The ‘Mechanism’ Behind Intelligent Design

[Raphael]

Why is that a problem? Can not a mere human engineer concieve haw to build a three prong left handed blivet and then build such if he has the materials. So why is it any less to think that Allaah(swt) can build both the design and the building material? The thoughts of Allaah(swt) do have the solidity of what we call matter, when he choses for it to be.

Quite simply us humans can not do what Allaah(swt) does. Our inability to duplicate what Allaah(swt) does is no indication he did not create all things. I am not capable of doing heart surgery, does that mean if I believe heart surgeons do not exist is valid?

Salamualikum Woodrow,

I have to disagree with you on this one occasion. Not understanding how something happens is not a justification on pinning it to a supernatural cause. People believed that thunder was caused because of God's wrath a few thousand years ago!

 

[tetsujin]

Why is that a problem? Can not a mere human engineer concieve haw to build a three prong left handed blivet and then build such if he has the materials. So why is it any less to think that Allaah(swt) can build both the design and the building material? The thoughts of Allaah(swt) do have the solidity of what we call matter, when he choses for it to be.

Quite simply us humans can not do what Allaah(swt) does. Our inability to duplicate what Allaah(swt) does is no indication he did not create all things. I am not capable of doing heart surgery, does that mean if I believe heart surgeons do not exist is valid?

The ontological argument has been refuted as well. If god was simply a matter of intuition, there is nothing to stop us from imagining Laplace's demon as god, or whatever else we have thought of in our thousands of years in existence.

The ability to construct an idea, in and of itself, does not serve as its proof, unless you presume god is merely a mathematical equation thus being true in a trivial sense.

All the best,


Faysal

 

[aamirsaab]

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). Everything just becomes a statistical insignificance and IMO if you can swallow those amount of numbers after the decimal point, I don't see how not only can that not be considered a miracle but additionally you can reject God completely from the equation.

To put it into perspective; the neccessary conditions for humans to evolve to what we are today as many nations capable of advanced theorems, thoughts and thousands of advancements throughout the ages HAS NOT OCCURED on any other planet in our solar system. Yes bacteria has been found on mars, but so what? We're like 1000 lifeforms ahead of that!

In fact, Earth is the only planet capable of having such a system due to its proximity to the sun. Now, unless you again subscribe to the notion of no God, we have probability rearing it's ugly head into the mix. And by now that 0.x to the power of whatever, just multiplied a dozen or so times. Again, if you can swallow that amount of numbers after a decimal point - how can you, in your heart of hearts, completely reject God from the equation?

 

[Woodrow]

Salamualikum Woodrow,

I have to disagree with you on this one occasion. Not understanding how something happens is not a justification on pinning it to a supernatural cause. People believed that thunder was caused because of God's wrath a few thousand years ago!

Very good point.

Also the converse is true, not believing in a supernatural cause is not a justification on pinning it to a material cause.

Yes, for most of what we see can be measured, qualified and shown to be cause for physical events. There is no questioning or should not be, of that. But, the question that can not be answered in physical terms is the existence of the physical things, not how they function.

 

[tetsujin]

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). Everything just becomes a statistical insignificance and IMO if you can swallow those amount of numbers after the decimal point, I don't see how not only can that not be considered a miracle but additionally you can reject God completely from the equation.

Welcome to a universe of large numbers. How many planets on how many stars in how many galaxies would you like to work with? But that's not as relevant as the presumption you've made that our existence was the sole purpose towards which evolution was working. If we were sitting here with three ears instead of two we'd think ourselves just as lucky to be here making ridiculous calculations of our statistical insignificance.

To put it into perspective; the neccessary conditions for humans to evolve to what we are today as many nations capable of advanced theorems, thoughts and thousands of advancements throughout the ages HAS NOT OCCURED on any other planet in our solar system. Yes bacteria has been found on mars, but so what? We're like 1000 lifeforms ahead of that!

I was not aware that bacteria had been found on mars. That would be significant indeed, because once again evolution doesn't state we are of prime importance in this universe. We happen to be one of the immeasurable number of species that have existed. All the events in this universe will seem statistically unlikely, and that will largely depend on what you understand to be the functional purpose of the universe.

