Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Intelligent Design!

  1. Nov 22, 2004 #1
    ok i am totally against this. just today i was having an argument with a kid in my adanced computer app. class and he told me the only way the universe could be explained is by intelligent design, i.e., accepting that there's a "god" or a "creator". he says that intelligent design explains how the universe was created and why there is such complexity amongst living forms, mainly us, homo-disgusting-sapiens. i'm only in HS so my knowledge of biology is fairly limited but this doesnt make sense at all and i think theres a lot of faults with the whole concept:

    a) ID doesnt explain how the universe was created cos it doesnt explain the origin of "god". sure you could say that "god" was always there but if then why not say that "DNA was always there" or "the elements were always there".

    b) ID supporters say that the odds of DNA forming by chance are extremely low and the existance of DNA can only be explained if you say that "god made DNA" but in fact some guy a few years ago duplicated the conditions that would exist on primitive earth (w/ the right pressure, elements etc. ) and RNA was formed. so it's not entirely chance and you could say that the conditions on early earth were actually a lot more conducive to the formation of DNA. and the DNA is not some mysterious molecule. every aspect of it's structure can be explained using the laws of physics and chem.

    c) ID says that things are so complex that even if you take one little part out, the whole organism/system will stop functioning. while thsi might be true, it's just presumptous to say that only the existance of "god" could explain the existance of such systems. in fact, it could be that those parts that are now essential initially might've been added in the past just cos they were advantageous to the efficiency of the system but cos of changes in the system over time have now become essential.

    d) lastly ID doesnt even have any kind of evidence supporting it so saying that it's true isnt exactly science. i know you can't prove that evolution and natural selection work but theres a totally overwhelming amount of evidence supporting them.

    those are my thoughts. agree or disagree? basically am i missing something anywhere cos i think intelligent design is pure unadultrated BS.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 22, 2004 #2

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    A) We don't support religious discussions here on physicsforums.

    B) There is no evidence for ID other than "gut feelings."

    - Warren
     
  4. Nov 22, 2004 #3

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    He knows that. He's debunking ID.
     
  5. Nov 23, 2004 #4

    anti_crank

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    An adherent of ID will argue any points you might try to raise to the brink of insanity. The only reason to do so if you suspect someone is taken in by it; otherwise your time is best spent ignoring it.

    Scientifically, ID is about as valid as Last Thursdayism. Incidentally, the talkorigins.org site will contain answers to the most common ID points; see if you can find any help there.
     
  6. Nov 23, 2004 #5

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I like Last Thursdayism - I can, with veracity roughly equal to creationism or ID, claim that I created the universe last thursday!
     
  7. Nov 23, 2004 #6
    God doesn't need an origin because he is not bound by any physical laws, therefore to deduct anything about him using geometry or the concept of "time," which are elements that bound us and the rest of our "universe," is impossible. However, the universe is bound by physical laws and therefore can have elements about it defined, such as it's begining or end. So God doesn't need a begining, but our universe can.

    My opinion: The universe needs some initial spark from something not bound by any type of laws or constrants. Even with a universe with time spanning infinitely in bound directions, that time-line which in itself is still an element in the universe and therefore bounded by laws, needs to be brought into being. Thats just how I personally see it.

    RNA? I thought they just made replicating molecules? Anyone have a link where I can learn more?

    I don't think people consider it a science. This is more in the realm of philosophy or metaphysics.
     
  8. Nov 23, 2004 #7

    Phobos

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Note that "cosmological evolution" is different than biological evolution. In general, ID'ers focus on biological evolution.

    Anyway, as you say, the answer that "God did it" doesn't provide a lot of information. For example, HOW did He do it? (instantaneously or through evolution?)

    Also note that, in public, most ID'ers won't mention God, although God is directly implied in that the only alternative suggested is "alien scientists or whatever".

