Intelligent design (evidence)

#3
The evidence for intelligent design comes from an objective analysis of the work of mainstream scientists. It is not a "god of the gaps" argument - see below - it is based on the same line of reasoning that Darwin and other Naturalists use - see below. When you examine the evidence you will realize a much better question is: Is there evidence of naturalism. The answer is No. Unfortunately, naturalism is so deeply entrenched in the modern world view that many people are not able to conceive of the possibility that it might be wrong.


The evidence said to demonstrate naturalism, doesn't:

http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/p/62014-contents-evidence-for-afterlife.html#articles_by_subject_id

...
There is no location where life could plausibly have originated naturally, not in deep sea thermal vents, tide pools, the ocean, volcanic ridges, clay surfaces or extraterrestrial locations. There is no good candidate for the first self-replicating molecule, not RNA, DNA, or protein.
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/838
...
Molecular and anatomical homology fail to provide evidence for common descent. The fossil record does not show transition from one species to another. Developmental biology fails to support common descent. Genetics and chemistry cannot explain the origin of the genetic code. Neo-Darwinism does not explain the geographical distribution of species.
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1510
...
The Cambrian explosion, where many new animal types appeared suddenly 530 million years ago cannot be explained by natural causes but can be explained by intelligent design, since intelligence is a known cause that can create information and complex systems.
http://www.discovery.org/a/2177
...
Many of the examples claimed to prove Darwinism (the Miller-Urey primordial soup experiment, the similarity of early embryos in different species, the evolutionary tree, homology in vertebrate limbs, peppered moths evolving a darker color as air pollution darkened tree trunks, Darwin's finches, evolution from apes to humans) are false or misleading.
http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf
...
Atheists: "Science shows there is no good reason to believe in God". Nobel Prize Winning Scientists: "The scientific evidence is best explained by the existence of God".
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2014/04/atheists-science-shows-there-is-no-good.html
...
The discovery that the universe is expanding, the discovery that the universe came from nothing, and the discovery that natural laws are finely tuned to make life possible, all demonstrate that the universe was created and designed by an intelligence outside the universe.
...
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-cosmological-argument-for.html
Also see: Video: Doug Ell Discusses the Evidence for Intelligent Design
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2014/07/doug-ell-video-discusses-evidence-for.html
...
Materialism Cannot Explain the Origin of the Genetic Code.
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2013/04/materialism-cannot-explain-origin-of.html
...
1) No Viable Mechanism to Generate a Primordial Soup. 2) Forming Polymers Requires Dehydration Synthesis. Dehydration synthesis does not occur spontaneously in water. 3) RNA World Hypothesis Lacks Confirming Evidence. 4) Unguided Chemical Processes Cannot Explain the Origin of the Genetic Code. 5) No Workable Model for the Origin of Life
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2013/03/top-five-problems-with-current-origin.html
...
The genetic code is finely tuned for efficiency (it is not random) and it is unlikely this efficiency could have arisen through evolution because any change in the code would affect every protein in the cell which would be catistrophically fatal.
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2013/03/life-did-not-arise-through-unguided.html
...
DNA analysis fails to confirm the evolutionary tree.
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-flawed-evidence-for-evolution.html
...
The fossil record lacks examples of intermediate species; "early development in vertebrate embryos is more consistent with separate origins than with common ancestry; ... non-coding DNA is fully functional, contrary to neo-Darwinian predictions; ... natural selection can accomplish nothing more than artificial selection—which is to say, minor changes within existing species."
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2012/05/why-darwinism-is-false.html
...
The evidence usually said to demonstrate that humans evolved from apes, does not demonstrate any such thing:

Human/Ape Common Ancestry: Following the Evidence
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/following_the_evidence_where_i047161.html

