• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Detecting Design in Biology Using the Scientific Method

watsup

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
47,360
Reaction score
26,051
Location
Springfield MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
“In the field of biology, here is how we can use the scientific method to detect design:
Observation: Intelligent agents solve complex problems by acting with an end goal in mind, producing high levels of CSI. As Stephen Meyer exp6lains, in our experience, systems with large amounts of specified complexity — such as codes and languages — invariably originate from an intelligent source. Likewise, in our experience, intelligence is the cause of irreducibly complex machines.
Hypothesis (Prediction): Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function — indicating high levels of CSI, including irreducible complexity.
Experiment: Experimental investigations of DNA indicate that it is full of a CSI-rich, language-based code. Cells use computer-like information processing systems to translate the genetic information in DNA into proteins. Biologists have performed mutational sensitivity tests on proteins and determined that their amino acid sequences are highly specified. The end-result of cellular information processing system are protein-based micromolecular machines. Genetic knockout experiments and other studies show that some molecular machines, like the bacterial flagellum, are irreducibly complex.
Conclusion: The high levels of CSI — including irreducible complexity — in biochemical systems are best explained by the action of an intelligent agent.
One can disagree with the conclusions of ID, but one cannot reasonably claim that it is an argument based upon religion, faith, or divine revelation. It is based upon science.
ID design has scientific merit because it is an empirically based argument that uses well-accepted methods of historical sciences in order to detect in nature the types of complexity that we understand, from present-day observations, are derived from intelligent causes. When we study nature through science, we find evidence of fine-tuning and planning — intelligent design — from the macroarchitecture of the entire universe to the tiniest submicroscopic biomolecular machines.”


 
Looks like the evolution deniers are correct and that ID meets the goals of real science.
 
Very well put.

Just because a particular scietific hypothesis can support a religious belief, that does not render it non science.
 
Very well put.

Just because a particular scietific hypothesis can support a religious belief, that does not render it non science.

Who exactly is this Intelligent Designer of which you all speak?
 
“In the field of biology, here is how we can use the scientific method to detect design:
Observation: Intelligent agents solve complex problems by acting with an end goal in mind, producing high levels of CSI. As Stephen Meyer exp6lains, in our experience, systems with large amounts of specified complexity — such as codes and languages — invariably originate from an intelligent source. Likewise, in our experience, intelligence is the cause of irreducibly complex machines.
Hypothesis (Prediction): Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function — indicating high levels of CSI, including irreducible complexity.
Experiment: Experimental investigations of DNA indicate that it is full of a CSI-rich, language-based code. Cells use computer-like information processing systems to translate the genetic information in DNA into proteins. Biologists have performed mutational sensitivity tests on proteins and determined that their amino acid sequences are highly specified. The end-result of cellular information processing system are protein-based micromolecular machines. Genetic knockout experiments and other studies show that some molecular machines, like the bacterial flagellum, are irreducibly complex.
Conclusion: The high levels of CSI — including irreducible complexity — in biochemical systems are best explained by the action of an intelligent agent.
One can disagree with the conclusions of ID, but one cannot reasonably claim that it is an argument based upon religion, faith, or divine revelation. It is based upon science.
ID design has scientific merit because it is an empirically based argument that uses well-accepted methods of historical sciences in order to detect in nature the types of complexity that we understand, from present-day observations, are derived from intelligent causes. When we study nature through science, we find evidence of fine-tuning and planning — intelligent design — from the macroarchitecture of the entire universe to the tiniest submicroscopic biomolecular machines.”


:ROFLMAO:Irreducible complexity is a joke that was shown to be in the very Kitsmiller v. Dover case at the supreme court creationists hoped would be their smoking gun.
 
“In the field of biology, here is how we can use the scientific method to detect design:
Observation: Intelligent agents solve complex problems by acting with an end goal in mind, producing high levels of CSI. As Stephen Meyer exp6lains, in our experience, systems with large amounts of specified complexity — such as codes and languages — invariably originate from an intelligent source. Likewise, in our experience, intelligence is the cause of irreducibly complex machines.
Hypothesis (Prediction): Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function — indicating high levels of CSI, including irreducible complexity.
Experiment: Experimental investigations of DNA indicate that it is full of a CSI-rich, language-based code. Cells use computer-like information processing systems to translate the genetic information in DNA into proteins. Biologists have performed mutational sensitivity tests on proteins and determined that their amino acid sequences are highly specified. The end-result of cellular information processing system are protein-based micromolecular machines. Genetic knockout experiments and other studies show that some molecular machines, like the bacterial flagellum, are irreducibly complex.
Conclusion: The high levels of CSI — including irreducible complexity — in biochemical systems are best explained by the action of an intelligent agent.
One can disagree with the conclusions of ID, but one cannot reasonably claim that it is an argument based upon religion, faith, or divine revelation. It is based upon science.
ID design has scientific merit because it is an empirically based argument that uses well-accepted methods of historical sciences in order to detect in nature the types of complexity that we understand, from present-day observations, are derived from intelligent causes. When we study nature through science, we find evidence of fine-tuning and planning — intelligent design — from the macroarchitecture of the entire universe to the tiniest submicroscopic biomolecular machines.”




