Found this while surfing the net tought share it here
The ‘Mechanism’ Behind Intelligent Design
I am providing this information in hopes that some way can
be found to use it in the battle against the atheistic,
Darwinian concept of evolution which has destroyed so much
of the original spiritual nature of human society, and help to
bring the attention of the people of the world back to the
increasingly obvious fact that God (Allah) created this
universe and everything in it. I was many years ago a
university professor with a background in theoretical
physics, but am now quite old and dying of cancer. I want to
do whatever I can before I leave this world to help humanity
come back from the disaster of secular materialistic belief to
a God-centered, spiritual world.
Intelligent design is a modern variation of the very
successful “Watchmaker Argument” for the existence of God.
This argument essentially says if you see a watch, which is
quite a complicated mechanism with lots of parts that must
act perfectly in harmony then you can be sure that watch did
not come to exist by chance, and that it must have been
designed and created by a watchmaker. Therefore if we look
at the incredibly complicated universe with a virtually
infinite number of parts all acting in perfect harmony then
we can be sure it did not come to exist by chance, and that
it must have been designed and created by a “Universe
Maker”, who could be no other than God.
I can see in the current trend toward the acceptance of
‘intelligent design’ a movement toward a more accurate,
objective understanding of God as our Creator. There was a
time when science seemed to be the enemy of religious
belief - that time is no more! Modern physics and cosmology
(science of the origin and development of the universe) now
provide firm objective evidence of the existence of God,
confirm the primary attributes of God, and show how God
created the physical existence out of ‘nothingness’. This
knowledge comes from a critical analysis of the ‘Big Bang’
theory, Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, and work
being done in quantum physics. The concepts behind this
esoteric scientific knowledge can now be presented in such
a way as to be understood by any person with a modern
education and necessarily should become known by all. I
would predict that it will not be too long until the position
of atheism is considered to be scientifically naïve, logically
nonsensical, and philosophically embarrassing.
My presentation of these facts may not be in exactly the
theological language you might prefer, but this is not the
time to quibble over differences in form. It is the acceptance
of the basic truth of God’s existence and His role as Creator
of the physical universe and everything in it that is critical.
Although intelligent design is a powerful argument against
atheistic, Darwinian evolutionist ideas I think the one area
of weakness in intelligent design is that it does not yet
offer the ‘mechanism’ by which God did (or at least could)
create the universe and fashion each of the progressive
stages in the development of the matter of the universe,
including biological life. Believe me, the atheistic
evolutionists will be quick to exploit this perceived weakness.
The following is an example of the kind of attack that
intelligent design will face until the ‘mechanism’ by which God’s creative process takes place is offered.
“Intelligent Design, which has some claim to being based on hard evidence, remains woefully short on the required specifics. We are told that some unknown but all-powerful entity created, or rather designed life as we know it. How? And, in what way? Don't ask. Just take their word for it.” - From an article in the Binghamton Press & Sun-Bulletin
newspaper.
I will have to be exceedingly brief in this explanation since many books could be written on this most important and complex subject, so I will leave it to you to have these facts checked by scientists of your acquaintance, although I have already verified the facts with other scientists to my own satisfaction.
Allah revealed to us in the Qur’an that He created the physical universe out of nothingness, the Christian Bible presents a very similar version of the creation of the physical existence through Light, and I believe other religions also hold somewhat analogous views. This is confirmed by modern cosmologists who must now acknowledge the physical existence had a beginning from complete nothingness (no time, no space, and no matter) and at a singularity ‘Light’, a fair non-technical name for the full spectrum of photons of electromagnetic radiation, came into existence. This intense Light energy resulted in the creation of matter in the form of sub-atomic particles; of primary importance to us were the protons, neutrons, and electrons, the basic building blocks of all that now exists in the physical universe. Additionally, as a side effect of the creation of material particles was the simultaneous appearance of space and time.
This provides our first opportunity to see Light as the interface between the non-physical (spiritual) world and the physical existence. These sub-atomic particles were sometime later transformed into atomic nuclei and the various atoms (all the different elements which still exist today). When asked why the sub-atomic particles joined together into the more complex arrangements of nuclei and atoms science answers that it is due to the ‘electromagnetic force’. This electromagnetic force is carried out through an exchange of photons (Light energy). According to Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, which is about the ‘special’ characteristics of Light, photons of Light energy do not show any of the three necessary characteristics to be part of the physical universe. They do not have mass, they do not occupy volume of space, and they are not involved in the flow of time; therefore, Light maintains non-material characteristics, once again indicating its nature as an interface between the non-physical (spiritual) world and the physical universe.