Does Genome Evidence Support Human-Ape Common Ancestry?
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/03/does_genome_evi083181.html
Intelligent Design is a much better explanation for the evidence:

http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2013/04/materialism-cannot-explain-origin-of.html
However, we know there is a phenomenon that can create semiotic and cybernetic systems that would otherwise have no chance of arising through natural processes. This phenomenon is intelligence. Therefore it is reasonable to suppose that the genetic code was created by an intelligence. This is not a "god of the gaps" argument. It is the same mode of logic, "like phenomena have like causes"8, whereby the measurement of gravity on earth leads to the conclusion that gravity causes the planets to orbit the sun. It is the same mode of logic used by many early naturalists, such as geologist Charles Lyell, to explain phenomena that occurred in the remote past by identifying causes known to be effective in the present time. Additionally, you don't need evidence of who the intelligence was to make this supposition. If a NASA space craft found machinery on Mars, we would not think that the machinery arose naturally just because there were no Martians around who could have made it. The existence of machinery that could not arise naturally is sufficient to conclude the existence of an intelligent maker.

However, the belief that naturalism can explain something that current science says is impossible is a "god of the gaps" argument. Our current understanding of chemistry and the conditions on the early earth says there is no good natural explanation for the origin of life and the genetic code.1 To disregard science and maintain faith in naturalism is a "god of the gaps" argument. To paraphrase the Nobel prize winning neurophysiologist Sir John Eccles: Promissory materialism is superstition.9

http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-cosmological-argument-for.html
Darwin believed that to understand an event that happened in the remote past you should identify a cause that is known in the present time to be capable of causing the same type of event. By this reasoning, one arrives at the conclusion that the genetic code, genetic information, the control systems that regulate processes in the cell, and cellular machinery are best explained by intelligent design. This is because the only known process by which codes, information, control systems, and machines arise in the present time are through the action of intelligent human beings.
Natural evolution is not a scientific theory, it cannot be falsified because any observation can be accommodated by the theory: common descent predicts similar structures in closely related organisms, but when similar structures are found in unrelated organisms it is called convergent evolution. Natural selection predicts slow gradual changes, but when evidence of intermediate species is not available and change seems to occur over short time spans, "punctuated equilibrium" is invoked even though there is no mechanism for such rapid genetic changes to occur. Natural evolution is simply a conglomeration of post hoc conjectures that are consistent with the materialist's faith in naturalism. However, all the evidence said to demonstrate common descent is also consistent with common design and in some cases is better explained by common design.

Multiverse theories do not solve the problem of how our improbably fine-tuned universe could arise by chance because multiverse theories themselves require fine tuning . Multiverse theories are not a good way to support the materialist belief that even though the origin of life is improbable there are enough universes for one to exists where it could occur by chance. If there are enough universes for one to exist where something as improbable as the origin of life could occur by chance, there are enough universes for anything to happen. In that case, no experimental result or series of experimental results can be trusted because anything no matter how improbable can be explained by chance. This demolishes the foundation of naturalism which is that nature can be explained by the workings of impersonal natural laws.

Nobel Prize winners Erwin Schrödinger, Albert Einstein, Arno Penzias, Charles Townes and scientists, Charles Darwin, Sir Fred Hoyle, John von Neumann, Wernher von Braun, believed the scientific evidence demonstrates the existence of God or that the universe was designed:
http://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/eminent_researchers
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2014/04/atheists-science-shows-there-is-no-good.html
 
Last edited:
#5
Of course there is.

The most compelling IMO, digital semantic code at the very foundation of life. Semiosis is not physics, it cannot be created by physics. It's existence requires consciousness! The core of the information processing system is irreducible connected in circular causality. Self referential, where symbolic arrangements of matter control the matter itself without breaking any physical laws. Cybernetics. The symbol matter problem. The very same problem as the hard problem of consciousness actually.

Is there any evidence that blind physics can create digital code? No, there is not even a coherent line of reasoning to take! There is also no evidence that can account for the immense volumes of prescriptive and descriptive information within the most basic of cells either.
Semantic code will never appear from blind physics, never has, never will. Because it is not physics.

"Information is information not matter or energy" - Norbert Weiner, founder of cybernetics.
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#6
The most compelling IMO, digital semantic code at the very foundation of life. Semiosis is not physics, it cannot be created by physics. It's existence requires consciousness! The core of the information processing system is irreducible connected in circular causality. Self referential, where symbolic arrangements of matter control the matter itself without breaking any physical laws. Cybernetics. The symbol matter problem. The very same problem as the hard problem of consciousness actually.