Moreover, if there was life on each and every planet, that would not help or hurt evolution in any way. If there was life on each and every planet, does that impact your acceptance of evolution or of a creationist origin theory?


All the best,


Faysal

 

[aamirsaab]

Welcome to a universe of large numbers. How many planets on how many stars in how many galaxies would you like to work with?

Up to you.

But that's not as relevant as the presumption you've made that our existence was the sole purpose towards which evolution was working. If we were sitting here with three ears instead of two we'd think ourselves just as lucky to be here making ridiculous calculations of our statistical insignificance.

Our existence is a result of evolution to from as far as we can tell the highest point - this is what the staunch evolutionists are saying. As I said before no other planet in our solar system has evidence of evolution. To which one can respond that's because of their proximity of the sun making it (near) impossible for the neccessary climate and conditions to do so - again brinigng us back to probability and chance of things happening to fall into place....

I was not aware that bacteria had been found on mars. That would be significant indeed, because once again evolution doesn't state we are of prime importance in this universe.

You are missing my point. I am not talking about overall importance to the universe.

We happen to be one of the immeasurable number of species that have existed. All the events in this universe will seem statistically unlikely, and that will largely depend on what you understand to be the functional purpose of the universe.

Let's try dealing with one planet at a time because this is becoming nonsensical. Deal with what is i.e human evolution on this planet. It's something we can actually gauge and have a meaningful discussion on.

Moreover, if there was life on each and every planet, that would not help or hurt evolution in any way.

I'm not arguing against evolution entirely - just the fact that some people remove God from the equation, which I find rather ignorant.

If there was life on each and every planet, does that impact your acceptance of evolution or of a creationist origin theory?...

You are misunderstanding my position: I accept the theory of evolution. However, this does not mean God is automatically removed from the equation; there are far too many variables that have to be accounted for - ascribing them to mere chance and probability (at such a ludicrously low number at that!) yet at the same time outright deny the existence and/or involvment of God seems kind of silly to be honest.

 

[Chuck]

Welcome to a universe of large numbers. How many planets on how many stars in how many galaxies would you like to work with? But that's not as relevant as the presumption you've made that our existence was the sole purpose towards which evolution was working. If we were sitting here with three ears instead of two we'd think ourselves just as lucky to be here making ridiculous calculations of our statistical insignificance.

I was not aware that bacteria had been found on mars. That would be significant indeed, because once again evolution doesn't state we are of prime importance in this universe. We happen to be one of the immeasurable number of species that have existed. All the events in this universe will seem statistically unlikely, and that will largely depend on what you understand to be the functional purpose of the universe.

Moreover, if there was life on each and every planet, that would not help or hurt evolution in any way. If there was life on each and every planet, does that impact your acceptance of evolution or of a creationist origin theory?


All the best,


Faysal

Evolution is not about how life began.

 

[tetsujin]

You are misunderstanding my position: I accept the theory of evolution. However, this does not mean God is automatically removed from the equation; there are far too many variables that have to be accounted for - ascribing them to mere chance and probability (at such a ludicrously low number at that!) yet at the same time outright deny the existence and/or involvment of God seems kind of silly to be honest.

I'm sorry, and you're right, I didn't understand your position. How are you calculating these probabilities? Where does god fit in your opinion?

Evolution is not about how life began.

I don't think we disagree, in case I wasn't clear in the previous post I'll quote myself from an earlier post.

Abiogenesis has nothing to do with the validity of the theory of evolution. It’s a different field of science.

Cosmology has nothing to do with the validity of the theory of evolution. It’s a different field of science.

All the best,


Faysal

 

[Raphael]

So as far as what I am reading here, no one has a problem with evolution, but just its cause?

Surely even the strongest advocate has to accept that unguided evolution is slightly far fetched?

 

[tetsujin]

Surely even the strongest advocate has to accept that unguided evolution is slightly far fetched?

Which part of evolution is far fetched?


All the best,


Faysal

 

[Trumble]

Surely even the strongest advocate has to accept that unguided evolution is slightly far fetched?

