Evidence Against Chance and Necessity (Also Known As Darwinism) is Evidence for Design
| March 15, 2009 | Posted by GilDodgen under Intelligent Design |
In another thread, poster madsen presented the following challenge:
I’m holding out hope that the next post will concern positive evidence for ID rather than more critiques of Darwin.
In mathematics there is a method of proof called “proof by contradiction.” The logic behind this proof is the following: Establish two possible alternatives. Assume that one of the alternatives is true, and prove it to be logically contradictory. A superb example of proof by contradiction is Euclid’s (circa 300 BC) proof that the number of primes is infinite.
Let’s apply the method of proof by contradiction to the chance-and-necessity versus design debate.
Of course, this is not a mathematical model, but there are some very illuminating similarities. There are two options: 1) design (foresight and planning), and 2) the materialistic laws of physics, chemistry, and probability – which are purported to have produced all biological phenomena, from the information-processing machinery of the cell to the human mind.
Option 2) might have been believable in the 19th century, when it was thought that life was fundamentally simple, but it is completely unsupportable in light of modern science. The preponderance of scientific evidence and mathematical analysis weighs overwhelming in support of design, as a proof by contradiction.
Let us not hear about “self-organization.” Sodium chloride forms salt crystals, and water freezes into snowflakes, but salt crystals and snowflakes contain no information (other than that about how the molecules mechanically interact as they coalesce), and they certainly don’t form information-processing machinery.
Of course, there is always the possibility that there is a third option, besides design versus chance and necessity, but I’d like to hear it. In the meantime, logic, evidence, and mathematics weigh heavily on the side of design, as a proof by contradiction.
218 Responses to Evidence Against Chance and Necessity (Also Known As Darwinism) is Evidence for Design
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Joseph,
I would say if we were talking about a “complex” organism such as a mammal, then it’s sure to have parents in the usual sense.
On the other hand, there could be borderline cases. The RNA enzymes that Joyce and Lincoln are working with are categorized as nonliving, but are able to reproduce themselves.
Actually there were two and one aided the other in its replication.
And even then it was only under ideal conditions.
Joseph,
True, but the same could be said about human reproduction.
Joseph quoting iconofid: “And I repeat, for the umpteenth time, FSCI cannot be a prerequisite for its own existence.”
Joseph: “Why not?
Just saying it doesn’t make it so.”
Because if so, it could not exist, obviously.
I.D. is not an explanatory theory for the existence of FSCI.
Joseph: “The question of FCSI/ CSI/ SC is one of ORIGINS.”
So what are the origins of FCSI, CSI, and SC. Can you answer without invoking an agency that would require them?
I suggest “chemical reactions”.
Icon:
1] The ultimate origin of FSCI is an origins question.
2] The origin of instances of FSCI where we may observe it, is an empirical one. And,t eh answer is: intelligence.
3] Since FSCI is about functional information that sits in very large configuration spaces, finding it by non-directed contingency is inherently very hard to do, indeed, credibly will exhaust the probabilistic resources of our observed universe.
4] Polymers can form long chains indeed, but for those chains to be code-bearing and to work together in complex information processing algorithmic systems is a matter of extremely high contingency and functionality. [We are dealing not with orderly sequence complexity or random sequence complexity but with functional sequence complexity.]
5] On empirically massively supported induction, FSCI traces to intelligence, i.e it manifests purposefully directed contingency. that may not sit comfortably with evolutionary materialist views of origins, but it has this weighty merit: it is empirically warranted, massively so, independent of one’s worldviews.
6] So much so, tha tit would be wise to adjust one’s worldview to comport with that instead of asking for stochastic miracles while imposing Lewontinan a priorism to question-beggingly exclude the obvious and empirically well supported alternative, as in:
GEM of TKI
iconofid,
EVERY time we have observed CSI and knew the cause it has ALWAYS been via agency involvement- ALWAYS.
Now if we ever observe CSI arising without agency involvement then you will have a point.
As for chemical reactions- great- just show us that chemical reactions can string together functional macro-molecules.
madsen,
Human reproduction does not require ideal conditions.
Unless “ideal” is a wide and varied concept.
Joseph,
Nevertheless, it does appear that non-living matter can have offspring.