First of all I am not endorsing Intelligent Design (Wikipedialink); I'm asking this because I (someone who does not have abackground in biology, organic chemistry, or philosophy) got into aconversation with someone who does endorse it, and I'm trying tosee his point of view as far as rationality can allow. Second ofall, I apologize for any vagueness; Intelligent Design isn't wellenough defined as a theory for me to help that. I also apologize ifthis is rehashing content already plentiful on the Internet, butfor my purposes I can't simply depend on the likes of Wikipedia orTalk Origins, so what I'm looking for here instead is to take theopposite approach and see, based on your informed minds, if therecould possibly be any reasonable likelihood of an ideal ID theorybeing adopted.
I'm looking for the most favorable consideration for what IDmight be if it were best developed as a viable hypothesis or theoryto get an idea of how far such a discussion is worth taking. Anunbiased, informed Devil's advocate, if you will.
My cursory investigation of what Stephen Meyers (video link) andMichael Behe (video link) say (correct me if I'm wrong) seems to bethat either the first cell was likely designed intelligentlyjudging by the complex code of DNA and that evolution took coursefrom there, or that the first cells were made and many instances ofevolution were from some kind of intelligently guided mutations aswas needed to make "irreducibly complex" cells or body functions(whether the guidance stops after the Cambrian or continued even tothe point of making different types of new bacteria and differenttypes of apes/humans or whether every single mutation and adaptiveability is being guided, I'm not sure if they're at any consensus,and that's why I don't know if I should stop my question atabiogenesis or include evolution). The person I spoke with alsobrought up some specific claims (everything looks designed, DNA hasordered, complex information, blood clotting is irreduciblycomplex, ID can and has make predictions like decades ago that"Junk DNA" wasn't junk) that I don't need you to debunk (I haveGoogle).
But if there could be any possible support or truth to any ofthe above, I would appreciate knowing about that. (Again, Devil'sadvocate so I can be informed and understand where the points comefrom.) Reading an ID book alone, it would be in places hard to knowwhere they differ from actual scientific conclusions. After all,when someone who seems to know what they're talking about and canexplain something in technical detail says that something isimpossible or extremely unlikely, it's hard for me to know why theywould be wrong (are they ignoring other possibilities?misrepresenting facts? are they really right and just getting thecold shoulder from an atheistic scientific community because itimplies a deity?). So I focus on mainstream sources, even if theydon't bother entertaining ID and leave me ignorant of its possiblevirtues. And thus I'm hoping someone from this informed communitymight enlighten me to what those possible virtues might be.
First of all I am not endorsing Intelligent Design (Wikipedialink); I'm asking this because I (someone who does not have abackground in biology, organic chemistry, or philosophy) got into aconversation with someone who does endorse it, and I'm trying tosee his point of view as far as rationality can allow. Second ofall, I apologize for any vagueness; Intelligent Design isn't wellenough defined as a theory for me to help that. I also apologize ifthis is rehashing content already plentiful on the Internet, butfor my purposes I can't simply depend on the likes of Wikipedia orTalk Origins, so what I'm looking for here instead is to take theopposite approach and see, based on your informed minds, if therecould possibly be any reasonable likelihood of an ideal ID theorybeing adopted.
I'm looking for the most favorable consideration for what IDmight be if it were best developed as a viable hypothesis or theoryto get an idea of how far such a discussion is worth taking. Anunbiased, informed Devil's advocate, if you will.
My cursory investigation of what Stephen Meyers (video link) andMichael Behe (video link) say (correct me if I'm wrong) seems to bethat either the first cell was likely designed intelligentlyjudging by the complex code of DNA and that evolution took coursefrom there, or that the first cells were made and many instances ofevolution were from some kind of intelligently guided mutations aswas needed to make "irreducibly complex" cells or body functions(whether the guidance stops after the Cambrian or continued even tothe point of making different types of new bacteria and differenttypes of apes/humans or whether every single mutation and adaptiveability is being guided, I'm not sure if they're at any consensus,and that's why I don't know if I should stop my question atabiogenesis or include evolution). The person I spoke with alsobrought up some specific claims (everything looks designed, DNA hasordered, complex information, blood clotting is irreduciblycomplex, ID can and has make predictions like decades ago that"Junk DNA" wasn't junk) that I don't need you to debunk (I haveGoogle).
But if there could be any possible support or truth to any ofthe above, I would appreciate knowing about that. (Again, Devil'sadvocate so I can be informed and understand where the points comefrom.) Reading an ID book alone, it would be in places hard to knowwhere they differ from actual scientific conclusions. After all,when someone who seems to know what they're talking about and canexplain something in technical detail says that something isimpossible or extremely unlikely, it's hard for me to know why theywould be wrong (are they ignoring other possibilities?misrepresenting facts? are they really right and just getting thecold shoulder from an atheistic scientific community because itimplies a deity?). So I focus on mainstream sources, even if theydon't bother entertaining ID and leave me ignorant of its possiblevirtues. And thus I'm hoping someone from this informed communitymight enlighten me to what those possible virtues might be.