Who designed the designer?
 
The Discovery Institute (DI) is a politically conservative[4][5][6] non-profit think tank based in Seattle, Washington, that advocates the pseudoscientific concept[7][8][9] of intelligent design (ID). It was founded in 1990 as a non-profit offshoot of the Hudson Institute. Its "Teach the Controversy" campaign aims to permit the teaching of anti-evolution, intelligent-design beliefs in United States public high school science courses in place of accepted scientific theories, positing that a scientific controversy exists over these subjects when in fact there is none.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16]

(Yawn)
 
Who exactly is this Intelligent Designer of which you all speak?
An entity that arose during the Big Bang would be my guess.

But one can recognize design without naming the designer.
 
An entity that arose during the Big Bang would be my guess.

But one can recognize design without naming the designer.

Could evolution be that "designer", in other words, a natural process instead of an actual sentient "intelligent" being "designer"?
 
Looks like the evolution deniers are correct and that ID meets the goals of real science.
You're not serious right? I kept reading and kept thinking..."crystals" and "crystalline structures".
 
Could evolution be that "designer", in other words, a natural process instead of an actual sentient "intelligent" being "designer"?
Does 'design' imply a specific result?
 
Ok. So how “intelligent” is it that almost every species that has ever existed on Earth is now extinct?
 
Could evolution be that "designer", in other words, a natural process instead of an actual sentient "intelligent" being "designer"?
Sure, it could be.

The current explanation for how that happened seems to pile one supposition on top of another to come up with an unlikely scenario, but it could be right.

It seems more like they ask themselves whether it is possible in any way to avoid an intelligent designer and Darwinism and neo-Darwinism is what they came up with.
 
Ok. So how “intelligent” is it that almost every species that has ever existed on Earth is now extinct?
Trial and error.

A very intelligent way to learn something.
 
An entity that arose during the Big Bang would be my guess.

But one can recognize design without naming the designer.
Could evolution be that "designer", in other words, a natural process instead of an actual sentient "intelligent" being "designer"?

Evolution does a good job of explaining the speciation and the arrangement of mechanical parts over the millennia.

Explaining the origin of life derived from inanimate objects is way, way outside the scope of Darwinism.
 

How the Rabbit Digestive System Works​


Intelligent design. ROFL.
And yet, the Bible identified the rabbit as a cud chewer long before science had any idea...in fact many balked at the Bible claiming such a thing...

"However, you must not eat the following animals that chew the cud or that have split hooves: the camel, the hare, and the rock badger, because they chew the cud but do not have split hooves. They are unclean for you." Deuteronomy 14:7
 
And yet, the Bible identified the rabbit as a cud chewer long before science had any idea...in fact many balked at the Bible claiming such a thing...

"However, you must not eat the following animals that chew the cud or that have split hooves: the camel, the hare, and the rock badger, because they chew the cud but do not have split hooves. They are unclean for you." Deuteronomy 14:7
So how is eating your excrement an example of intelligent design?
 
Sure, it could be.

The current explanation for how that happened seems to pile one supposition on top of another to come up with an unlikely scenario, but it could be right.

It seems more like they ask themselves whether it is possible in any way to avoid an intelligent designer and Darwinism and neo-Darwinism is what they came up with.

Or perhaps they followed the evidence to a reasoned scientific conclusion.
 
Not at all.

Thousands upon thousands of scientists on a worldwide basis would disagree.
BTW, what are fossils and why do the simplest life forms occur in the oldest geologic formations and a steady series of more complex life forms appear as the geologic record gets newer through the billions of years?
 
Uh, no it's not. None of what preceded this statement was science. It was motivated reasoning.

What specifically is in error? What is the motivation? Is Intelligent Design “motivated reasoning”?
 
What specifically is in error? What is the motivation? Is Intelligent Design “motivated reasoning”?

The whole thing is just a long-winded example of the god of the gaps fallacy, laced with false premises (e.g., irreducible complexity), special pleading, and a general tenor of non sequitur. It basically boils down to: we don't understand exactly how biology could be so complicated, therefore a "designer" must have done it (forget about where the designer must have come from).

The motivation is to fabricate credibility for the idea that the "theory" of Intelligent Design is scientifically sound.
 
Back
Top Bottom