Rejecting Intelligent Design: A High Schooler's Arguments

[lucifer]

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 doesn't make sense at all and i think there's a lot of faults with the whole concept:

a) ID doesn't explain how the universe was created cos it doesn't 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 existence 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 existence of "god" could explain the existence 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 doesn't even have any kind of evidence supporting it so saying that it's true isn't exactly science. i know you can't prove that evolution and natural selection work but there's 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.

 

[chroot]

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

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

- Warren

 

[quantumdude]

He knows that. He's debunking ID.

 

[anti_crank]

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.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

I like Last Thursdayism - I can, with veracity roughly equal to creationism or ID, claim that I created the universe last thursday!

 

[Entropy]

ID doesn't explain how the universe was created cos it doesn't explain the origin of "god".

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 beginning 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.

ID supporters say that the odds of DNA forming by chance are extremely low and the existence 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.

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

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

I don't think people consider it a science. This is more in the realm of philosophy or metaphysics.

 

[Phobos]

a) ID doesn't explain how the universe was created cos it doesn't 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".

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".

b) ID supporters say that the odds of DNA forming by chance are extremely low and the existence 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.

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.)

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 existence of "god" could explain the existence 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.

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.

d) lastly ID doesn't even have any kind of evidence supporting it so saying that it's true isn't exactly science.

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).

i know you can't prove that evolution and natural selection work but there's a totally overwhelming amount of evidence supporting them.

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.

those are my thoughts. agree or disagree? basically am i missing something anywhere cos i think intelligent design is pure unadultrated BS.

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.

 

[Phobos]

RNA? I thought they just made replicating molecules?

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.

 

[anti_crank]

I like Last Thursdayism - I can, with veracity roughly equal to creationism or ID, claim that I created the universe last thursday!

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.

 

[Chronos]

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.

 

[Entropy]

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.

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.

 

[Phobos]

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.

Oops! Sorry about that misread.

I thought those kinds of experiments produced amino acids, not replicators. Anyone got a cite?

 

[Bystander]

"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.

 

[honestrosewater]

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.

Really? What reason do they give for accepting one yet denying the other?

 

[Chronos]

Progress has been made since 1953 when Miller and Urey demonstrated amino acids could be formed naturally. Self replicating molecules are on the table now.
http://www.astrobio.net/news/article195.html

 

[Artorius]

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

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."

 

[Moses]

I have no informations abuot ID movemant/organization whatever you called it, still i guess every one here is smart enough that he realized already that if ID are wrong in their 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]

 

[loseyourname]

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.

Nucleotides built from ribose have been produced, but I don't think they've ever formed into coding strands.

 

[selfAdjoint]

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.

 

[Illicious]

Wow what minds roam here.
I don't 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 won't be able to elaborate much on my claims so ill just do my best.

Well, first off matter is mostly space and made of energy 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 that's it is just a theory or what i believe. I don't know 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 isn't 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 isn't 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?

 

[Phobos]

Really? What reason do they give for accepting one yet denying the other?

First off, some forms of "microevolution" can be directly observed whereas "macroevolution" is a deduction from various lines of evidence (a matter of logic & reasoning...which is always open to argument...rather than first-hand observation).

From the ID perspective (e.g., as outlined by the “father of the ID movement”: Phillip Johnson), microevolution merely produces variations of an existing kind (some undefined biological classification) and not whole new kinds of creatures. I.E., nothing really new is being added, it’s just a shift within a species’ existing genetic capacity.

An ID’er will argue that just because a small change can occur, that is no reason to believe that the process can keep going to produce large-scale changes. They may argue that there is a physical limitation (genetic or God-given) to how much change a species can endure and still be viable.

They will point out that the fossil record shows “stasis” (species remain largely unchanged during their timespan with then sudden appearances of new fossil species) rather than continual gradual modification of species throughout their history.

They will argue that an example of a transitional feature (anatomical, etc.) in the fossil record (indicating that a change from A to B is possible) is not proof of actual ancestry between A and B.

And so on.

There are, of course, scientific rebuttles to these claims.

 

[Phobos]

How can a design or anything exist without intelligence in some form?

This is the watchmaker argument…a design requires a designer. The question remains as to whether the universe was actually “designed” or simply “happened”. The rest of your post suggests that you find the incredible complexity of the universe to be evidence of design. The question there is whether the complexity is actually too great to simply have happened without help or if it just seems so complex because we still have a lot to learn about natural processes. Some ID’ers (e.g., William A. Dembski) are trying to quantify the complexity, but are not making headway in the scientific community.

 

[Phobos]

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]

You seem to be talking about pantheism/deism. In general, ID’ers do not discuss who/what did the Design…or even how it was done. Rather, they tend to focus on arguing that the universe IS designed and then allow their audience to draw their own conclusions about the Designer. As mentioned earlier, part of the reason for this is because ID’ers want their ideas presented in public schools (which specifically disallow religious teaching).

 

[selfAdjoint]

I have come to the conclusion that ID is a creationist strategy to drive the discussion to a technical level that will not be understood by the typical school board, but will sound very very scientific. In other word it's just a kind of spiel. The careful stance of not seeming specifically Christian in publis, theough the ID'ers have clandestine links to Christian groups (as documented on the blog The Panda's Thumb) is part and parcel of this.

 

[Phobos]

I recently found this sister-site to Talk.Origins which focuses on the ID movement.
http://www.talkdesign.org/

I have come to the conclusion that ID is a creationist strategy to drive the discussion to a technical level that will not be understood by the typical school board, but will sound very very scientific.

Whether the strategy is honest or scheming, I agree that the ID debates are generally over the layperson's (and school boards') head. YEC arguments can often be refuted with a 5-minute explanation, but ID arguments require a deeper understanding of biology & the scientific method.

If anything, their scheme is to inject their scientific sounding arguments into public school science classes without first going through the scientific method of peer review and acceptance (something the theory of evolution did go through).

 

[Moses]

You seem to be talking about pantheism/deism. In general, ID’ers do not discuss who/what did the Design…or even how it was done. Rather, they tend to focus on arguing that the universe IS designed and then allow their audience to draw their own conclusions about the Designer. As mentioned earlier, part of the reason for this is because ID’ers want their ideas presented in public schools (which specifically disallow religious teaching).

Phobos, i can understand why you said that about me, since you don't me about my personal beleif. Well, I am neither both, even my thoughts might intersect with many staff in these two "schools ot thought". I do have a religion [ BTW: I am not a christian or a jew] and i do not like to have blind faith in God, since it is a great sin in my religion. Thus why i have to use Logic to prove God, adn then accept what He has reveald to us.

This comment may be a little bit out of the main track of this thread, but i feld saying this for clarifying some issues.

 

[Artorius]

Here's a good article about the ID movement:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/evolution.html?pg=1&topic=evolution&topic_set=

In a democracy, every idea gets heard. But in science, not all theories are equal. Those that survive decades - centuries - of scientific scrutiny end up in classrooms, and those that don't are discarded. The intelligent design movement is using scientific rhetoric to bypass scientific scrutiny. And when science education is decided by charm and stage presence, the Discovery Institute wins.

 

[loseyourname]

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.

That may be the case, but I don't believe coding strands have ever been produced from inorganic molecules (along with methane, I suppose, which is considered organic). It's odd that that would be the case, though. If one could produce nucleotides from inorganic ingredients, and another could produce coding strands from nucleotides, it seems a third should be able to produce coding strands from inorganic molecules. It's probably just circumstance that it's never happened.

 

[jackle]

I don't think everyone who entertains the possibility of ID is on a crusade against evolution. I do however, think it requires a kind of faith to believe in it.