Exploring the Claim for "Intelligent Design"

[POI]

I can't expect unbelievers to follow the data that leads to intelligent design.

irreducible complexity is associated with the concept of ID...and ID is a concept/movement that I'm standing 10 toes down, and two feet in.

(Kitzmiller v. Dover) ruled that it is unconstitutional to teach intelligent design, or I.D., in a "science" class. Okay, I think even Since_1985 might agree here in that I.D. has no place in a 'science' class.

However, while following the data in this trial, the claim to "irreducible complexity" was also challenged. Emphasis/focus was placed upon "bacterial flagellum" by creationists. By using logic, and not the "scientific method", skeptics to I.D., while 'following the data', placed forth a case which basically debunks the notion of "irreducible complexity", while addressing the "bacterial flagellum". In a nutshell, after testimony was placed forth to refute 'irreducible complexity', again sighting the "bacterial flagellum", the I.D. side of the isle had no further pushback or rebuttal. For anyone who is interested in all the specifics, a 2-hour documentary can be found here, as I do not wish to write a text-wall:



For debate: While following the data, "irreducible complexity' may not be a grounded rationale to remain in the I.D. camp. Thus, why still continue, two feet in, on the position of I.D. anyways? Faith, other reason(s)?

[SiNcE_1985]

When I see a combination of order, function, and complexity, I infer intelligent design.

So when you see all that in something like the parasite that causes malaria, do you conclude that God intentionally designed it to infect humans and cause immense death and suffering?

The Bible is clear, that death and suffering is the result of the fall of man...and further discussion of this may lead us too far astray from the subject matter.

The whole fall of man stuff is too much for the atheist to bear, but it is what it is.

I do have a question for you though, if I may.

[Jose Fly]

When I see a combination of order, function, and complexity, I infer intelligent design.

So when you see all that in something like the parasite that causes malaria, do you conclude that God intentionally designed it to infect humans and cause immense death and suffering?

The Bible is clear, that death and suffering is the result of the fall of man...and further discussion of this may lead us too far astray from the subject matter.

The whole fall of man stuff is too much for the atheist to bear, but it is what it is.

Then your position is a bit confusing. Earlier you posted that "order, function, and complexity" are reasons to infer design, but now you've gone back on that.

So if order, function, and complexity aren't indicators of design, what is?

I do have a question for you though, if I may.

Ok.

[SiNcE_1985]

Then your position is a bit confusing. Earlier you posted that "order, function, and complexity" are reasons to infer design, but now you've gone back on that.

So if order, function, and complexity aren't indicators of design, what is?

No need for the confusion.

All you need to do is go back to what you asked, and what I responded.

Your original question was about God's alleged design, plus his alleged intent behind the design and ultimately the end result (pain, suffering, death).

My response is, on the Christian view, things went haywire after the fall of man.

So, although God is the ultimate source behind everything, it does not follow that everything that happens is with his intent, even malaria (bacteria, viruses, etc).

My question is (speaking of intent)..

Crops/agriculture depends on some type of irrigation system, and the process needs to be frequent.

When it rains, does the rain come down with intent from Mother Nature?

Or, is rain just a happy/lucky coincidence that we are all fortunate (lucky) to have?

[Jose Fly]

Your original question was about God's alleged design, plus his alleged intent behind the design and ultimately the end result (pain, suffering, death).

My response is, on the Christian view, things went haywire after the fall of man.

So, although God is the ultimate source behind everything, it does not follow that everything that happens is with his intent, even malaria (bacteria, viruses, etc).

The issue is pretty straightforward. Earlier, you said order, function, and complexity are reasons to infer design. So I showed you how the plasmodium parasite exhibits those qualities and asked if, according to what you said earlier, that means plasmodium was designed. You said no, it doesn't.

So that leads to some obvious questions.

If order, function, and complexity aren't indicative of design, what is indicative of design?

And if plasmodium wasn't designed, how did it acquire its order, function, and complexity?

My question is (speaking of intent)..

Crops/agriculture depends on some type of irrigation system, and the process needs to be frequent.

When it rains, does the rain come down with intent from Mother Nature?

Or, is rain just a happy/lucky coincidence that we are all fortunate (lucky) to have?

