Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

KuRmA's post might properly be seen as belonging to the "Evolution? How?" thread--but are nevertheless germane to the topic of whether or not "intelligent design" constitutes religion or science.

What this member attempts to suggest is that the rise of replicable amino acid molecules and the development of RNA and DNA could not be mere coincidence, but must be evidence of design, based upon a contention that the conditions on earth billions of years ago were fundamentally inimical to the formation of such complex, self-replicating molecules.

However, such a stance begs the question, because it assumes that the amino acids with which we are familiar and from which RNA and DNA are cosntructed are the unique and necessary components of self-replicating "life." It ignores that what we see is a product of the conditions which existed, and that there is no good reason to assume that any particular environment was necessary for life to arise. We only have a single example of life, that which we encounter on this planet. We are supremely ignorant of whether or not any other form of life is possible, or if the form of life with which we are familiar might have formed under a different set of circumstances.

This post is a continuation of my other post. Considering the code of the DNA as a complex software which controls all the activities of the cells, if you cannot show within reasonable probability how it could be produced by chance interaction of amnio acids then it can be taken as evidence of intelligent behind the design. I can't see how you can show it with reasonable probability - even the with the help of the PAHs it's still chance combination.

That's not the only issue I am raising - the activities of the cell are all coordinated by the software in the DNA, and yet the formation of the cell itself didn't require any such coordination but depended on chance bonding of amino acids. It seems a bit far fetched, unless I am missing something in which case please help me understand.

Aren't we trying to understand how life formed on this planet - the idea of life on other planets is itself a contentious point. If we have no idea of the conditions that produced life then how can we say anything about how it was formed? The understanding of the hostile conditions is not my own - it comes from scientists in this field of reseach - but scientists can beg to differ with each other because it is all speculation at the moment.

However, i would point out that because of the circumstances, the chances were very probable.

Now you seem to contradict yourself.

You are not correct in stating that DNA controls all the activities of a cell. DNA allows the replication of the cell, but the activities of the cell include many energetic processes which do not rely upon DNA or RNA.

Now, however, by saying that you consider that cells could arise without DNA or RNA to be farfetched, it appears that you are again claiming that there must have been a "design intent" to produce the result, to which i would reply, bullshit. I rather think you are either not expressing youself well, or you are confused in what you are attempting to articulate.

You are obviously missing the point i am making. You are putting the cart befor the horse, by assuming that we must account for the rise of DNA and RNA from the conditions on earth billions of years ago, rather than recognizing that DNA and RNA eventually arose precisely because the consitions were as they then were.

But the conditions are of such complexity that they cannot possibly be understood. Suppose the earth to be 10 cms nearer to the sun and orbiting 1mph faster and spinning 1 mph slower with a slight difference in the wobble due to it's formation event being ten billion years earler than it was plus an unquantifiable amount of other variations.

To offer solutions to such complexities out of a very simple knowledge of a selected handful of possible physical and chemical possibilities and to use them to determine classroom technique for 50 million children in a manner which is approved of by the prejudices of the source of the solutions, which is suspect anyway solipsistically, seems to me to be a type of arrogance which has broken free of the moorings of human reality and, as such, as unscientific as it is possible to get.

I don't think "bullshit" is a very articulate argument against design intent.

Setanta wrote:

However, i would point out that because of the circumstances, the chances were very probable.

Based on what? Is there a probability study on this based on hypothetical conditions and the chemical ingredients? How do you judge if something is highly probable or not when the processes involved are so complex that we cannot even produce a single celled organism in the laboratory.

Now you seem to contradict yourself.

Okay - point taken. But the DNA does manage the replication of the cell - the argument of how the cell managed to form in the first place requires no management. I find that hard to believe considering how complex a cell is.

What I am saying is that I have not seen anything that convinces me that the DNA could have been produced by chance. I don't think "bullshit" is a very articulate argument against design intent.

So what you are saying is that because life exists the conditions for the DNA and RNA to be produced by chance must have been there billions of years ago. My contention is how could it have arisen by chance. Statements like "the chances were very probable" are not going to convince me unless you elaborate.

KuRmA wrote-

Quote:

I don't think "bullshit" is a very articulate argument against design intent.

You had better get used to it mate. Setanta uses such techniques so often that one might easily assume his friends and neighbours are dealt with in the same easy manner. He sometimes fluffs it up into whole sentences or even quite long paragraphs.

You had better get used to it mate. Setanta uses such techniques so often that one might easily assume his friends and neighbours are dealt with in the same easy manner. He sometimes fluffs it up into whole sentences or even quite long paragraphs.

This has got to be your most idiotic sally yet. Based on the fact that life proliferates riotously, and has done for billions of years. Duh . . .

...you run smack up against the problem of "design intent," the implication of which is that there is a designer. Then you'll be in the position of describing the nature of the designer, and the designer's intent. After all, if the evidence point to a designer, as you seem to suggest, it is completely reasonable to expect that you can describe the designer.

You are complaining that it is hard to believe that cells could form without DNA, given the complexity of the cell. However, that assumes that the first cells were that complex. What reason do you have for assuming that the initial cellular life was possessed of cells as complex as those which exist today?

What I am saying is that I have not seen anything that convinces me that the DNA could have been produced by chance. I don't think "bullshit" is a very articulate argument against design intent.

Cellular organisms, DNA and RNA are faits accomplis--they exist. Unless you are willing to deny that they exist, then there can be few arguments so compelling for the felicity of conditions on the ancient earth than that they do exist.

Irony, forsooth! Guard yourself, Engineer, from the sort of irony that thrives up here; guard yourself altogether from taking on their mental attitude! Where irony is not a direct and classic device of oratory, not for a moment equivocal to a healthy mind, it makes for depravity, it becomes a drawback to civilization, an unclean traffic with the forces of reaction, vice and materialism.

The assertion business is your forte, there's no doubt of that. You seem to prefer the unsubstantiated assertion.