Is there any evidence that blind physics can create digital code? No, there is not even a coherent line of reasoning to take! There is also no evidence that can account for the immense volumes of prescriptive and descriptive information within the most basic of cells either.
Semantic code will never appear from blind physics, never has, never will. Because it is not physics.
How many choices does it take to make a semantic/digital code? Is two enough?

~~ Paul
 
Last edited:
#7
Natural evolution is simply a conglomeration of post hoc conjectures that are consistent with the materialist's faith in naturalism.
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2014/07/birds-with-ornamental-eyespots-have.html
When a peacock spreads out its train the feathers form a huge display. Near the end of each feather is a colorful, circular object that looks something like an eye and the feathers are positioned just right so that the eyes, or ocelli, are beautifully arrayed across the entire display.

...
Such eye-spot feathers are found in three different bird genera and according to a new evolutionary analysis of their genetics, they would likely share a common ancestor as has always been expected by evolutionists. There’s only one problem. The analysis also finds that other bird genera that are without these ornamental eyespots, are also closely related to these genera that do have eye-spot feathers.

If these other genera are so closely related, then why do they not also have ocelli? With evolution we must say that they had the eye-spot feathers but later lost them for some reason, over the course of evolution. Or that the eye-spot feathers evolved independently in the different genera that have them. Either way these are just-so stories, manufactured to fit the theory.
...
This is yet another evidence, in a long, long list, which demonstrates that evolution is not a simple, parsimonious explanation that, in a stroke, easily explains a set of disparate and otherwise unlikely or confusing observations.

Rather, evolution is a complex theory with a never-ending list of epicycles that are needed to explain a wide variety of evidences that are inconsistent with the basic theory. This makes evolution a tautology.
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#8
"If these other genera are so closely related, then why do they not also have ocelli? With evolution we must say that they had the eye-spot feathers but later lost them for some reason, over the course of evolution. Or that the eye-spot feathers evolved independently in the different genera that have them. Either way these are just-so stories, manufactured to fit the theory."

This is typical ID crap. Scientists discover something by evolutionary analysis and then the IDers point out a new problem and call it a just-so story, as if scientists are now finished with their investigation. Surely the scientists plan to just leave it at that, with the just-so stories in place, having lost their interest in the question. :eek:

"This is yet another evidence, in a long, long list, which demonstrates that evolution is not a simple, parsimonious explanation that, in a stroke, easily explains a set of disparate and otherwise unlikely or confusing observations."

Who said evolution could explain everything in one stroke? What a ridiculous remark. It's as if nature has some obligation to allow a simple explanation.

But I'd love to see the ID explanation for eye-spot feathers. The ID scientists are working diligently on this issue, right?

~~ Paul
 
Last edited:
#9
"If these other genera are so closely related, then why do they not also have ocelli? With evolution we must say that they had the eye-spot feathers but later lost them for some reason, over the course of evolution. Or that the eye-spot feathers evolved independently in the different genera that have them. Either way these are just-so stories, manufactured to fit the theory."

This is typical ID crap. Scientists discover something by evolutionary analysis and then the IDers point out a new problem and call it a just-so story, as if scientists are now finished with their investigation. Surely the scientists plan to just leave it at that, with the just-so stories in place, having lost their interest in the question.

"This is yet another evidence, in a long, long list, which demonstrates that evolution is not a simple, parsimonious explanation that, in a stroke, easily explains a set of disparate and otherwise unlikely or confusing observations."

Who said evolution could explain everything in one stroke? What a ridiculous remark. It's as if nature has some obligation to allow a simple explanation.

But I'd love to see the ID explanation for eye-spot feathers. The ID scientists are working diligently on this issue, right?

