Intelligent design as a logical argument essentially states that was the universe was created by god and this can be known because of the complexity of the universe. Let’s look at how the logical argument would go in the form of a debate:
- The universe is complex or designed, it therefore requires a creator or designer
- Wouldn’t a creator of a complex universe be even more complex and therefore even more in need of a creator?
- No, god is less complex
- Then in that case, the universe can arise from a natural system without the need for the problem of complexity. Any complex god would then require a less complex god or naturally arising system to come into existence but such a system could then create the universe as well without the need for a god.
- Yes, god is more complex but he has always existed or time doesn’t apply to him.
- This is what scientists say about the universe . It’s called space time.
Hopefully I managed to get all the main points in there but I would be welcome to additions.
Intelligent design is often seen by theists as a scientific approach to theology but it relies on various unverifiable assertions thus meaning that it is not science.
For example, the argument commonly goes that the universe appears designed or is so complex that it therefore requires a designer. An argument against this position is the frame of reference used to define design. To claim that the universe is designed one would have to know what a universe that is not designed would look like to compare it to. Of course, anyone can make up their own vision of a universe lacking design which is I why I don’t favor this argument.
Also, intelligent design is not science because science must be testable and verifiable. Of course, it is refuted via a simple logical sanity check and has no need to progress to the level of scientific scrutiny, but intelligent design is not testable either and therefore not science.
If you look at how testable intelligent design is you see as set of assertions which are added upon to create a system which “proves” god. However, with no evidence shown, these assertions are unfounded and act as mere premises rather than verifiable fact. Creation scientists do a better job and creating a goal to twist evidence towards than they do for supplying evidence.
Intelligent design does not meet the scientific burden of proof or even present a valid scientific hypothesis (and that’s not even considering that many theists claim that their god is un-testable which makes intelligent design meaningless even as a scientific theory).
As you can see, intelligent design is not science in any way. Not only that but it has even failed logically. It is clear that it should not be taught in science classes as it is clearly not science. Don’t children deserve better than unfounded claims used to advance a religious agenda?
Atheist Thought 
I was an atheist some time back and i think I understand the question. Let me try to answer.
I became a theist after I observed too many disconnects in the universe (between how it should be and how it is). The first disconnect that I found was in the theory of evolution. After trying to fit today’s scientific knowledge into the theory of evolution I came to the conclusion that there can never be some thing like evolution.
The major defect with the Theory of evolution is that it talks only about very outward superficial factors of animals (like limbs for animals, fins for fish, tail for some other animals, shape of skull, capacity of brains etc). But what I’m interested is in knowing is about how internal organs evolved if it really evolved and how it reproduced.
Lack of development path:-
Lets take the structure of eye (human or animal). How did it evolve? Can it really evolve.
There is a multi-megapixel photographic plate and a convex lens placed at the distance = to the focal length of object viewed. Muscles holding the lens contract/expand the lens so that the focal length will remain the same. Uses law of refraction of light and may more of physics. Brain controls the muscles to adjust the focal length. The entire unit works as a feedback control system. The retina has millions of light receptors with color and/or no color capability. Between the retina and the brain there are millions of parallel cables or nerves that take this info and recreates the image in the brain. If it were serial communication it would have been simple. Now because its parallel, even a single bit corruption will destroy the image. How did this evolve. Evolution should be able to show eyes at various stages of evolution in various animals with least complex/trivial eye for the oldest animal (crocodile eye) to the most complex eye in the most recent animal (like man). – But the fact is that crocodile’s eyes are more complex and capable than human eye with color vision, night vision, dual eye lids etc. According to survival of fittest if a mutation results in an inferior creature it should get extinct.
Again, try to find different stages of development of the organ ‘eye’, unfortunately there are no different stages. Evolutionist say, from the photoreceptor stage to a normal eye the evolution might have taken place so quickly that you dont have any creature with the eye in a development stage. So stupid an explanation – such a complex organ developed in too short a time that there are no intermediate animals!. Again they say that the first animal with a developed eye would be a predator and might have eaten all animals with eyes in the intermediate stages. According to this explanation, we should not be able to find any animal with out proper eye sight. Where as there are so many animals with either no eyes or with very mild vision. Or may be they mean the first animal with developed eye killed all the animals with development stage eye in a search and kill fashion so that the poor evolutionist will get no specimen to prove their lousy theory.
