0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is often stated as the law of increasing entropy: "A natural process always takes place in such a direction as to cause an increase in the entropy of the universe." (John Williams, "Modern Physics," Page 210). The effect of this law is that unless there is a purposeful source of energy operating in a system, the various parts, molecules, etc., become less and less organized and more and more random. Thus the only means to maintain the theory of evolution in light of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is to conclude that, while chance combinations of simple molecules into very complex ones would be extremely rare, given enough time, it could happen.
Alan, that's not an answer, it's just an assertion with argument from authority, which is a logical fallacy. In fact, the whole "Argument from Design" has been shown to be completely vacuous time after time even through simple logic. It's mind-numbing to see it repeated so many times
AMcDSo where did this intelligent designer come from?You have just offset the problem.
Stefan the question or title of the tread was "could there be as case for an intelligent designer?" and my answer is "yes there could be an intelligent designer" "not there is an intelligent designer" there is a great difference to these two answers!!There "could be an ID" "not there is an ID"
echochartruse:Where is the significance of the word "intelligent"? Why are you nitpicking about the use of that word?Humans are intelligent - so are Chimps. Many other organisms display intelligence. If someone described stem cells as behaving intelligently - so what?
The two really mean the same thing. Neither is any more true than the statement, "There are faeries at the bottom of my garden", or "I regularly ride my Invisible Pink Talking Flying Unicorn
Yes, but the universe seems to run by simple rules. An 'intelligent designer' would have to be much more complex than that.That's where Occam's razor kicks in, right there.Because science is based on Occam's razor, an intelligent designer is never realistically going to be the default position; unless there's some serious, reproducible God activity going down; and personally I'll believe that when I see it (I'm not holding by breath).In fact even if there was evidence of something that looked exactly like a God, Occam's razor would force you to consider every other possible simpler explanation first.
Now random mutations may refer to stem cells growing the same as their host- changing from one type to another
"But Dr. McFadden is pulling a bait-and-switch: he is using relatively trivial examples of evolution #1 to bolster more controversial definitions of "evolution." Thus if by "evolution" one means universal common descent (evolution #2), or neo-Darwinian evolution (evolution #3), where the primary adaptive force building the complexity of life is unguided natural selection acting upon random mutations, then many scientists would argue that such "evolution" most certainly is not a fact."http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/07/is_evolution_a_theory_or_fact_2.htmlI think that evolution being a fact is still being disputed in the scientific world, see above link.Now random mutations may refer to stem cells growing the same as their host- changing from one type to another.Anyway I just want to open your minds. I believe scientists should be creative thinking and not stop thinking just becasue someone thinks it is now 'FACT'
Highly intelligent people always try to get the simperlest answer to a question, so why do you suppose an ID would not do the same?I disagree with your statement that the universe is sustained by simple rules, in fact the universe is unimaginably complexCan you fathom supestring theory where there is a micro world of string particles that only Ed Witten can comprehend
I think that evolution being a fact is still being disputed in the scientific world, see above link.
Yes, but the universe seems to run by simple rules. An 'intelligent designer' would have to be much more complex than that.That's where Ockham's razor kicks in, right there.
Occam's razor, also Ockham's razor,[1] is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony", "law of economy", or "law of succinctness"): entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, roughly translated as "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity." An alternative version Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate translates "plurality should not be posited without necessity." [2]When multiple competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.Originally a tenet of the reductionist philosophy of nominalism, it is more often taken today as an heuristic maxim (rule of thumb) that advises economy, parsimony, or simplicity, often or especially in scientific theories. Here the same caveat applies to confounding topicality with mere simplicity. (A superficially simple phenomenon may have a complex mechanism behind it. A simple explanation would be simplistic if it failed to capture all the essential and relevant parts.)
There is no reason to assume a designer, other than the fact that you want to.
BenVQuoteThere is no reason to assume a designer, other than the fact that you want to.And like wise there is no reason to assume that "the universe is not the act of a great intellect". Even Einstein(I repeat) said that although in reality he was an atheistThere is no reason to disbelieve the possibilty of an ID other than the fact that you want toAlan