Non Religious position supporting ID
This is my first post here. I've looked around and a lot of intelligent people here. So I thought this would be a great place to banter some ideas back and forth. I tried having this debate with a group of friends, but they all ran away and I want to present something that I believe is a different take on the concept of ID. So bring your big guns out. Basically, I don't want any religion involved, only science, logic and reason. I know you're chucklin' as you read this, but I'm sincere. I think I can demonstrate why it requires more faith in "magic" to believe in what I'll call "pure" evolution than ID. To be clear I don't dispute most parts of evolution. Please read the essay, and I'd apprecitate your thoughts. Hopefully it will format ok. And let me know where you think I'm wrong.
Here it is.
To try and be fair, I looked at the issue from four sides.
1. What Evolutionists say about their theories?
2. What Evolutionists say about Intelligent Design theory?
3. What Intelligent Design says about its theories?
4. What Intelligent Design says about the Theory of Evolution?
After going through these different aspects and working through much research. I have come to the conclusions listed below. Before going into those, I’d like to clarify on some important concepts.
Evolution theorizes that everything in the universe, planets, stars, and all forms of life came about by random events over billions of years without any intelligent cause.
It is critical to learn to distinguish between two very different types of sciences.
Operational Science can be defined as any science that sets out to describe how something works. It uses the traditional tools of observation and experimentation. Examples of this sort of science would include physics and chemistry.
Historical Science can be defined as any science that attempts to piece together past events in order to explain those events. Examples of Historical Sciences would include Archaeology and Police Forensics.
All theories about the formation and creation of the universe, the world, life, and man fall into the category of historical science. The events of the past are all events which are not observable.
A key difference between these two types of science is that theories in operational sciences can usually be thoroughly tested in order to prove whether or not the theory is true. In contrast, in historical science, theories generally cannot be tested and always have some level of assumptions and doubts.
I would like to distinguish the difference between a theory and a law in science
Scientific law - A natural phenomenon that has been proven to occur invariably whenever certain conditions are met.
Scientific theory - An explanation of why and how a specific natural phenomenon occurs.
Even though there is some debate on these words and their meanings. It is important to understand that laws are rarely challenged in science, especially established laws. Many theories are widely accepted. Most of the theories of evolution are accepted. However, some of its larger assumptions it are frequently debated.
Science, by its own admission doesn’t allow for supernatural explanations. It starts with the premise that, if it is to be explained scientifically, it must also be explained naturally. Simply put,..Because intelligent design is outside of science, it gets dismissed by science. So where do you go if all the evidence, logic, and reason demonstrate intelligent design?
The Theory of Evolution has stood the test of time because science presumes a natural cause and the only thing that could shoot it down is a better theory of how it was caused naturally. Since the theory is basically true on most of its levels, it has remained unchallenged.
HERE’S THE RUNDOWN IN 6 SIMPLE STEPS
1. Something happened some billions years ago with no particular cause and resulted in the universe and all its physical laws.
Most scientists agree that the universe is fine tuned and perfect for life. Currently, there are many evolutionary scientists that believe there must be many parallel universes and ours is only perfect by random selection. It starts getting difficult here.
2. The earth formed in the exact location from the sun and the moon and with the exact tilt of its axis necessary to allow life.
If any of these things were even slightly different. Life would not exist. No one argues this.
3. In the very beginning of the earth, life suddenly emerged from the soup. The earths oldest rocks contained fully formed cells.
SCIENTIFIC RULE BREAK. Life can not come from non-life. (The magic of evolution really kicks in here!) This breaks fundamental laws of science. Even though we have all of the ingredients, lots of intelligence and lots of technology. Nobody, no person, no one has ever duplicated, created or observed the phenomenon of creating life. Imagine if we were even able to create life in the laboratory. First off. Would it even survive on its own or would it have to be taken care of? Of course it would die. Just how and why did the first single cell organism(s) survive? How and why would the(y) reproduce without DNA? Remember evolution requires that life comes from chaos. How come is it that if you leave a human baby or babies alone in nature, it/they would die. Humans should be more advanced and adept at survival, wouldn’t you agree?
4. The earliest forms of life detected are extremely complex. The cell and DNA are more complex than any computer man has made.
No scientist can explain how these things originated fully formed.
1) Without DNA there is no self replication
2) Without self replication there is no natural selection
3) So one can't use natural selection to explain the origin of DNA without assuming the existence of the very thing (DNA) we are trying to explain
Without the information in DNA to turn amino acids into proteins in the proper manner, provide assembly instructions, and build micro-machines for the cell, we wouldn't have self replication.
The information came first. The real question is where did the information come from for the first DNA, or what is the origin of the information found in DNA?
In short - DNA had to precede self replication which had to precede even the possibility of natural selection, i.e. evolution.
What is the probability that DNA assembled by chance in the first cell? It is postulated that the first cell would need at least three hundred genes to become a functioning organism capable of replication the statistical probability of assembling a single gene190 So the answer is No! The likelihood that a functional DNA chain appeared by chance is essentially zero. The probabilistic resources to generate the information content in DNA for the first self replicating cell "by chance" do not exist. coding for one hundred amino acids by chance alone has been calculated to be something in the order of 1x10-
SETI has spent a lot of time and money searching for signs of intelligence in the universe. What it will accept as proof of intelligence is far less complex than
what evolutionary scientists will accept as proof of intelligence?
5. Then the cell with no directions or guidance preceded to, with random mutation and millions of years, develop multitudes of miraculous things such as eyes to see, ears to
hear, wings to fly, teeth to chew, and brains to run it all.
Without instruction or guidance, how would it know what sight, hearing and flight are? It would need a slow steady set of mutations gradually building these complex parts. How did it know what it is making? Remember this is supposedly all done by random chance. But obviously it was written in its existing DNA code. Current observations of evolution, which no one here argues exist, only express what is already present in the DNA of its subject. Mutations are programmed.
6. Finally out of the billions of species that have lived on this planet coupled with man’s almost identical DNA with chimps as our common ancestor. What happened to we humans that made us so vastly more intelligent than the other chimps.
The assumptions mentioned above are in conflict with the laws of statistical probabilities. The large number of consecutive impossibilities that would be needed would be like four people drawing a perfect poker hand one hundred times in a row. After the second time you would be trying to figure out how they did it. By the third time, you’d realize something was behind it.
It is logical to confer that this universe has a design, pure and simple. Think about this. It is impossible for a creation to understand its creator. It follows that, In order to create something the creator(s) must operate on higher laws and be vastly superior.
Man has looked for the meaning of life since the beginning of our existence. Man has even invented religion to help explain the unexplainable. Everything from God to Allah, from Zeus to the flying spaghetti monster, everyone’s got their story. The only thing we can conclude is that it has been designed. As far as whom or what designed it is left to the imagination.
Pure evolution is a belief in magic. Intelligent design follows the laws of science, logic and reason. Just because science has no system for classifying intelligent design, does not take away the ultimate truth of it.
I realize that this is an extremely simplified explanation of the rationale behind intelligent design. I am very familiar with all of the evidence and mechanics of the theory of evolution and am happy to discuss them. But there is no need to get to the little details unless you get can past the big details.
Thanks for your time