Why would irreducible complexity logically lead to intelligent design?

DNA and the human body are far too complex to be thrown together by chance. DNA is a very complex organic computer program that could never evolve. So either you believe in the ET seed theory, or in a Designer. Evolution requires billions of years to even get to the simple cell. Even simple Bacterial Flagellum contains a sophisticated acid-powered rotary propulsion system much like an electric motor! http://www.meta-library.net/media/flglm-lg.jpg

I am not sure if that argument answers the specifics of your question, but that is how I see it.

I also have the view that if a secular scientist were sent to investigate a meteor that impacted the earth and upon scraping the crust away, the scientist is amazed to find a perfect, sphere of polished metal. Back at the lab, he sees that he can unscrew the hemispheres apart. Inside he finds a very elaborate system of gyros, propulsion and visual cameras. If damaged, the internal systems can repair itself. Would the scientist marvel at how long it took to have such a mechanism accidentally evolve in space? Or would he choose to believe it was created by an advanced designer somewhere outside of terrestrial domain? Because he is a secular scientist, he has no problem with thinking the latter. Yet if we say we believe in a Creator, we are branded as unscientific or mindless zealots.

In order for the math of evolution to be even remotely possible, you would need millions of years of mutation and adaptation. . John A. Eddy (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics) and Aram A. Boomazian (mathematician with S. Ross Co.) have determined that the sun has been contracting about 0.1% per century. The data examined spanned a 400-year period of solar observation, so that this shrinkage of the sun, though small, is apparently continual. If the sun was larger in the past than it is now by 0.1% per century, a creationist, who may believe that the world was created approximately six thousand years ago, has very little to worry about, for the sun would have been only 6% larger at point of origin to now. However, 100 thousand years ago, the sun would have been twice the size it is now, and it is hard to imagine that any life could exist under such altered conditions. Yet 100 thousand years is a minuscule amount of time when dealing with traditional evolutionary time scales.

Science has its own set of beliefs and faiths. Evolution, which is merely a theory accepted as fact, is just an agenda to keep God out of the public arena. If those who wish to cast out any form of religion out of the schools, they must also do the same with evolution--it is a faith with just as many zealots.

If there is going to be any unbiased answer on both sides of this faction, it will need to be proven via math and probability. Wouldn't you agree?

Hi Ben

You've raised an interesting point. It makes me ask - why shouldn't evolution be held up to close scrutiny? And do you really believe that intelligent design isn't scrutinized by it's critics?

I say to anyone who wants to scrutinize ID "Go right ahead! Please." The truth is not threatened; it will hold up under close scrutiny.

You say that in order for ID to compete as an explanation it should be required to justify the mechanism used by the Creator. I will concede this is true - if the same demand will be required of the theory of evolution.

Evolutionist have a hard sale to pitch. They must reconcile how it is that a cell can only be synthesized according to the code of it's DNA with the fact that DNA does not and cannot exist outside of that cell. There is a chicken and egg problem.

This is the essence of irreducible complexity; and the problem is not going to go away.

Another migraine headache for evolutionist: Polystrate trees. These are found vertically, standing through several strata which is supposed to span "millions" of years of geologic time. If it took millions of years to deposit these layers, then how can these trees fossilize?

Your Quote:

Actually, Michael T, I've got nothing against faith. I just don't think it should be taught in science class.

You believe that nothing in biology is irreducible. Just for fun What came first Blood or Arteries? How can you have DNA in a cell without Cell Walls? How did DNA enolve?

Please list all the options that might account for life. I can only see two. Chance or a creator. (Aliens don't count because that only begs the question, "How did their life start?"

Which is correct? Whichever, it is accepted on faith. I agree, origins of life should not be taught in the science class but the Philosophy class.

By the way, why did you post your question in the Religion section. You must realize that what you are asking is not Science but Religion.

It must take a lot of faith to believe that the cell is NOT irreducable.

I guess that you should ban youself from any science class because you have too much faith.

It takes brains to design anything irreducibly complex. Every living thing is irreduciby complex if you research it properly.

Evolution has more holes in it than Swiss cheese. Did you know that Charles Darwin actually rejected his own theories after researching the truth - that's all he published, theories, no proof. He turned to Jesus before he died, not because someone tried to "convert" or brainwash him, but because he could not disprove the facts.

Christianity will always be held up to the most severe scrutiny. It always has been and I fail to see how you can deny this.This is because when we are faced with the absolute conviction that Jesus was right, then we have to admit the existence of God, and our responsibility to Him, which takes away our control and makes us accountable for our life choices.

You don;t think like God so you willo never understand Him fully.

If you can disprove Jesus, go ahead. Many have tried and failed. Could this be because He was right?

As for me, when Christianity fails, I will give it up, but I know this could never happen since Jesus is the Truth. Until then I'm on a roll!

Koala

By the way, God invites debate from anyone. Try it!

The entire theory of irreducible complexity boils down to the assumption that a creator or designer had to be involved.

The examples offered to support the irreducible complexity argument have generally been found to fail to meet the definition anyway.

For instance, Behe's toy model used to illustrate the concept, the mouse trap, was countered by critics including biology professor John McDonald, who produced examples of how he considered the mousetrap to be "easy to reduce", eventually to a single part.

Most, or all, of the examples given to support the idea of irreducible complexity are based on misunderstandings of the workings of biological systems.

Bottom line, irreducible complexity hasn't been established in the first place, scientifically. Once it has, let's have this argument.

WRT your Response to Schneb, "I Would Choose a Infinitesimal Probability Over a Probability of Zero Everytime." In my Estimation, it is the Responsibility of the people (or person) Making a Contention to Provide Evidence, Not the Other Way Around.

This is not the foundation of intelligent design, it's just a means of explaining.

It's not just irreducible complexity, it's the interconnectedness of processes that can't evolve one at a time.

Edit: I don't really follow intelligent design, I'm a fundamental creationist. But when interconnected systems cannot evolve seperately, it's hard to explain their existence through evolution. (I would say impossible, but I'd give you a shot.)

What you're missing is that the "designer" has no limits. The whole reason to use him as the explanation for difficult-to-understand phenomena is that there is a point beyond which they don't want to have to think. Sure we understand DNA now, and inheritabilty of traits, but where did DNA come from?

That's hard... I say it was god!! Se how that works? Now if you come along and say "But how did god do it?!?" There is no point in using god as a crutch in the 1st place.

As a proponent of Creationism, I say thank you. I would very much like to understand the mechanisms involved in creating the universe, and the logic of it's design. If science would like to return its focus to how the universe was created, rather than attempting to prove that it wasn't (a negative theory), I would be most grateful.

All of creation demonstrates "reductions", your question rather should be how is it possible God reduced himself in all things? Yet continues to be uncontainable! Friend look up the word "Ephah" then study out the word "lent" and "Dominus"! Then you will understand, as we build armour to protect ourselves in war, driving, housing,etc from harm. Like wise God formed all things to project the image that what is seen is all there is. One false the other true, nature itself demonstrates this! We see it everytime spring comes, every ecliptic which is overshadowing! Friend you have posted the most mature question I've seen on here besides ours. Great question it would be our delight to discuss more indept with you! Thanks