I don't see it as black/white like that, to where it's either random or intentional. Rain/precipitation is the result of known natural factors and is fairly predictable, which is why we have meteorologists and weather forecasts. So in that way, it's no different than things like erosion or planetary orbits.

[SiNcE_1985]

The issue is pretty straightforward. Earlier, you said order, function, and complexity are reasons to infer design. So I showed you how the plasmodium parasite exhibits those qualities and asked if, according to what you said earlier, that means plasmodium was designed. You said no, it doesn't.

Yeah, the issue is pretty straightforward.

It is straightforward how you are equivocating.

I will say it one more time, because this the second time you've rehashed your original question without giving full context.

Your ORIGINAL question was..

"Do you conclude that God intentionally designed it to infect humans and cause immense death and suffering?"

Keyword: INTENTIONALLY.

My answer to that question was/is "NO".

Your original question is within the context of God's alleged "intent" behind the alleged design, while your sentiments above clearly have no lmention of any "intent" behind the alleged design.

Then you talk to me as if I'm the one being inconsistent, when it is actually you.

So, straighten that up before we continue.

And never mind the question..every time I ask a question, you guys run wild with it by either misunderstanding, or seeing where it's going and dancing around it.

Ain't got time for it.

[Jose Fly]

The issue is pretty straightforward. Earlier, you said order, function, and complexity are reasons to infer design. So I showed you how the plasmodium parasite exhibits those qualities and asked if, according to what you said earlier, that means plasmodium was designed. You said no, it doesn't.

Yeah, the issue is pretty straightforward.

It is straightforward how you are equivocating.

I will say it one more time, because this the second time you've rehashed your original question without giving full context.

Your ORIGINAL question was..

"Do you conclude that God intentionally designed it to infect humans and cause immense death and suffering?"

Keyword: INTENTIONALLY.

My answer to that question was/is "NO".

Your original question is within the context of God's alleged "intent" behind the alleged design, while your sentiments above clearly have no lmention of any "intent" behind the alleged design.

Then you talk to me as if I'm the one being inconsistent, when it is actually you.

So, straighten that up before we continue.

And never mind the question..every time I ask a question, you guys run wild with it by either misunderstanding, or seeing where it's going and dancing around it.

Ain't got time for it.

I'm not following. Were you thinking that God accidentally designing something was an option?

If not, then the issue remains....are order, function, and complexity reasons to infer design or not?

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #76]

Forget about it, bruh.

Never mind.

[POI]

Excuse me, but...

Intelligent Design =

1. Irreducible Complexity

Correct. And "irreducible complexity" proposes that certain biological systems are so complex that they could not have evolved gradually through natural selection because removing any single part of the system would render it completely non-functional. But guess what? The Discovery Institute brought forth what they believed to be the one of the BEST examples, (the bacterial flagellum), to demonstrate I.C. and objectively lost. They would had done much worse had they instead chosen the human body here, as, again by definition, you can remove components from the human body system and it is still functional, (i.e.) your appendix or a kidney. ID-ers thought they had the ultimate "gotcha", in the bacterial flagellum. However, once they were shown that removing several parts did not render it non-functional, they had to abort and tuck tale.

2. Penrose 1010123

Incorrect. The Penrose model is not included in intelligent design (ID):

Penrose's views:
Roger Penrose, an Oxford mathematician, is agnostic about ID. He has said that he prefers ignorance over design, and that we don't know enough to rule out other types of life in different universes.

ID's nature:
ID is not a scientific theory because it doesn't make predictions that can be tested through scientific experimentation. ID is based on the idea that the universe and living things display evidence of purposeful design, and that an intelligent cause is better than an undirected process like natural selection to explain this.

ID and creationism:
ID is a form of creationism, but it's based on science instead of sacred texts. Creationism focuses on a literal reading of the Genesis account, while ID questions evolution as the answer for the creation of the universe.

3. Entropy

Correct. The concept of entropy is often used as an argument within the field of Intelligent Design, particularly when discussing the extremely low entropy state of the early universe, which proponents argue is evidence for a designed and fine-tuned universe that allowed for life to emerge; essentially suggesting that the universe's initial conditions were too improbable to be solely due to natural causes, requiring an intelligent designer to set them up that way.