Probability theory:
According to evolution, a change of species is initiated during reproduction (when fertilization takes place) and is caused by some unknown reason (there are many probable causes). Any incomplete mutation will result in an incapable animal that cannot survive. This kind of mutation that result in a good mutation will happen, once in thousands of years.
Let me agree for the sake of argument. – For example a female elephant mates with a male elephant and due to mutation, once in a thousand years it gave birth to a cow. Now the cow needs a bull to reproduce and sustain the species. It cannot mate with male elephant coz its a different species, and the egg will not fertilize. And unless the cow mates with the same species, it will get extinct. So we should have another elephant giving birth to a bull in the same time period in the same location (an elephant in asia gave birth to cow and another in africa to a bull will not work out). The added probability is 1000 x 1000 x 1000 x 1000 years? or more?? 10 to the power of 12 years for such a probability? check the number of years it has taken for the development if most species (a few hundred thousand years). does it add up? NO.
There are countless disconnects and its difficult to explain every thing here.
Finally, can evolution happen?? yeah if you’re really sick!
That’s why i ditched evolution. If there is no evolution then there has to be a creator.
Great! I am glad you are responding to my blog post and I look forward to discussing this with you.
I started as a theist and I found many disconnects between religion and science. In fact, religion has failed to explain how a god fits into observable, scientific phenomena. However, I assume you will continue to elaborate on this point so I will attempt to address the disconnects which you perceive the best I can. However, I am not a scientist; I merely have a love for science and frequently read science articles. I can safely say that I have a decent understanding of many scientific fields.
Actually, the scientific theory of evolution says a lot about how internal organs evolved and how traits are reproduced. This is not always something that is presented in high school textbooks. I will continue to assume that you will elaborate more on this later but know for the moment that external traits are normally presented because they are easy to grasp. It is easy to visualize what effect an elongated beak might have on a bird that would make it advantageous in the same way that it is easy to visualize how a dog with a missing leg would be disadvantaged. There is ample amounts of information on how more intricate structures evolved.
You seem to be taking a similar approach to that of David Berlinski – a person who supported the hypothesis that the universe has been created. David Berlinski’s criticism was later refuted. You can read more about that here: http://www.talkreason.org/articles/blurred.cfm#lund
I think you are overestimating what is needed to create a simple structure that would resemble and function as an eye. Please watch this video:
The eye has evolved independently many times, primarily during what is known as the Cambrian Explosion. Andrew Parker explains how the eye evolved so quickly in his 2003 book In the Blink of an Eye.
First off, I would like to clarify something. Many reasons for mutations to occur are known but it is not possible to identify the exact reason for historical mutations. And now I would like to request clarification from you. What is an incomplete mutation? You seemed to have expressed proper knowledge in the definition of mutation as used in evolutionary biology but now you seem to imply that mutations are always at the macroscopic level (i.e. a single mutation is a big change which can be half done).
You seem to have another major misconception about evolution. In fact, there is nothing to suggest that an elephant would give birth to a cow. Instead, an elephant could give birth to a slightly different elephant – one with a small mutation. For example, the eye cavity could be slightly larger. This might lead to better, worse, or the same quality of eyesight (keeping with the evolution of the eye). Now if this elephant was able to spot dangers that are farther in the distance, it is more likely to survive and therefore the elephant would likly live on to reproduce and pass the enhanced eye to its children. If its vision is worse, it is more likely to die.
I look forward to hearing more about these disconnects and discussing them with you.
I do not see how evolution can only happen if I am ill. I feel as if this might have been a personal attack but I will assume that it was not.
Also, you seem to present a false dichotmy because you ignore other posibilities. It is similarly invalid to saying “if I didn’t pour water into this glass, then a god must have done it.” However, there is the possibility that someone else may have poured water in, for example.
I hope you have gained a better understanding of evolution and I hope we can continue to discuss this. I will post some more information later if I have the time. I would also like to point you towards some additional information on how the eye evolved:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html
Thanks for your comment,
Aj
Thanks for the reply. Let me clarify a few points first. I’m not a biologist, I’m an engineer, with primary interest in Mathematics, Physics and Computer science.