    Show me the numbers (they won't).
    There are two main problems with the probability argument.
    (1) There is no well-supported scientific theory (model) on how life came from non-life (abiogenesis). So, what the heck are they calculating?!? A mathematical model is limited by the assumptions used
    (2) It seems that their probability calculation assumes a specific, DIRECTED, evolution (i.e., an evolution with a goal of producing humans or whatever). The theory of evolution does not specify a developmental end-goal. Roll a die. What are the odds of getting a 6? (1 in 6) What are the odds of getting some number? (1 in 1) So what are the odds of exactly recreating the past evolutionary history to wind up exactly where we are now. Astronomical. What are the odds that some type of life form would evolve? Very good. (Mind you, this is post-abiogenesis. As I said, scientists don't know much about abiogenesis and therefore can't predict its frequency.)

    The thing is that it's not necessarily true. ID'ers try to provide examples of "irreduceable complexity", but evolutionary biologists can show either direct examples of how it can be reduced or can at least provide a workable explanation. ID'ers often cite a bacterial flagellum as irreduceably complex, yet there are examples of more complex and less complex flagalla. ID'ers often cite the eye, yet there are examples of simple eyes and the developmental stages to more complex eyes.

    ID'ers often miss the idea of exaptation, which is when an existing anatomical/biochemical feature that is used for one thing shifts in its use to becomes something else (and is modified/adapted along the way). For example, when animals made the transition from sea to land, they didn't sprout legs. Instead they scuttled along on land using reinforced fins, which were still fully capable of swimming in water.

    There's no solid research provided by ID'ers. Instead their typical strategy is to attack materialistic evolution in order to make the audience accept the supposed only alternative (ID).

    Evolution and N.S. can be proven. Adaptation and speciation has been directly observed. Most ID'ers (and many creationists) accept so-called "microevolution" (small-scale changes like different varieties of a species) but they reject so-called "macroevolution" (large scale changes like transitions from reptiles to mammals). Due to the time scales involved (thousands/millions of years), macroevolution can't be directly observed, but it is well evidenced by the fossil record and genetics.

    It's much better than young-earth creationism. ID better accepts the scientific evidences for the history of the universe & life, but they still don't do much in the way of actual scientific research.

    The main problem with ID is political...in that it is being pushed into public schools as a supposed alternative scientific explanation when it has actually not passed a scientific review and is often a Trojan Horse for religious views.
     
  9. Nov 23, 2004 #8

    Phobos

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Almost certainly, the first self-replicating molecules were much simpler than modern RNA/DNA. It would probably be tough to classify life vs. non-life in this early developmental stage.
     
  10. Nov 24, 2004 #9

    anti_crank

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    While it is possible that such a claim be true, I do believe that you'd know better than to create the universe as-is. Or at least I hope so.
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2004
  11. Nov 24, 2004 #10

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    Establish constraints based on the best known models for the origin of a material universe. After that, define a time line and sequence of events that leads to the current observed state of a universe, including at least one earth with life such as this one. Use a robust model that permits random errors yet still yields an acceptable probability of the same outcome.
     
  12. Nov 24, 2004 #11
    Um... I'm not denying that RNA/DNA might have had simplier predicessors. I'm asking if they really created artifical RNA in the lab in conditions similar to primorial Earth or they simply made some type of replicating molecules.
     
  13. Nov 24, 2004 #12

    Phobos

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Oops! Sorry about that misread.

    I thought those kinds of experiments produced amino acids, not replicators. Anyone got a cite?
     
  14. Nov 24, 2004 #13

    Bystander

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    "Origin of earth theory: In a now-famous 1953 experiment at the University of Chicago, UCSD chemist Stanley Miller and the late Harold Urey showed that life on Earth could have been formed by lightning bolts catalyzing the synthesis of chemicals in the ancient atmosphere" --- from http://www-er.ucsd.edu/ucsdreferenceshelf/trivia.htm --- this is googling "seuss-urey" rather than miller-urey. The only thing they boiled up was a few amino acids --- not quite to the rna/dna level of things.
     