~~ Paul
This type of conversion from the rational to the mythical as detailed in this post by Jim about himself always makes me wonder why it happened. http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/do-they-really-read-each-others-stuff.1081/#post-27996
 
#11
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/07/signature-in-cell.html
... Aquinas’s Fifth Way is devoted precisely to a demonstration of the existence of the divine intellect on the basis of the existence of immanent teleology in nature. But this argument has nothing to do with modeling natural objects on watches, outboard motors, or other artifacts; nothing to do with explaining rare or strange phenomena; nothing to do with “gaps” in current scientific explanations; nothing to do with “specified complexity” or any other kind of complexity; nothing to do with weighing probabilities; nothing to do with biological phenomena per se; and nothing to do even with “information” as such either.

It has instead to do with there being irreducible immanent teleology of at least some sort in nature, at the very least at the level of the most primitive patterns of efficient causality.
...
 
#12
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/07/wheres-god.html

From the comments:
Anonymous said...
Is your disagreement with intelligent design that it is not providing evidence of God, or that is not even able to find evidence of intelligent design in nature? ID is not necessarily looking for God. ID is about looking for artifacts of intelligence in nature the same way an archeologist can distinguish a stone arrow head from a chip of stone formed in a avalanche. Do you think it is possible to find evidence that the universe and life were designed by an intelligence if such evidence exits?

...
Edward Feser said...
...

Anonymous,

As I've complained before, whether ID is supposed to be giving evidence for God depends on which ID person you talk to, what audience he is trying to impress, and which day of the week it is. Anyway, no, of course I do not deny that it is possible to find evidence of intelligence. Nor do I deny that it is possible to reason from the world to a divine intelligence (as Aquinas does in the Fifth Way). What I deny is that the specific sorts of arguments ID types give can get you an inch closer to the God of classical theism, specifically -- for reasons I've given many, many times (follow the relevant link in the post above). If you're saying that ID people would be happy to admit that, well, that would be good news. But I know from experience that it isn't true.
...
 
#13
There's some interesting posts by Feser on ID vs what he calls "Aristotelico-Thomism".

I've just started these today, so I can't really say much about them but I think they might be of interest.
I think my two previous posts help to clarify Feser's views. He believes one can reason from teleology that God of classical theism exists. He does not deny that conventional ID arguments can identify evidence of design in nature, only that they don't provide evidence of the God of classical theism.

I'm not sure why Feser thinks ID researchers think ID can prove the God of classical theism. I don't think anyone except a few philosophers of religion even think about "the God of classical theism" or know what it means. In my view, the fine tuning of the universe is evidence of a transcendent creator, conveniently referred to as God. But I don't think that is what Feser calls "the God of classical theism".
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-cosmological-argument-for.html
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2014/07/doug-ell-video-discusses-evidence-for.html
 
Last edited:
#14
Just one of a multitude of examples.
This post was flagged for moderation, but I think it is a fair comment, and one that unintentionally reminds us that the intelligent design of the watch in this image is amusingly primitive compared to biological entities such as plants and animals. I teach anatomy at my university and remained amazed by the ludicrous concept that the anatomy we study is not the product of ID. One example of this are the nerve-sized canals (foramen) that penetrate the skull in various places, particularly the foramen mentale, which has its origin on the upper posterior portion of the mandible (both sides), travels most of the length of the mandible, then opens out at the anterior portion of the mandible on the opposite side. This channel allows the innervation of muscles near the mouth by creating a link between those muscles and the brain. For this channel to develop in any kind of random process makes no sense to me because it clearly has purpose. This isn't the kind of "purpose" that is left over after after every other variation is stripped away, but a construct developed as part of the genetic body plan that allows several otherwise unrelated structures to act in concert. Without this ability, the nerves, muscles, and foramen would be pointless, and the brain irrelevant.

I understand the argument that billions of years and gazillions of variations are enough variety to cause things more complicated than this watch to spontaneously appear, but I also know that if anything, the biological samples we have demonstrate peroration throughout history, not variation. One might want to bring up dinosaurs or other extinct species as examples of variation. One problem with that argument is that the shape of the bodies may be different, but the way the pieces fit together and operate is the same. We don't have anything that looks like a tyrannosaurus today, but skeletons of these creatures possess the some topological layout of any modern mammal. They have the same bone-penetrating foramen in their mandible that we have, and it accomplishes the same goal: the innervation of muscles on one side of the bone, activated by chemical impulses sent from the brain on the other side of the bone.

AP
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#15
This post was flagged for moderation, but I think it is a fair comment, and one that unintentionally reminds us that the intelligent design of the watch in this image is amusingly primitive compared to biological entities such as plants and animals. I teach anatomy at my university and remained amazed by the ludicrous concept that the anatomy we study is not the product of ID. One example of this are the nerve-sized canals (foramen) that penetrate the skull in various places, particularly the foramen mentale, which has its origin on the upper posterior portion of the mandible (both sides), travels most of the length of the mandible, then opens out at the anterior portion of the mandible on the opposite side. This channel allows the innervation of muscles near the mouth by creating a link between those muscles and the brain. For this channel to develop in any kind of random process makes no sense to me because it clearly has purpose. This isn't the kind of "purpose" that is left over after after every other variation is stripped away, but a construct developed as part of the genetic body plan that allows several otherwise unrelated structures to act in concert. Without this ability, the nerves, muscles, and foramen would be pointless, and the brain irrelevant.
You appear to be ignoring the possibility that it evolved over time from predecessors, as opposed to appearing all at once.

http://afarensis99.wordpress.com/2006/04/22/the_foramen_magnum_how_do_we_k/

http://www.utexas.edu/news/2013/09/26/ut-austin-anthropologists/

~~ Paul
 
#16
This post was flagged for moderation, but I think it is a fair comment, and one that unintentionally reminds us that the intelligent design of the watch in this image is amusingly primitive compared to biological entities such as plants and animals. I teach anatomy at my university and remained amazed by the ludicrous concept that the anatomy we study is not the product of ID. One example of this are the nerve-sized canals (foramen) that penetrate the skull in various places, particularly the foramen mentale, which has its origin on the upper posterior portion of the mandible (both sides), travels most of the length of the mandible, then opens out at the anterior portion of the mandible on the opposite side. This channel allows the innervation of muscles near the mouth by creating a link between those muscles and the brain. For this channel to develop in any kind of random process makes no sense to me because it clearly has purpose. This isn't the kind of "purpose" that is left over after after every other variation is stripped away, but a construct developed as part of the genetic body plan that allows several otherwise unrelated structures to act in concert. Without this ability, the nerves, muscles, and foramen would be pointless, and the brain irrelevant.

I understand the argument that billions of years and gazillions of variations are enough variety to cause things more complicated than this watch to spontaneously appear, but I also know that if anything, the biological samples we have demonstrate peroration throughout history, not variation. One might want to bring up dinosaurs or other extinct species as examples of variation. One problem with that argument is that the shape of the bodies may be different, but the way the pieces fit together and operate is the same. We don't have anything that looks like a tyrannosaurus today, but skeletons of these creatures possess the some topological layout of any modern mammal. They have the same bone-penetrating foramen in their mandible that we have, and it accomplishes the same goal: the innervation of muscles on one side of the bone, activated by chemical impulses sent from the brain on the other side of the bone.

AP
You missed the joke; it was a visual double entendre. Recall the op asked,
is there any evidence of intelligent design? (to be clear I'm not talking about biblical creation in particular)
well there is. I choose the watch because it relates directly to the question asked and to the Design Argument for the existence of God, which if as you must certainly recall fails to argue effectively for the existence of God. Anyway I'm glad for you you've found evidence of God.

Which university do you teach at in the Netherlands?
 
#20
You appear to be ignoring the possibility that it evolved over time from predecessors, as opposed to appearing all at once.

http://afarensis99.wordpress.com/2006/04/22/the_foramen_magnum_how_do_we_k/

http://www.utexas.edu/news/2013/09/26/ut-austin-anthropologists/

~~ Paul
I'm not ignoring the possibility, I'm rejecting it as ill-founded. You have presented a page regarding the foramen magnum (not the foramen mentale) as, presumably, an argument against my post. However, this article isn't presenting evidence of hominid skulls that do not have a foramen magnum, but skulls where the relative position of this foramen shifts on a species by species basis. First find a skull that doesn't allow brain/muscle communication, then we will have something to discuss.

AP
 
Top