Evolutionary biology is still in infancy so I guess we can discuss this with our limited knowledge. Secondly im not here to discuss religion, but if you want may be we can discuss that in a different thread (I admit that I’m not very good in religious books, nor mythology)? A discussion about scientifically proving the existence of god is in fact a good topic but I guess that again should be a different thread. Thirdly I never intended to make a personal attack nor will I, if I upset you through any of my comments, I regret that (let me try to concentrate my post only on science).
When you said you were a theist before, and became an atheist later, I remember one thing, I was a theist during my early childhood but turned an atheist as I grew bigger and then took a swing back to Theism when I found the foundation of my atheism shaken by many scientific facts. Lets get back to the discussion:
I know this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEKyqIJkuDQ and this https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye. But the explanation seems to be too unrealistic. I know that there are animals with photo receptive cells, heat receptive cells and vibration receptive cells in depression form or plain skin form, but that doesn’t explain the evolution of an eye and how to reach there (that’s why i talked about the intricacies of a proper eye). The so called mucus formation and that becoming a lens are more like assumptions than a scientific theory. Again I want to point out that in no animal the sense organs (photo, heat or vibration) are half developed, but rather form a useful organ in their habitat. If that wasn’t the case we would have found many meaningless organs in our body that are in different stages of development and many of them completely useless. Natural selection or survival of the fittest will have no effect on harmless organs that will not make the organism weaker than its ancestors. For example a small lump of flesh with a different kind of tissue (like a heat receptor, with no connection with the brain, hence absolutely useless!) will not make an animal less/more effective as a predator nor will it make it more/less agile to be a successful prey. As a matter of fact, chances of an organ evolving in to a fully functional organ is multiple times lower than that remaining undeveloped. In that case we fill find more undeveloped organs in our body than developed ones. How many such organs do you find in a human body?? (Im talking – harmless, yet completely useless). If we propose evolution of eye really happened, we should be able to find a clear evolution path rather than different completed versions of eyes like photo receptors or pin hole eyes (using refraction). Why are there always nerves connecting photo-cells to brain? Why dont we have photo sensitive cells in our hands or legs, that are useless and harmless as well?
“In fact, there is nothing to suggest that an elephant would give birth to a cow. Instead, an elephant could give birth to a slightly different elephant – one with a small mutation.” –
This was just an example: As you said mutation results in slightly different animal. If such an animal remains the same species (with minor genetic variation), then according to studies, the change will die out as the animal reproduces( eg: traits like dwarf, deformations in limbs etc die out when they reproduce with normal counterparts). If the rate of mutation is so gradual, why don’t we see animals at all stages of development. Eg. an elephant with short trunk, one with short trunk and legs and so on.. you can assume any form in between (that is not incapable of living). But we dont have proof for that. If you say its because of natural selection, do you think the evolution path will get completely wiped out with out trace? Does it mean all animals in the path between elephant and the nearest evolved creature are now extinct with out trace?
Back to elephant and cow story: at some point between elephant and the nearest different species, there will be a mutation that will cause change of species, resulting in a reproductively incompatible creature and thats what I refer by the elephant and cow story.
If animals continuously evolve to the better then why one of the oldest creature – crocodile is still the same after millions of years and their eyes though old are still much better than many of the creatures that are thought to have evolved much later?
Second part of inconsistencies : If evolution happened gradually then how did the concept of reproduction evolve from splitting of cells/regeneration to sexual reproduction in mammals and egg laying creatures? Did reproduction and the in-born urge to mate start at the same time (we should understand that the ability of sexual reproduction is useless with out the urge to mate)? see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction is there any clear explanation?
When you compare what logically would happen and what actually happened there is day and night difference. That’s what I call inconsistency.
There are more, lets bin list them for later discussion.
I hope you don’t mind but I am going to respond to segments of your comment as I get time. Today is a busy day so I don’t have time to respond to your entire article all at once.
Actually, I’d say that many of these states do exist, especially for polygenic traits. Every organism exhibits some form of genetic variation in its population (with extremely rare exceptions). These organisms are able to breed and create viable offspring therefore speciation has not happened yet. So, we are seeing organisms at multiple stages of development but this development doesn’t take a path unless a selecting agent is applied. So, we do see elephants with short trunks and short legs at the same time but if the legs and trunks are too short, natural selection will take place. It will take place early on making these variations uncommon within the gene pool at an early point which is why they are not seen with equal frequency at a later date.