Nowhere near as 'far fetched' as the existence of something to 'guide' it; something infinitely more complex that mysteriously just popped into existence or has somehow always existed. In terms of the numbers, God doesn't solve anything; something supposedly improbable is just replaced by something even more improbable.

But let's look at numbers again. There are something like 400 billion stars in our galaxy alone; that's something like 75 for each man, woman and child alive on earth. And there are estimated to be around 80 to 125 billion galaxies in the universe. We are into the realms of total guesswork, of course, but let's assume one in ten of those stars has a planet with the potential to support life of some sort, and that in one in ten of those the simplest type of life gets started at some point in the planet's history. Let us further assume, as you seem to concede, that the evolutionary mechanism does indeed exist. It therefore has something like 400 billion billion chances over the course of 13 billion years or so to come up with a species intelligent enough to be theorizing about how they came into existence. I'm not seeing any 'ludicrously low' numbers. They are in terms of one particular planet, but in the context of our own that is totally meaningless; it's like asking a lottery winner what the chances are that they have won the lottery. Those odds are of course, 1:1.

What puzzles me is why, in debates like this, so many theists focus on a rejection of evolution in the face of all the evidence (of which there is truly a vast quantity). The 'case for God' is much stronger IMHO, if still far from convincing, when put in terms of 'anthropic fine-tuning' of physical constants, yet those arguments (which have considerably more support from real scientists of theistic persuasion) are ignored. I guess that's the power of popular culture.

What also puzzles me is why the idea of an evolutionary process designed by God is dismissed by so many who believe there is a God. Surely the design of a process that, once started, produces exactly what is required with further intervention is much more what one would expect of God than either some flawed version of evolution that needs constant 'tinkering' in the form of ID, or continuous 'creation' over the years to add or remove a species here or there? It makes no sense to reject the most elegant solution.

 

[Raphael]

Nowhere near as 'far fetched' as the existence of something to 'guide' it;

There is a lie in quoting statistical probabilities from large numbers. Given the random way that meteors collide with each other, and the sheer number of cosmic debris out there, then there quite possibly is a meteor that is a carbon copy of Michelangelo's David.

Now should one come crashing down to earth, we could take the random chance argument, but really!

As far as the fine tuning aspect is concerned, the strong anthropic principle does a great deal in explaining the constants, so why would they be thrown up repeatedly, especially since most people simply would not understand the mathematics involved?

Even a complete moron can pick up the most advanced medical textbook and read away happily - after all, it is nothing more than fancy souped-up terminology, but the vast majority of the population would fall at the first sign of elementary mathematics in Physics (I'm not talking about high school Physics).

There is a difference between the people who swallow the creationist science garbage that are promoted on Harun Yahya type websites, and those that understand the methodology of evolution. I did not challenge evolution per se, but rather only one aspect. There is no evidence to directly support random mutation, and if there is, then please feel free to enlighten me...

 

[tetsujin]

There is no evidence to directly support random mutation, and if there is, then please feel free to enlighten me...

Are you asking for evidence of mutations or for evidence of their randomness?


All the best,


Faysal

 

[aamirsaab]

Nowhere near as 'far fetched' as the existence of something to 'guide' it; something infinitely more complex that mysteriously just popped into existence or has somehow always existed. In terms of the numbers, God doesn't solve anything; something supposedly improbable is just replaced by something even more improbable.

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.

.....Let us further assume, as you seem to concede, that the evolutionary mechanism does indeed exist. It therefore has something like 400 billion billion chances over the course of 13 billion years or so to come up with a species intelligent enough to be theorizing about how they came into existence. I'm not seeing any 'ludicrously low' numbers. They are in terms of one particular planet, but in the context of our own that is totally meaningless; it's like asking a lottery winner what the chances are that they have won the lottery. Those odds are of course, 1:1.

I was talking about the context of this solar system - to date, only Earth has any real evidence of evolution. To use your lottery example; the probability of anyone person winning the lottery is no where near 1:1 (even then, that still has to factor in at least 10 more variables)

I'll repeat, I don't negate the theory of evolution. Just that without God (at least acting as an instigator in terms of prerequisites for evolution to occur i.e a planet capable of natural sustenance due to its proxmity to the sun!), all life is a statistical insignificance. If you can swallow that pill (and somehow still reject miracles and God), you might as well throw a dice to decide all your actions in real life and spend all your money on the slots!