From a religious point of view what I would say is happening is that we see how God, acting in an orderly and lawful manner, did command the necessary sub-atomic particles to join together into certain relationships we call nuclei and atoms. The ‘electromagnetic force’ is only the name science has put on these orderly, lawful workings of God as He goes through this early stage of the Creation. It appears God does this by sending Light as the messenger to carry information regarding His commands to the various sub-atomic particles and telling them how it is His Will that they relate to each other in this new, more complex manner. Here we begin to see the ‘mechanism’ missing from the intelligent design argument by which God’s Will is carried out in the physical existence.
We see exactly the same process taking place later in the development of the physical universe when various atoms begin relating to other atoms in another step toward greater complexity and becoming the various molecules, as in the simple example when two hydrogen atoms are joined with one oxygen atom to form a molecule of water. Once again science now knows that only certain atoms will form relationships with certain other atoms and the information as to which atoms can and should join with other atoms is determined by another exchange of photons (Light energy). Light again being the messenger from the non-physical (spiritual) existence telling the created matter how to carry out its role in the development of the physical universe. God’s Will is commanded to the atomic structures by the messengers of Light. This appears to be the ‘mechanism’ by which God transforms simple atoms into the various molecules of increasing complexity all the way up through the amino acids, and proteins to the highly complex DNA molecule.
Importantly, we see that God does not at each new stage of material complexity (sub-atomic particles, atoms, and molecules) create anew; He commands the rearrangement of the previous simpler stage into the next more complex stage. And to move from one stage to another in increasing complexity, God each time appears to use the ‘mechanism’ of Light as a messenger to transmit His Will from the non-physical (spiritual) existence to the various material forms of the physical universe.
At the sub-atomic, the atomic, and the molecular levels of material development science is clearly able to understand how the changes taking place are due to the information passed on through an exchange of photons of Light energy. Unfortunately, as we reach the next level of complexity, which is the progression from the molecular stage to the stage of biological life, the plants and animals, the process becomes so complex that from science we are as yet unable to fully perceive all that takes place to make that step. But through logic, extrapolation, and preliminary scientific findings we may fairly and rightly assume that it is only reasonable that the same method was used as in the earlier stages of progressive development. So we would expect that by an exchange of photons (Light energy) between the molecular entities existing at that time information was passed telling the various molecules involved to relate to each other in such a manner that a new level of material complexity is achieved, that being the simplest forms of biological life.
When God decides the time is right to create biological life He commands that His Will be done and sends messengers of Light from the spiritual existence to the physical universe instructing the necessary molecular forms He had already created to join together in the new, more complex relationship of simple biological life. These simple biological life forms are then made up of the even simpler material forms, the atoms and molecules, from the surrounding environment which are instructed by photons of light energy from a DNA type molecule to form themselves into the new, more complex relationship of biological life. Here we see the same ‘mechanism’ being used as in all the previous stages of creation.
Now we can begin to understand the ‘mechanism’ behind the final stages of increasing material complexity as God transforms simple biological life forms into all the more complex plants and animals we see in the world today. Beginning with the first simple forms of biological life which God had already created He now only has to send messages by Light from the non-physical (spiritual) existence to the physical world commanding that His Will be carried out and that all the necessary more complex forms of plant and animal life must come to be. These changes from one stage to another, from the simple to the more complex, require only slight alterations in the overall structure of the DNA molecule. These small structural changes in the DNA molecule are determined by information transmitted by photons (Light energy) to the atomic structures making up the DNA molecule, instructing them to move into slightly different arrangements in one or more small areas of the long and complex structure of the overall DNA molecule. The combined effect of these small structural changes to the DNA molecule are sufficient to bring about any desired modifications in the next progressively complex physical form to be expressed (all of the various plants and animals) which are required by God to facilitate the continued unfolding of the physical creation according to His Plan.
Through this new knowledge we now have a scientifically verifiable ‘mechanism’ by which God could have created the physical universe from nothing in the beginning of time. Conveniently, information transmitted through Light energy also provides the ‘mechanism’ by which God could have directly commanded the creation of all the different increasingly complex stages and forms of matter which we find today throughout the physical universe, including all forms of biological life. It will be very difficult, I believe impossible, for the Godless evolutionists and atheistic scientists to successfully argue against this understanding of God’s Plan for Creation.