There are a number of other factors but one other one I would like to mention is that a population will continue to evolve and diverge. Elephants branched off such a long time ago that you are not going to see a smooth trail all the way back. It should also be mentioned that evolution will occur faster under a strict selecting agent which would cause such a smooth transition to be wiped out. Therefore, under the conditions which evolution will occur faster, parts of the trail will be wiped out. However, I do not think it is necessary for a complete trail of living organisms to exist to prove that evolution is true (although some people may demand it). I think that the fossil record is more than enough but adding other evidence such as the genetic similarity, embryology, and other factors makes me 100% sure that evolution happens. But not only that, speciation and evolution can and has been observed in a laboratory setting (of course, not macroscopic evolution because that takes far too long to observe in a normal experiment and even if it did I don’t think it would convince many people).
So, to answer your question, there is a trace which is sometimes hard to follow, but more than enough of one to know that evolution has happened. The genetic variation already exists in a population so even with the rarity of mutations there are still other sources for the needed genetic variation.
Look at these creatures
1. http://www.pollsb.com/photos/o/105132-ldquo_dying_rdquo_leaf_mimic_katydid.jpg
2. http://www.pollsb.com/photos_handler/o/105138-dead_leaf_butterflies.jpg
3. http://www.pollsb.com/photos/o/105136-dead_leaf_insect.jpg
4. http://www.pollsb.com/photos/o/105140-decomposing_leaf_mimic.jpg
5. http://www.pollsb.com/photos/o/105134-south_american_amazon_leaf_fish.jpg
Inspect pictures 1,2,3,4,5 see the amount of camouflage these insect have. These are not just camouflage, but they are exact copies of most abundant objects in their surroundings. In 3 you can see the exact markings as that of a normal dry leaf. In 1 you can see the exact replica of a half dead leaf with some drying part and some green part and there’s also a fake hole in the leaf (as if it has been eaten up by a bug)! Isn’t that too much of a coincidence to evolve?
Coming to 5. the leaf fish of amazon, is a predator and as we know amazon river floods and covers the forest for a large part the year and the river bed is typically covered with leaves. And you have a fish that’s exactly like a decaying leaf. Such a thing should take a long time to evolve, but amazing fact about amazon river is that its only 11 million years old and has reached its present shape only 2.5million years back. Way too short a time for such a weird form to evolve.
If we talk about survival of the fittest, we have so many not camouflaged creatures both preys and predators that live in the same habitat, but dont seem to need any camouflage for survival. see this http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/bugs/ladybug/
If there is such a strong need of camouflage to survive that a form that resembles the surroundings only will survive then only creatures with heavy camouflage should have survived – which is not the case.
There are more inconsistencies.
What you describe is not inconsistent.
You say that the Amazon Leaf Fish (Monocirrhus polyacanthus) could not have evolved because the amazon river is only 11 million years old. But I would like to point out that this is not what would have allowed for the appearance you described to have evolved. What is relevant to the evolution of this trait is presence of leaves in that area. I don’t think you will dispute that leaves were definitely in South America long before the Amazon River formed 11 million years back. It should also be noted that due to the massive size of the Amazon, the formation of any single portion of it is irrelevant in this context.
To answer your question about ladybugs:
— From Wikipedia
I think I have now responded to the points you made in this comment.
“What is relevant to the evolution of this trait is presence of leaves in that area. I don’t think you will dispute that leaves were definitely in South America long before the Amazon River formed 11 million years back.”
I dont understand this. How is presence of leaves in that area related to evolution of fish resembling that shape and texture? Unless fish can control its own evolution and shape itself similar to dead leaf. If you argue that it evolved due to survival of the fittest, how many million shapes, colors and textures will the ancestor of that fish go through before taking this shape = how many million years of evolution?
Now I want to point out to one of my favorite ones – evolution of brain – some thing that evolutionists say is explained beyond doubt. Lets examine.