Key points about entropy and Intelligent Design:

Fine-tuning argument:
Intelligent Design proponents often point to the extremely low entropy of the early universe as evidence of fine-tuning, where the physical constants were precisely set to allow for life to develop.

Probability and complexity:
The low entropy state is seen as highly improbable, making it a strong argument for a designer who set the initial conditions.

Scientific criticism:
Critics argue that while the low entropy state is a key aspect of the Big Bang theory, it does not necessitate an intelligent designer and can be explained by natural laws.

4. Law

Not necessarily. ID does not directly include an "argument from law," as its central argument focuses on the observation of complex biological systems and inferring the need for an intelligent designer based on the apparent design features, not legal principles; however, some proponents of ID may use legal reasoning to argue against the inclusion of evolutionary theory in science education, citing potential violations of the Establishment Clause in certain contexts.

Key points about intelligent design and the "argument from design":

Focus on complexity:
The core argument of intelligent design is that certain biological structures are so complex and finely tuned that they could not have arisen through natural selection alone, implying the need for an intelligent designer.

Irreducible complexity:
A key concept in intelligent design is "irreducible complexity," which refers to systems where all components are necessary for function, and removing even one part would render the system useless, suggesting it could not have evolved gradually.

Not a legal argument:
While legal debates have occurred regarding the teaching of intelligent design in schools, the argument itself is based on observations of biological systems, not legal principles.

5. Order

Correct. The concept of ID heavily relies on an "argument from order," also known as the teleological argument, which posits that the intricate complexity and apparent purposefulness observed in the natural world can only be explained by the existence of an intelligent designer, essentially arguing that the order and design seen in nature points to a creator.

Key points about this connection:

Central idea:
The argument from design suggests that when we see complex systems with intricate parts working together for a purpose, like a watch, it is most reasonable to infer that it was designed by an intelligent agent.

Application to nature:
ID proponents argue that the complexity and functionality observed in living organisms, from the molecular level to ecosystems, are best explained by an intelligent designer rather than solely by natural processes like evolution.

6. Functionality

Correct. However, as I stated at the top, bacterial flagellum was used and completely debunked. You can remove several parts, and it is still perfectly functional. Case closed. If you were familiar with the Dover trial, you would already know this. I tried to give you specifics, without typing out even a larger text wall than I have given here, but you refuse to watch tutorial videos. What'za gonna do?

All 6 of those are features of intelligent design

False.

for you to not know this is quite frankly, disgusting.

Then report it.

I refuse to engage with someone who doesn't even know the basics.

You do not know the basics.

[Jose Fly]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #76]

Forget about it, bruh.

Never mind.

Sure, no problem. Like I said earlier, ID creationism is effectively dead anyways, and our recent exchange is a good example of why.

[Jose Fly]

Excuse me, but...

Intelligent Design =

1. Irreducible Complexity

Correct. And "irreducible complexity" proposes that certain biological systems are so complex that they could not have evolved gradually through natural selection because removing any single part of the system would render it completely non-functional. But guess what? The Discovery Institute brought forth what they believed to be the one of the BEST examples, (the bacterial flagellum), to demonstrate I.C. and objectively lost. They would had done much worse had they instead chosen the human body here, as, again by definition, you can remove components from the human body system and it is still functional, (i.e.) your appendix or a kidney. ID-ers thought they had the ultimate "gotcha", in the bacterial flagellum. However, once they were shown that removing several parts did not render it non-functional, they had to abort and tuck tale

When Behe first defined irreducible complexity as "needs all its parts to function", scientists quickly showed that evolutionary mechanisms are quite capable of generating IC structures and systems, which meant IC couldn't be used as an argument against evolution. So in 2000, Behe redefined ID to mean something produced by an evolutionary pathway that had any unselected steps.

But then scientists pointed out that "unselected steps" just means genetic drift, which happens all the time and therefore the new definition of IC isn't anti-evolution and is instead just theistic evolution (it's still an evolutionary pathway, but just with God tinkering with it).

Then in 2002 Dembski redefined IC yet again, and said it refers to a system of "well-matched, mutually interacting" parts that are essential to the system's original function. Of course scientists pointed out that he was arbitrarily ruling out exaptation, which is a known process.

So before folks start discussing or debating IC, the ID creationist first needs to decide which version of IC they're advocating and explain why they're not using the other ones.