Of course do not only take my word for this, verify what I have said with reputable scientists sympathetic to the cause of intelligent design, and use these ideas in any way and with whatever words you find most comfortable to help bring the world’s people to the knowledge that God does indeed exist, that He created the entire physical existence, and that He created us for a special place in His Grand Plan. This could be the beginning of the end for secular materialism and atheism, and the beginning of a future world fully recognizing its spiritual nature and glorifying God through peace and love.
The “successful” watchmaker argument is a rehash of the argument from design put forth by William Paley. This was refuted by David Hume who pointed out the flaws of the argument, and this was all done before Darwin and before natural selection was combined with evolution to form the theory known in his day.
Just to clarify: David Hume did indeed write a convincing refutation of the argument from design, but he did it before Paley's "watchmaker" argument appeared. Paley included it in his 1802 work Natural Theology, over 25 years after Hume's death.
Probability for winning a lottery depends on number of tickets in the lottery. If there are 1 billion tickets then there is 1 to billion. If a winner wins a lottery in 1/billion probability then the winner would be considered lucky. I guess we are lucky ones.
Nope. Because there are no 'unlucky' ones... in this lottery only the winner gets to play (retrospectively), because the only 'prize' is existence itself.
But there is another issue. In lottery even if there is 1/billion probability, somebody has to be a winner, because that what lottery is meant for. And that is why there is 1/billion probability. So looking at this as analogy, life meant to emerge in this Universe? just a thought.
Exactly my point, although just as with the lottery (where players pick what they hope will be winning numbers), there would also have been a possibility of there being no winner. The only relevant probability is of life emerging somewhere. It is nonsensical to consider the probability of it arising in a particular solar system rather than another as, until it does arise, there is absolutely nothing to distininguish one solar system from another, at least in this context.
Nope. Because there are no 'unlucky' ones... in this lottery only the winner gets to play (retrospectively), because the only 'prize' is existence itself.
You are not making sense, you need to explain more.
It is not Al-Birr (piety, righteousness, and obedience to Allâh, etc.) that you turn your faces towards east and (or) west (in prayers); but Al-Birr is (the quality of) the one who believes in Allâh, the Last Day, the Angels, the Book, the Prophets and gives his wealth, in spite of love for it, to the kinsfolk, to the orphans, and to Al-Masâkîn (the poor), and to the wayfarer, and to those who ask, and to set slaves free, performs As-Salât, and gives the Zakât, and keep their word whenever they make a promise, and who are patient in extreme poverty and ailment (disease) and at the time of persecution, hardship, and war. Such are the people of the truth and they are Al-Muttaqûn (the pious).
You are not making sense, you need to explain more.
I'll try, but I'm probably just repeating myself.
The mistake is in considering the odds of the emergence of life in a particular solar system. That simply is of no relevance at all as there is no reason to distinguish one solar system from another until life happens to emerge in one or more of them. The relevant probability, therefore, is not that of the future emergence of life in the Sol system (before it actually did emerge) as there is no reason to prefer the Sol system to any other, but of the emergence of life in any solar system anywhere. It makes no sense to talk of 'us' being lucky or unlucky.. the most you can do is apply those terms in some sort of anthropomophic way to stars or planets. It's only in the 'lucky' systems where intelligence can exist to have this debate.
To think about it another way, let's look into our future and imagine we are exploring the nearest star systems to our own. We would need to be extraordinarily lucky (or maybe unlucky!) to find life in, say, Epsilon Eridani or Delta Pavonis. But they are two drops in a very large ocean, one of maybe 400 billion billion stars with planets. If, in some way, we could search all of those for life, how 'lucky' would we need to be to find it somewhere?
Just to clarify: David Hume did indeed write a convincing refutation of the argument from design, but he did it before Paley's "watchmaker" argument appeared. Paley included it in his 1802 work Natural Theology, over 25 years after Hume's death.
The problem I have with evolution without God is that this thought process relies on ridiculously low percentage chances of occuring (the exact number is something like 0.0000001 to the power of i forgot because it's so bloody long).
Salaam, a question for you aamirsaab.
Where did you find such a number and what leads you to believe it is accurate? It seems very unlikely to me that anyone could accurately quantify such an occurrence, especially when nobody knows what actually happened.
Secondly, are we talking about the probabilities of creating life exactly as it is, or are there other possible solutions? For example, if we assume that life started off with a self-replicating peptide, how many possible sequences of amino acids are there that will be self-replicating? I don't think that anyone would even pretend to know the answer to that question.