If there is some thing ‘man made’ thats closest to brain, its a microprocessor. We know exactly the logic behind a microprocessor, but we dont know the exact logic that brain uses. In any case both are similar; a brain is a collection of logic cells (similar to logic gates in a microprocessor) that are interconnected to form a capability and a microprocessor is a collection of logic gates that are connected together to form a processing unit. Human brain typically contains 11 billion neural cells. A typical Core 2 duo processor contains around 400 million transistors. In my experience I have never seen a bug in the RTL logic causing an improvement in either performance or functionality of a microprocessor. Actually it always causes failure of the chip; it may be an immediate failure or a corner case. In any case it results in nothing but failure.
Lets assume that there is a sane condition in the logic in which a 400 million transistor chip gets a slight enhancement in performance or functionality. For this condition to happen the chip has to go through “factorial 400 million” mutations, in which each mutation will cause the inter-connectivity of cells to change causing a change in logic.
Im not capable of calculating the value of “factorial 400 million”. I dont think any one can do that either. Assume there were only 100 cells; it would take factorial 100, approximately = 10 to the power of 157 mutations. Lets check this:
Age of universe in seconds is 433.6 x 10 to the power of 15 seconds. So if one mutation happens per second to the brain of a minute creature that has a 100 cell brain, it would take mutations equal to 10 to the power of 142 times the age of universe in seconds. If that is the case, imagine the time it would take for the development of a complex brain like that of a monkey or even a rat through mutation.
I don’t understand how people can imagine this kind of an evolution really happened??!! Isn’t it more logical to believe that all this is created instead?
You are arguing from a bad analogy here. I would agree that microprocessors are the closest thing to a brain but there are a few key elements which cause them not to evolve.
1) Microprocessors do not reproduce. They are produced but one microprocessor doesn’t give birth to others
2) Microprocessors don’t rely on regular blueprint copies the way DNA does and even if it did I would suggest that the copies made by the computer are much more stable than those done within a cell.
3) Microprocessors do not build connections, they are static logic gates. The brain is capable of self-adapting therefore allowing a greater margin of error.
4) You have defined the “evolutionary goal” of the microprocessor. Could a microprocessor with an error be useful in other situations? Probably not, but a brain that works differently can be very useful.
Going back to the leaf argument: It is simply that the evolution of a fish that is shaped like a leaf is not dependent on a specific river (as you suggest) but rather on the dependence of leaves.
I never compared the capabilities of brain like reproduction, DNA blueprint or healing capabilities of brain cells. All I’m saying is both brain and microprocessor consists of “interconnected basic units” magically forming a functional unit.
For example if I take arithmetic unit of a microprocessor, it consists of thousands of basic units (transistors) which when interconnected in a particular fashion magically carries out arithmetic operations. Depending on the type of processor the logic will be completely different (8 bit, 16 bit, 32 bit etc). The structure of brain is also similar in the sense that it consists of thousands of basic units neurons which when interconnected in a particular fashion forms a capability like for example – interpreting vision (logic of this unit will be completely different in different animals)
To make it clearer – a transistor has 3 leads (base, collector and emitter) where as a neurons have many more leads. When thousands of transistors are connected together, only one interconnection logic will result in an arithmetic unit. Similarly when thousands of neurons are connected together, only one interconnection logic will form a unit that interprets vision.
When you compare the number of iterations it would take for such an interconnection logic to develop through mutation you can see it will take much more than the age of this universe. I have explained the whole thing in my previous post please read it. I’m sure that you did not read my argument completely but responded after reading the first few lines. Please read through the complete thing and reply.
Hey AJ,
How are you buddy?
Regards!
Actually, isn’t it forensic science. It’s like a crime scene. You look at all the evidence and make the best assertion of what happened during that crime. You obviously cannot test the actual crime itself, it is not testable or really verifiable. I take the approach our law system does and look for “beyond a reasonable doubt” stance. I think intelligent design fits the bill more than atheism. Lets face it…..we’re all agnostic and put our faith into the explanation that is most reasonable based on the evidence. An athiest doesn’t KNOW there isn’t a God any more than a theist KNOWS there is
one. I used to be an atheist, but when I really looked at the evidence, I couldn’t believe I had been an atheist so long. I just kept saying that there didn’t NEED to be an intelligent designer for the universe to be. This was just believing the reasonable doubt more than the evidence.