 

[Trumble]

There is a lie in quoting statistical probabilities from large numbers. Given the random way that meteors collide with each other, and the sheer number of cosmic debris out there, then there quite possibly is a meteor that is a carbon copy of Michelangelo's David.

Now should one come crashing down to earth, we could take the random chance argument, but really!

I'm not making any 'random chance' argument; evolution by natural selection is, by definition, NOT random whether elements of the mechanism by which it takes place are or not. It is, however, obvious that if evolution by natural selection is acknowledged the chances of an intelligent species evolving increase proportionate to the number of planets on which life occurs.

 

[Fishman]

Found this while surfing the net tought share it here

If you found an icky jellyfish whilst surfing you wouldn't share it here, so why post annoying articles written by some 2-bit wanna-be genius instead?

 

[Raphael]

I'm not making any 'random chance' argument; evolution by natural selection is, by definition, NOT random whether elements of the mechanism by which it takes place are or not. It is, however, obvious that if evolution by natural selection is acknowledged the chances of an intelligent species evolving increase proportionate to the number of planets on which life occurs.

Mutation is essential in the evolutionary mechanism. A mutation which both gives survival benefits for an organism, while yet being possible through chance is in fact random.....

Are you asking for evidence of mutations or for evidence of their randomness?

Evidence for randomness...

If you found an icky jellyfish whilst surfing you wouldn't share it here, so why post annoying articles written by some 2-bit wanna-be genius instead?

Absolutely!

 

[tetsujin]

Evidence for randomness...

I'm not sure what I'm arguing for/against. If there were a pattern for the mutations how exactly would you recognize that? Are we counting the intervals between certain sets of genes duplicating, deleting or transposing? How could we classify it as non-random?

If random mutations exist, a lack of selective pressures for a particular phenotype would result in the eventual decay of the genetic code responsible for producing that particular phenotype. Would you agree on that?

Perhaps we can use genes for our olfactory receptors (ORs). We have, in our DNA, the genes for many more ORs which are not active due to the lack of selective pressures. As we evolved from a nocturnal species, and gained the usage of our eyes (light detection), we required fewer receptors for detecting food and predators by smell. I'm sure we'll agree that using visual queues rather than odours would be more efficient during the daytime. Those ORs genes are there by many series of duplication and modifications which were beneficial at some point.

If we can agree on that, the steps required to have random mutations work towards the organisms benefit are just as easy to understand. The selective pressures from an organisms environment result in predictable phenotype drifts, which are a result of the genes. That is not to say we expect a particular order for the genetic mutations, but that the overall result would be to satisfy the demands of natural selection as best as possible.

I hope I'm on the right track in this explanation. Let me know if I misunderstood your concern.

All the best,


Faysal

 

[Trumble]

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.

I was talking about the context of this solar system - to date, only Earth has any real evidence of evolution. To use your lottery example; the probability of anyone person winning the lottery is no where near 1:1 (even then, that still has to factor in at least 10 more variables)

Sorry, I missed this earlier. The probability of a lottery winner having won the lottery is precisely 1:1, it is a certainty. Note the tense, as it is that situation we are talking about 'in the context of this solar system'. The relevant probability is therefore not that of life arising in one particular solar system, but in ANY solar system, including as many variables as you like. But our own solar system had no significance above that of billions of billions of others until life did arise here, hence there is no 'statistical insignificance'. If life was going to happen at all it had to happen somewhere, and obviously the question could only be discussed where it did!

 

[Chuck]

Sorry, I missed this earlier. The probability of a lottery winner having won the lottery is precisely 1:1, it is a certainty. Note the tense, as it is that situation we are talking about 'in the context of this solar system'. The relevant probability is therefore not that of life arising in one particular solar system, but in ANY solar system, including as many variables as you like. But our own solar system had no significance above that of billions of billions of others until life did arise here, hence there is no 'statistical insignificance'. If life was going to happen at all it had to happen somewhere, and obviously the question could only be discussed where it did!

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.:statisfie

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.