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
Evolution cannot explain the proximity of earth in relation to the sun that ALLOWS for evolution to occur on xyz planet (in this case, Earth). The only answer to that (without using God) is a percentage chance ergo life is a statistical insignificance.
This isn't as useful as it might appear. Yes, there is a relatively narrow habitable zone around stars where life such as ours could emerge. The problem with that is it doesn't take into account any other possible forms of life that might be possible. If we found that life could emerge in liquid ammonia or almost boiling sulphuric acid (these have been considered feasible), then the habitable zone would suddenly be very large.
JaffaCake - Were aamirsaab not to use the word 'God', and replace it with some unknown, undiscovered process for guided mutation - would this seem more feasible? I have always though that showing some kind of guiding process - some unknown law as a reasonable conclusion, is much more practical than trying to prove God's will and nature.
Gravity was "discovered" in the sense that we are able to describe a process, without fully understanding why it occurs. It is nice to think of gravity as the bending of space-time, but since general relativity and quantum physics are both strong explanations, and yet incompatible we have to just wait until a grand unifying theory comes along.
If I rejected faith, I would find it hard to reject an unseen force whose effects I can clearly see around me.
JaffaCake - Were aamirsaab not to use the word 'God', and replace it with some unknown, undiscovered process for guided mutation - would this seem more feasible?
It might if you remove the word 'guided', but including it just begs the question. Nobody describes gravity as a force that 'guides' the movement of objects.
Salaam, a question for you aamirsaab.
Where did you find such a number and what leads you to believe it is accurate? It seems very unlikely to me that anyone could accurately quantify such an occurrence, especially when nobody knows what actually happened.
The percentage chance of the first genetic material capable of successfully adapting to an environment and reproducing and then repeating this for several hundred cycles, factoring adaptation to adverse weather, viruses, mutations and so on and so forth.
Secondly, are we talking about the probabilities of creating life exactly as it is, or are there other possible solutions? For example, if we assume that life started off with a self-replicating peptide, how many possible sequences of amino acids are there that will be self-replicating? I don't think that anyone would even pretend to know the answer to that question.
Go with what we know, that way we can quantify and gauge and have a meaningful discussion.
This isn't as useful as it might appear. Yes, there is a relatively narrow habitable zone around stars where life such as ours could emerge. The problem with that is it doesn't take into account any other possible forms of life that might be possible. If we found that life could emerge in liquid ammonia or almost boiling sulphuric acid (these have been considered feasible), then the habitable zone would suddenly be very large.
To date, no life forms exist on any other planet in our solar system. Earth by sheer and utter luck landed in the right spacial zone allowing for an environment that didn't change TOO quickly, so that a species COULD adapt thus ultimately evolve into what we are today. I consider that to be a very slim chance of happening. 9 planets, all but one uninhabitable DUE to its proximity to the Sun.
Edit: I'm not talking about guiding the evolution process, I'm talking about the initial environment that was adaptable. If the environment is too extreme, a species (especially the very FIRST in line) cannot adapt quick enough (even if it was capable of doing so, this again raises the issue of probability and luck). Earth is the only planet in our solar system that can sustain life and the only ''reason'' for this is (without using God card) a probability or statistic that it landed in the exact perfect spot (i.e proximity to sun was pinpoint). So we're either an extremely lucky species or there's someone behind the scenes.
EDIT 2: Again, I'm not discounting evolution by any means.
Someone said to the Prophet, "Pray to God against the idolaters and curse them." The Prophet replied, "I have been sent to show mercy and have not been sent to curse." (Muslim)
It might if you remove the word 'guided', but including it just begs the question. Nobody describes gravity as a force that 'guides' the movement of objects.
You missed my point. Gravity has an effect which we can observe. No one says objects with sufficient mass attracts other objects by a random process, similar to say - positive mutation - which is a random process according to the present model.
We simply do not understand gravity, but that does not mean it doesn't exist. I'm not quite saying God is dipping his hands in the creation process. I'm just arguing for some similar law which "attracts" positive mutation....
You missed my point. Gravity has an effect which we can observe. No one says objects with sufficient mass attracts other objects by a random process, similar to say - positive mutation - which is a random process according to the present model.
We simply do not understand gravity, but that does not mean it doesn't exist. I'm not quite saying God is dipping his hands in the creation process. I'm just arguing for some similar law which "attracts" positive mutation....
Was my explanation helpful? Do you agree that mutations are random and that evidence for its randomness can be found?
Natural Selection
There are no particular "positive" mutations. We have to dissociate the concept of agency from this process. The law which you are asking for is natural selection itself.
