such a minute period of time, relative to cosmic time, that extrapolating this meager knowledge to the entire universe seems highly speculative and perhaps somewhat arrogant.

The speculations continue...
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Big_Bang

Speculative physics beyond the Big Bang
While the Big Bang model is well established in cosmology, it is likely to be refined in the future. Little is known about the earliest moments of the universe's history. The Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems require the existence of a singularity at the beginning of cosmic time. However, these theorems assume that general relativity is correct, but general relativity must break down before the universe reaches the Planck temperature, and a correct treatment of quantum gravity may avoid the singularity.

And whoops.
Another specification crumbles...
Ancient Human Fossils found in China Challenge Out-of-Africa Theory
https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... -evolution
...new speculation arises.

Why did the Neanderthals die out?

So, in conclusion...
The brain is 0.01% of the evidence of intelligent design.
It's now up to, not our intelligence, but our attitude, to help us use it properly.
Albert Einstein

We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent being toward God. We see a universe marvellously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand those laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations.