What does "Intelligent Design" even mean?

[Dr.3D]

The study of Intelligent Design.

I would have to look at the physical evidence.


First I would have to gain some knowledge on geological rock structures. Figure out what type of rock this is, what are its natural characteristics, natural environmental mechanisms that effect its structure (was it in a river, at the top of a mountain, at the base of a mountain, on a beach), chemical makeup.

I would then compare this rock to the knowledge I have on the science of rocks.


If the rock is consistent with known natural geological mechanisms, It is possible the rock is the result of natural process.

If the rock is inconsistent with known natural geological mechanisms, one of two things can be true. 1. The rock is not the result of natural geological mechanisms. 2. The rock is the result of natural geological mechanisms that I have not yet gained knowledge of.


if I have determined that the rock is not the result of known geological mechanism, I can explore the possibility that it is the result of unnatural process. I would then look for evidence to support unnatural process. In this example of what appears to be an arrow head, I can look for evidence of wearing that is consistent with the act of sharpening. If the rock was sharpened with a second rock of a different material, I can look for markings along the sharp edge consistent with what occurs when two rocks are banged against each other in such a fashion. I can also look for residue of the second rock that was used in the sharpening process. if the markings are uneven, that may suggest another rock was hit against it. If the markings are even and consistently sized, it may suggest a more precise tool was used.



As for this rock, in limited knowledge of geology, i can say it is likely not the result of natural process. I know of no natural geological mechanism that would cause the rock to form into this shape. The rock is inconsistent with natural geology

In my limited knowledge of human made tools, i can say it is likely that this was crafted intentionally by a human. The shape and markings are consistent with what I know to be an arrow head.


It is always possible that I could be wrong. I have only studied basic college level geology. And there are things that occur in nature that are often mistaken for being man-made. For instance, certain types of rock erodes in such a way that it appears to be a paved stone walkway. But its completely naturally occurring. Our knowledge of geology can explain the process by which it happens. In these cases, we must look at the physical evidence. We must rely on our scientific understanding. We must rely on research, the collection of data, the collection of evidence.

Science doesnt work by looking at something for 2 seconds and going with whatever your intuition tells you.

SCIENCE DOES NOT WORK BY INTUITION

So with limited study of the object, one may determine it to be designed by a human and not the result of a natural process because:

1. It is inconsistent with natural geology.
2. It is consistent with what is known to be an arrowhead.



So now we may add two new observations to our list of how we may determine if an object is naturally occurring or designed.

Attributes of an object that was designed:
It may be shown to be designed by physical evidence.
It may be verified as being designed though documented historical evidence.
It may be inconsistent with naturally occurring objects.
It may be consistent with what is known about other similar objects.

I am learning a lot today. I have to wonder how many more attributes we can come up with in determining if something was designed, rather than naturally occurring.

This would be the scientific study of Intelligent Design.
Today we have a start with the four observations you have come up with.

 

[constituent]

01000010 01101001 01101110 01100001 01110010 01111001 00100000 01100100 01101111 01100101 01110011 00100000 01101110 01101111 01110100 00100000 01101101 01100001 01101011 01100101 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 01110010 01100111 01110101 01101101 01100101 01101110 01110100 00100000 01101101 01101111 01110010 01100101 00100000 01110110 01100001 01101100 01101001 01100100 00101110

one thread, two names.... tsk tsk...


starting to look like another doctor i know!

 

[Theocrat]

507261792054656c6c00

RGlub3NhdXJz

57686174206C616E677561676520697320746861742C20616E64207768617420646F6573206974206D65616E3F00

 

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

I have to wonder how many more attributes we can come up with in determining if something was designed, rather than naturally occurring.

This would be the scientific study of Intelligent Design.
Today we have a start with the four observations you have come up with.

I can see what you are saying. But either way, at some point you must produce evidence to support a claim.


Now back to biology. Do you have any evidence to support the ID concept of "irreducible complexity"?


Take DNA for example. What evidence can be presented that suggests DNA could not have come into existence by natural chemical, physical, and biological means?

 

[Dr.3D]

Take DNA for example. What evidence can be presented that suggests DNA could not have come into existence by natural chemical, physical, and biological means?

The change from disorder to order is not what we observe when studying physics. Such a change would be in violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

Since we always observe entropy in non biological systems (organisms), it does not make sense, disorder would somehow change to order without a coordinated external source of energy applied with the purpose of bringing the organism into existence.

In a world void of organisms, it would be necessary to construct an organism in order for one to exist. Once in existence, the organism would only be able to adapt to the environment if it had been constructed with the ability to reproduce.

The ability to reproduce would have to have taken place instantly or the organism would only live for one generation and then cease to exist. So the DNA would have to suddenly become able to reproduce at the same time it came into existence.

Is it possible DNA could come into existence and and also have the ability to reproduce at the same time? What are the chances of this taking place?

 

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

The change from disorder to order is not what we observe when studying physics.

wrong

Here are a few scientific journal articles that discuss Disorder-to-Order

http://www.biophysj.org/cgi/content/abstract/93/6/2083
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v61/i13/p8878_1
http://scripts.iucr.org/cgi-bin/paper?S010876819301167X
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=f0b34f7d5b8de6cb82464177ef07b2de
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0305-4470/36/22/336
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/112444459/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

What are the chances of this taking place?