  15. Nov 24, 2004 #14

    honestrosewater

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Really? What reason do they give for accepting one yet denying the other?
     
  16. Nov 24, 2004 #15

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

  17. Nov 26, 2004 #16
    The reason that there is no evidence to support ID is because it is not science. ID has nothing to do with science at all. ID is a religiously-motivated political movement to bring creationism back into the secular public school system. That's all it ever has been; that's all it ever will be.

    Evolution, on the other hand, is based entirely on evidence. Evolution theory is the inductive result of the analysis of thousands of scientific data bits ranging from biology, geology, anthropology, and paleontology. True, evolution theory has gaps here and there regarding specific mechanisms of evolution, but over time, the theory will become more and more complete, leaving ID'ers far behind, choking on the dust of scientific progress.

    Unfortunately for public science education, given the extensive religiosity of America, ID'ers have successfully sold their snake oil to several school districts, one of the most recent ones in Dover, PA:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6470259/

    It is easy to sell ID snake oil, since it appeals nicely to religiosity and there is no tort law involved in swaying public school boards. Most people do not realize that ID has absolutely nothing to do with science and thus fall prey to "creationism in a cheap tuxedo."
     
  18. Nov 29, 2004 #17
    I have no informations abuot ID movemant/organization whatever you called it, still i guess every one here is smart enough that he realised already that if ID are wrong in thier arguments/presentations, does not by anyway means the non-existance of a designer. [i respect that being so much, and in my frame of viewing Him, i cat descirbe Him with the word Intelligence, for some reasons which is not our topic here]

    Well, even the universe design itself [logically impossible] or design by nothing [even worse result] or deisgn by another being [Universe, or God] by the laws of mathematics we can figure out that the Chain HAS to end up by what we call it God. [With the deep respect to that being whenever i mentionied him, if he is watching us now, and He is]

    I am not a Christian nor a Jew, and still it is not our topic here i guess to discuess the "How" if that bieng, since we know a little bit about that but enough to know what we need to know about him. I personally find discussing the How of that being pointless in a way, due to lack of information to make a firm ground to start discuess [i.e How nothing created Him]
     
  19. Nov 29, 2004 #18

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Nucleotides built from ribose have been produced, but I don't think they've ever formed into coding strands.
     
  20. Nov 30, 2004 #19

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Didn't they produce strands of poly UUU by automatic generation from ribose in a solution of U molecules. And weren't they able to show that it did generate protein? I thought this was a famous old experiment.
     
  21. Dec 1, 2004 #20
    Wow what minds roam here.
    I dont understand many of the words being used here but ill give it a shot.

    Hmm intelligent design...

    Well first off i think this will be what i believe cus i know i wont be able to elaborate much on my claims so ill just do my best.

    Well, first off matter is mostly space and made of enegy as well as everything in the universe. If you take all the matter in the universe and take the space out of it you can fit it all on the head of a pin.
    Dont know if our current scientists know this already or if its just a theory.

    Now, where there is matter there is evidence of thought since all matter comes from thought.
    If matter is a result or effect of thought and thought is intelligence then who or what thought of it?
    This you might tell me thats it is just a theory or what i believe. I dunno what you will say.

    Now for the elements.
    When you walk around anywhere (lets say outside on a sunny day) and feel you are just there in that spot then of course you exist there.
    Would you realize that or accept that you really extend farther then you can concive?
    What i mean is just look around and see your whole body.
    That sun up there that nurtures you isnt a part of you although you are always connected to it?
    Sun being one of many elements presently making who you are now.
    Why would the air you breathe in a room be a part of you and the rest of it outside isnt?
    Follow so far?

    All of this isnt a great design by intelligence?

    Let me end it with this and ask:
    How can a design or anything exist without intelligence in some form?
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Intelligent Design!
  1. Intelligent Design (Replies: 1)

  2. Intelligent Design (Replies: 1)

  3. Intelligent Design v.2 (Replies: 22)

Loading...