The history of this planet is within each organism that has 'lived' here. Those of us that were able to pass on our genes are the only ones here to asses anything in retrospect.
The process of evolution doesn't guarantee anything to anyone. Most people know that many hundreds* of species are now extinct, or on the verge, and that can only be credited to their failure to adapt to the environment.
In retrospect, it would be nice if we still had a great sense of smell, and if we could still produce vitamin C within our body, if our laryngeal nerve was not looped around our heart for a ridiculous detour, and if our ribcage and backbone was designed for upright walking as well. The adaptations which gave us the attributes we have today are a result of mutations whether positive or negative. It is the environment with pushes the organisms least capable of reproducing towards death. What you have left are the successful candidates for the next round. What would be a positive attribute long ago may not be one later on, that itself is the mark left by the lack of an agency.
If there were an agency to guide evolution, it's done a remarkably poor job.
All the best,
Faysal
*many millions probably, but the average person can usually only name about a dozen.
what mutations have caused evolution? do you have a name for them and a mechanism of action? mutations are identified we have loads of molecular biology and genetic books about them, you may google some of them 'frameshift, missense, nonsense' to name a few, can you show me how one or any have caused speciation?
how does natural selection explain Trinucleotide repeat expansion why do you collectively peddle the same crap over in an attempt to sound intelligent, but mum at best when it comes to mechanism of action? I mean isn't that what is missing from the 'God of the Gaps' story, why don't you fill the gaps with sound science? as well explain the motive and end result?
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
BTW just as an addendum though I don't have the time to labor over anatomy and physiology with alleged 20 year olds..
there are two laryngeal nerves, the recurrent and superior, both branch off the vagus nerve along with 11 other branches, in its path as a (large highway) that branches into byways, it is responsible for varied tasks as heart rate, gastrointestinal peristalsis, sweating, muscle movements in the mouth, speech and breathing just to name a handful of functions.. perhaps in your mind no thought went into that up one day 'adaptation' or 'nature' decided I need to speak, let's innervate this part, I need to breathe let's innervate that part, I need to control my heart rate let's innervate this part, who knows.. but if I am going to complain, I'd like a few clarifications.
1- How did 'nature' do it? which part happened first or did it all happen at once? did it one day decide hmm without control over my heart rate, I'll die so let me take care of that first, and then woops I forgot about mean arterial pressure, woops today I forgot about vascular resistance, let me take care of that, woops, I need to breathe let me take care of my tidal volume today, woops, what about my total lung capacity and residual volume.. etc etc etc etc etc
2- How would you do it better?
3- can you in fact by said 'magical' mutations manipulate it now to do it better I mean hey you've survived without god and 'nature' ain't perfect, so why don't you perfect it?
all the best!
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
You bring this up a lot. Can you explain (or do you have a link that explains) why this is seen as such a big problem for evolution?
Peace
as many times as you've asked I have gone ahead and explained it (use the search feature).. question remains why the lot of you keep speaking of 'mutations' and 'Natural selection' with utmost generalities and fail to touch upon mechanism of action? Isn't that what it all comes down to to combat the ignorance of the 'God of the gaps?'..
the basic tenets of your religion aren't scientifically reproducible nor stable.. until such a time you cross your T's and dot your I's, I too don't understand why you bring this (mutations/natural selection) 'alot' can you rectify how it is the solution for evolution?
all the best!
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
what mutations have caused evolution? do you have a name for them and a mechanism of action? mutations are identified we have loads of molecular biology and genetic books about them, you may google some of them 'frameshift, missense, nonsense' to name a few, can you show me how one or any have caused speciation?
how does natural selection explain Trinucleotide repeat expansion why do you collectively peddle the same crap over in an attempt to sound intelligent, but mum at best when it comes to mechanism of action? I mean isn't that what is missing from the 'God of the Gaps' story, why don't you fill the gaps with sound science? as well explain the motive and end result?
im sure they cant and btw i never tought the thread will get this many comments lol
as many times as you've asked I have gone ahead and explained it (use the search feature)..
If you type the word 'trinucleotide' into the search engine, only one thread comes up - this one. If you search for posts, you get the two posts on this page where it's mentioned.
Are you sure there isn't a link you could provide that explains why this phenomenon is such a problem for evolution? I've never seen you explain it, and everything I can find about it on the internet seems to be in conformity with evolution.
Evolution is simply a lie invented by Satan and the Zionists to control us all. I read that somewhere, and the guy sounded very intelligent, and thoroughly convincing.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts.
Sign Up
Bookmarks