First off, in an infinite universe, big scary numbers are irrelevant.

Second, you assume things happen by random chance. Thats not really accurate. Things happen by natural process. Say you put hydrogen and oxygen together? What are the chances that all those hydrogen atoms will just happen to join with all those oxygen atoms? Well, chance and probability have nothing to do with it. Its a natural process. The atoms will join together to create H20

 

[amy31416]

The change from disorder to order is not what we observe when studying physics. Such a change would be in violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

That's not necessarily true. The second law of thermodynamics essentially states that all matter will eventually go toward the lowest energy states. If you recall from E diagrams, sometimes that means that the lowest E state is a bond. For instance, an H ion is in a much higher energy state than H2. Carbon needs to form four bonds to be in the lowest E state.

So, while the state of being bonded is a temporary low energy state, over vast time, all matter and energy will naturally find its lowest E state and we (possibly) will settle into a state where everything is balanced and separated. Or, we could find that the lowest E state is through bonding and eventually be back at a singularity. Incredibly high potential energy--what sets it off to become kinetic energy? ....

I probably shouldn't post this because I'm talking on the phone at the same time as I'm writing and it may very well make no sense............but what the hell.

 

[Dr.3D]

wrong

Here are a few scientific journal articles that discuss Disorder-to-Order

http://www.biophysj.org/cgi/content/abstract/93/6/2083
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v61/i13/p8878_1
http://scripts.iucr.org/cgi-bin/paper?S010876819301167X
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=f0b34f7d5b8de6cb82464177ef07b2de
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0305-4470/36/22/336
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/112444459/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0




First off, in an infinite universe, big scary numbers are irrelevant.

Second, you assume things happen by random chance. Thats not really accurate. Things happen by natural process. Say you put hydrogen and oxygen together? What are the chances that all those hydrogen atoms will just happen to join with all those oxygen atoms? Well, chance and probability have nothing to do with it. Its a natural process. The atoms will join together to create H20

The first article refers to smooth muscle myosin, a biological entity.

The second article is in reference to crystal formation as does the third article. Yes crystals are orderly because they form as the substance begins to adhere to the binding points of it's crystal lattice.

The fourth article is about order to disorder.

The fifth article is close to what oil does when mixed with water. Sure it goes from disorder to order as the two separate.

The sixth article I can not get to come up on my computer as it gives me an error about cookies.

Are you saying the Earth has been in existence for infinity?

Not necessarily will all of the atoms of hydrogen combine with the oxygen atoms to form water... there may be a difference in the number of atoms of each required to form the H2O molecule.

Say we had 2 oxygen atoms and 2 hydrogen atoms and then gave the spark of energy to cause them to combine. We would get one molecule of H2O and have one atom of Oxygen remaining.

Entropy happens to anything that is not a living thing. Organisms only experience entropy after they have stopped living.

 

[Dr.3D]

Here is an interesting article about the subject of this thread.

http://www.boundless.org/2000/features/a0000455.html

 

[Dr.3D]

That's not necessarily true. The second law of thermodynamics essentially states that all matter will eventually go toward the lowest energy states. If you recall from E diagrams, sometimes that means that the lowest E state is a bond. For instance, an H ion is in a much higher energy state than H2. Carbon needs to form four bonds to be in the lowest E state.

So, while the state of being bonded is a temporary low energy state, over vast time, all matter and energy will naturally find its lowest E state and we (possibly) will settle into a state where everything is balanced and separated. Or, we could find that the lowest E state is through bonding and eventually be back at a singularity. Incredibly high potential energy--what sets it off to become kinetic energy? ....

I probably shouldn't post this because I'm talking on the phone at the same time as I'm writing and it may very well make no sense............but what the hell.

Yes, I understand what you are saying.... it's been a long time since I was in a physics class... or for that matter in a chemistry class. Better than 40 years have gone by since I really had to use any of that information. I'm not a veterinarian, even though I went to veterinary school for a few years. After retiring from a General Motors plant that was closed due to outsourcing, I decided to study the Bible and related writings and finally was rewarded with a Doctorate in Biblical Studies. I'm sorry if I can't seem to communicate everything just as it should be communicated. I mean well anyway.

Perhaps I am wandering into the wrong environment and stepping out of my element by going into the subject of Intelligent Design. I will say however, I am learning a lot about the subject I probably would have never known.

What I was trying to say though, is what we observe in nature is that non living things tend to decay back to their most basic forms. Living things tend to do just the opposite, until after they stop living. I was trying to discover how the very complex chain of the DNA molecule could possibly form and at the same time be able to replicate itself all in one process. This process would have to happen very quickly or the DNA would begin to decay before it ever had the chance to reproduce.

 

[LibertyOfOne]

Here I will break down intelligent design for you.

Blah Blah Blah Blah
Blah Blah
(Toss in some bullshit)
God did it!

 

[Truth Warrior]

I would have to look at the physical evidence.


