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.
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.
Peace
I remember us having this conversation before and I have labored over a reply (I have a photographic memory) you need not have things highlighted to you as an actual defect to make another implausible.. that is in fact what separates free thinkers from conformists ...
Natural selection allegedly results in only those best adapted tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated.. well in trinucleotide repeat expansion unstable and defective genes increase and repeat count with each successive generation. I remember distinctly going through huntington's and fragile X to name a few.
How is that in conformity with natural selection? Please read everything I have written as I have written it, not the selective parts and espouse them all into one big mess!
all the best!
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Why would Huntington's not fit with evolution? Most sufferers don't have any of the detrimental symptoms until long after they've reached sexual maturity and been able to pass on their genes. In most cases it would have no effect at all on their 'fitness' to reproduce.
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.
Yes but what are the numbers and where did you get them?
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
I consider that to be a very slim chance of happening. 9 planets, all but one uninhabitable DUE to its proximity to the Sun.
There are about 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the visible universe, you reckon some of them might have planets in a similar situation?
Why would Huntington's not fit with evolution? Most sufferers don't have any of the detrimental symptoms until long after they've reached sexual maturity and been able to pass on their genes. In most cases it would have no effect at all on their 'fitness' to reproduce.
We are discussing natural selection not your 30 second google search!
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
And I'm aware of the criticism oh this is after the event. I'm not arguing that it was impossible to occur - just that if we take that number seriously, we're an extremely lucky species. I'm also aware that not all species have a 1 in 10 ^ 33 chance of evolving (some are less) - but that very first piece of genetic material had to have been extremely lucky to live long enough to adapt to its surroundings (or the surroundings must have been at the right temperature that was capable of sustaining that initial life form - either way, luck is involved).
There are about 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the visible universe, you reckon some of them might have planets in a similar situation?
Maybe, who knows. Like I said earlier tho, let's try and deal with our solar system. Otherwise, I will be forced to use my Chewbacca defense and this conversation will quickly become retarded.
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)
I remember us having this conversation before and I have labored over a reply (I have a photographic memory)
You've mentioned your memory skills many times. As I'm sure you'll recall.
you need not have things highlighted to you as an actual defect to make another implausible.. that is in fact what separates free thinkers from conformists ...
Unfortunately, I can't make any sense of that. How many sentences have there been in your post so far?
Natural selection allegedly results in only those best adapted tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated.. well in trinucleotide repeat expansion unstable and defective genes increase and repeat count with each successive generation. I remember distinctly going through huntington's and fragile X to name a few.
So the genes are surviving. Where is the problem? If these diseases don't affect the chances of an individual reproducing and passing on genes, I don't see how this is connected to natural selection.
How is that in conformity with natural selection? Please read everything I have written as I have written it, not the selective parts and espouse them all into one big mess!
'Espouse'? Try to write clearly rather than exotically. Using flashy vocabulary incorrectly impresses nobody.
I will be forced to use my Chewbacca defense and this conversation will quickly become retarded.
Please tell me the Chewbacca defense, pretty please! Its being used in almost every other thread I've read on this forum, and I just can't put my finger on it!
Please tell me the Chewbacca defense, pretty please! Its being used in almost every other thread I've read on this forum, and I just can't put my finger on it!
You've mentioned your memory skills many times. As I'm sure you'll recall.
so what is the problem with you? selective recall?
Unfortunately, I can't make any sense of that. How many sentences have there been in your post so far?
That isn't something I can remedy, I can't teach you science!
So the genes are surviving. Where is the problem? If these diseases don't affect the chances of an individual reproducing and passing on genes, I don't see how this is connected to natural selection.
is that what natural selection is about in your mind? reproduction? or superior genes selected and passed down?
'Espouse'? Try to write clearly rather than exotically. Using flashy vocabulary incorrectly impresses nobody.
Peace
Indeed, espouse as to conjoin one topic with another.. if you scroll back you'll see that you have purposefully or perhaps ignorantly exchange evolution for natural selection.. it is no matter to me either way, what you chose to learn or not, what I do care about is when you misconstrue what I have written so they become in concert with your own personal desires or beliefs.. I am inclined to agree with your statement though if it were the actually the case that I am out to impress you, but I promise you that I don't even think that you share a league with me for me to make any effort at impressing you!
all the best
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
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.
what proof do u have ? u said
Evolution is simply a lie invented by Satan and the Zionists to control us all
so what is the problem with you? selective recall?