First I would have to gain some knowledge on geological rock structures. Figure out what type of rock this is, what are its natural characteristics, natural environmental mechanisms that effect its structure (was it in a river, at the top of a mountain, at the base of a mountain, on a beach), chemical makeup.

I would then compare this rock to the knowledge I have on the science of rocks.


If the rock is consistent with known natural geological mechanisms, It is possible the rock is the result of natural process.

If the rock is inconsistent with known natural geological mechanisms, one of two things can be true. 1. The rock is not the result of natural geological mechanisms. 2. The rock is the result of natural geological mechanisms that I have not yet gained knowledge of.


if I have determined that the rock is not the result of known geological mechanism, I can explore the possibility that it is the result of unnatural process. I would then look for evidence to support unnatural process. In this example of what appears to be an arrow head, I can look for evidence of wearing that is consistent with the act of sharpening. If the rock was sharpened with a second rock of a different material, I can look for markings along the sharp edge consistent with what occurs when two rocks are banged against each other in such a fashion. I can also look for residue of the second rock that was used in the sharpening process. if the markings are uneven, that may suggest another rock was hit against it. If the markings are even and consistently sized, it may suggest a more precise tool was used.



As for this rock, in limited knowledge of geology, i can say it is likely not the result of natural process. I know of no natural geological mechanism that would cause the rock to form into this shape. The rock is inconsistent with natural geology

In my limited knowledge of human made tools, i can say it is likely that this was crafted intentionally by a human. The shape and markings are consistent with what I know to be an arrow head.


It is always possible that I could be wrong. I have only studied basic college level geology. And there are things that occur in nature that are often mistaken for being man-made. For instance, certain types of rock erodes in such a way that it appears to be a paved stone walkway. But its completely naturally occurring. Our knowledge of geology can explain the process by which it happens. In these cases, we must look at the physical evidence. We must rely on our scientific understanding. We must rely on research, the collection of data, the collection of evidence.

Science doesnt work by looking at something for 2 seconds and going with whatever your intuition tells you.

SCIENCE DOES NOT WORK BY INTUITION

How else is scientific curiosity and interest sparked, and tentative hypothesis formulation initiated then? Where does that capacity come from?

 

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

How else is scientific curiosity and interest sparked, and tentative hypothesis formulation initiated then? Where does that capacity come from?

That is not relevant to the current debate. I think that you think you just asked a philosophical question. You didnt. You asked a biological question.

Now, while we are indeed discussing biology, we are not currently discussing the inner working of the human mind. If you want an answer to your question, I suggest you go to your nearest university and start studying Neurophysiology.

 

[Truth Warrior]

That is not relevant to the current debate. I think that you think you just asked a philosophical question. You didnt. You asked a biological question.

Now, while we are indeed discussing biology, we are not currently discussing the inner working of the human mind. If you want an answer to your question, I suggest you go to your nearest university and start studying Neurophysiology.

I merely replyed to your bold science/intuition claim. You may now retract it if you wish.

 

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

I merely replyed to your bold science/intuition claim. You may now retract it if you wish.

Why would I retract it?

Science does not work by intuition. It works by collection of data; experimentation; observable realities.


Where has Intelligent Design done any research? Where is the data? Where is the experimentation? Where is the evidence? Where is the observable reality?



If all you have to go on with ID is "Well, it seems logical to me", then you have not formed a scientific theory.



Why do you insist on believing in things with no supporting evidence, and mountains of evidence to the contrary?

 

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

“Science is a particular way of knowing about the world. In science, explanations are restricted to those that can be inferred from the confirmable data – the results obtained through observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists. Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific investigation. Explanations that cannot be based upon empirical evidence are not part of science.”

 

[amy31416]

The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

I think the proponents of Intelligent Design will have a hard time with steps 3 & 4. But please, have a go at it. I'd like to see what you guys come up with.

 

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

what we observe in nature is that non living things tend to decay back to their most basic forms.

Yea, because just the other day I saw a diamond ring decay back into coal.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Why would I retract it?

Science does not work by intuition. It works by collection of data; experimentation; observable realities.


Where has Intelligent Design done any research? Where is the data? Where is the experimentation? Where is the evidence? Where is the observable reality?



If all you have to go on with ID is "Well, it seems logical to me", then you have not formed a scientific theory.



Why do you insist on believing in things with no supporting evidence, and mountains of evidence to the contrary?

A careful rereading for comprehension of what I actually wrote will "maybe" clearly show that I am/was speaking of the starting point of the process of science.

I think that you really owe me answers to the accumulation of my thread questions directed to you, before I will even begin to consider answering your new ones here.

We'll go from there, OK?

Oh, you may too want to add a response to thread post #16 also. Hmm, I seem to have already asked you that.

 

[yongrel]

Oh, you may too want to add a response to thread post #16 also. Hmm, I seem to have already asked you that.

Post #16 says nothing of merit to your argument.

"No lover, if he be of good faith, and sincere, will deny he would prefer to see his mistress dead than unfaithful."
-Marquis de Sade

See, I can post quotations too. It doesn't help my argument. It just makes me feel important.