You can't stop yourself, can you?
That isn't something I can remedy, I can't teach you science!
That gibberish had something to do with science, did it?
is that what natural selection is about in your mind? reproduction? or superior genes selected and passed down?
No, it's about candy-floss. What do you think?
Would you like to have another go at answering the question?
Indeed, espouse as to conjoin one topic with another..
Was that really the clearest way to express it?
if you scroll back you'll see that you have purposefully or perhaps ignorantly exchange evolution for natural selection..
I was using 'evolution' as shorthand for 'evolution by natural selection'. Please forgive me.
it is no matter to me either way, what you chose to learn or not, what I do care about is when you misconstrue what I have written so they become in concert with your own personal desires or beliefs..
I usually misconstrue what you've written because because untangling your ideas from the dense web of verbiage, obscurantism and insults you provide is a challenge for anybody. Finnegans Wake is an easy read compared with many of your posts.
If you genuinely care about making yourself understood, you'll write more clearly. Writing in sentences would be a good start.
I am inclined to agree with your statement though if it were the actually the case that I am out to impress you, but I promise you that I don't even think that you share a league with me for me to make any effort at impressing you!
You're not out to impress me, but you clearly want to impress somebody with your unique approach to the English language.
So, come on. Being the hyperintelligent superbeing you present yourself as, it should be a simple matter to explain to us thickies what the problem is with trinucleotide repeat expansion. Go for it.
& are you exempt of the same sanctions or simply too good to be true?
That gibberish had something to do with science, did it?
as stated previously, I can't teach you science if you are not willing to even acknowledge that you have a serious deficiency-- Are you able to butter your bread with the scorn that you hold for some members here?
No, it's about candy-floss. What do you think?
That doesn't answer nor pose a question of relevance.. if you want to descend every topic to mere word play to be in concert with your level of expertise, I suggest you do it in the 'puzzles and Humor' section!
Would you like to have another go at answering the question?
until such a time when you can pose your questions to an acceptable degree without being exacerbated or throwing a tantrum can you expect a more detailed reply, you don't seem to make a minimum effort and I am not looking to waste of my time!
Was that really the clearest way to express it?
oh, and what would you recommend? Is this topic about wrangling with words or about science?
I was using 'evolution' as shorthand for 'evolution by natural selection'. Please forgive me.
You seek forgiveness for substituting a mechanism for the heading, a sub-category, and by the same token have a hostile showdown about the word 'espouse' worst yet, claim to understand science? --hilarious--
you are forgiven!
I usually misconstrue what you've written because because untangling your ideas from the dense web of verbiage, obscurantism and insults you provide is a challenge for anybody. Finnegans Wake is an easy read compared with many of your posts.
Then perhaps you can do yourself a great service by avoiding to ensnare me in a reply every so often and of the same topic, only to peddle the same practiced lines as if your manhood depended so deeply on it?
I have a paper published on Genomic fingerprinting using arbitrarily primed PCR, I am sure you'll find it as equally baffling as many of my posts here, but it has nothing to do with my English, rather the subject matter is well over your head!
If you genuinely care about making yourself understood, you'll write more clearly. Writing in sentences would be a good start.
See above!
You're not out to impress me, but you clearly want to impress somebody with your unique approach to the English language.
your life seems to spin in an void, try to broaden your horizon or in the very least imagine that others don't share the same platform with you.. while at it, Perhaps you can point out my secret (impress)ee? -- we should be entitled to some mild amusement out of your frequent drivel!
btw I liked that bit about 'Finnegans Wake' and I just know you weren't after an impression with that one.. it is right up your alley!
So, come on. Being the hyperintelligent superbeing you present yourself as, it should be a simple matter to explain to us thickies what the problem is with trinucleotide repeat expansion. Go for it.
Luckily my super intelligent being' self-worth isn't contingent on the accreditation nor approval of an atheist with a teaching degree, a teacher's manual and his low quality attempts at a public duel...
try to take yourself out of the state of mind that so has you trammeled when it comes to me... I think you detract from your own self worth, which I am convinced means something to you as you seem to highlight your one accolade every so often when addressing me..
Mastery of the English language doesn't make scholars of oafs!
Peace
whatever you say :wink:
Last edited by جوري; 11-11-2009 at 05:50 AM.
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
By what criteria would you define an unlucky species in this context?
Well that's the trick isn't it; the unlucky ones are those who didn't make it, so I wouldn't be able to tell you . We're lucky because little Jimmy the first genetic material managed to evolve, against all the odds (or they were in his favour, either way, that is pretty lucky).
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)
The 1 in 10^33 refers to the formation of a functional haemoglobin-like molecule by random assembly from amino acids, not the probability of life from non-life and not the formation of anything in a non-random fashion.
You also ignored the part in the same paragraph that says "Given odds of 1 in 10^33, the hypothetical random molecular generators mentioned above could discover a usable hemoglobin molecule trillions of times per second", speaking of the molecular generator used in the anti-evolutionist example.
So rather than supporting the idea that such a thing is highly unlikely, that paper confirms that such a thing would actually be highly likely, in fact a near certainty, even using the figures cited by creationists to discredit abiogenesis.
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
Maybe, who knows. Like I said earlier tho, let's try and deal with our solar system. Otherwise, I will be forced to use my Chewbacca defense and this conversation will quickly become retarded.
Well that brings me to another quote from the paper you mentioned.
"This is an intriguing line of reasoning, but it has serious flaws. One flaw, common to many arguments of this sort, is that it is an after-the-fact assessment of probability, which is unreliable without a very careful consideration of all possible alternate contingencies." (emphasis mine)
As I said before, if you ignore the possibility of other places with favourable conditions or don't include other possible types of life and their favoured conditions, you're never going to get a reasonable figure.
The 1 in 10^33 refers to the formation of a functional haemoglobin-like molecule by random assembly from amino acids, not the probability of life from non-life and not the formation of anything in a non-random fashion.
You also ignored the part in the same paragraph that says "Given odds of 1 in 10^33, the hypothetical random molecular generators mentioned above could discover a usable hemoglobin molecule trillions of times per second", speaking of the molecular generator used in the anti-evolutionist example.
So rather than supporting the idea that such a thing is highly unlikely, that paper confirms that such a thing would actually be highly likely, in fact a near certainty, even using the figures cited by creationists to discredit abiogenesis.
If that is the case, we still need to establish WHY and HOW little Jimmy is capable of doing what he does. He has a remarkable and ingenious attribute making him incredibly complex. There has to be a reason for that.
Well that brings me to another quote from the paper you mentioned.
"This is an intriguing line of reasoning, but it has serious flaws. One flaw, common to many arguments of this sort, is that it is an after-the-fact assessment of probability, which is unreliable without a very careful consideration of all possible alternate contingencies." (emphasis mine)
As I said before, if you ignore the possibility of other places with favourable conditions or don't include other possible types of life and their favoured conditions, you're never going to get a reasonable figure.
The problem is, we can't gauge other places and possibilites just yet. We're limited in our knowledge of this solar system, so that's why I'm ''ignoring'' those other possibilties. We have to deal in what we can understand and what we know.
Yes, this won't give us 100% accuracy, but at least we can have some form of meaningful dialoge over the subject matter. Some discussion is better than no discussion, right?
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)
If that is the case, we still need to establish WHY and HOW little Jimmy is capable of doing what he does. He has a remarkable and ingenious attribute making him incredibly complex. There has to be a reason for that.
'How' is just a question of chemistry. 'Why' is a question we can't answer, or even know for certain that there is an answer.
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
We have to deal in what we can understand and what we know.
How is that compatible with with the WHY question above?
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
Yes, this won't give us 100% accuracy, but at least we can have some form of meaningful dialoge over the subject matter. Some discussion is better than no discussion, right?
We can discuss it, yeah fine, but using probabilities in isolation isn't really helpful in this case. Yes, you're really lucky if you won the lottery, but the chances that someone will win the lottery are high.
One thing you've left out of your habitable zone discussion thus far is that of the star's age. A star becomes gradually warmer as it ages, and therefore the habitable zone moves further from the star over time. Early in our Sun's life, Venus would have been within the habitable zone, and later in our Sun's life Mars will be within it.
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