I am just curious as to what thinkatheist has to offer on the possibilities of intelligent design vs abiogenesis.
Remember that ID is NOT religion and doesn't even imply the existence of a deity. It is simply the idea that even the most basic theoretical form of sustained life is so complex, it couldn't possibly have started by itself without any intelligent intervention.
Thank you for your replies :)
What a novel premise, I wish we could all live by such a simple rule. If we would, we could see that evolution should be abandoned since Darwin himself said that if life were found to be extremely complex his theory would break down.
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
Scientific case and point, the flagellum motor that could not have existed prior to its finalized state. The parts may be able to be located, but the locomotive element required for assembly could not have worked prior to is completion.
When we stop attacking each other because of bias, we can then grasp at the truth, as IT really presents itself.
The best part about your argument is that you ignore the primary function of the eubacterial flagellum altogether, which is not motility but secretion. You also ignore that many eubacteria don't even have flagellum and yet can still move just fine using other mechanisms. You also ignore that some prokaryotes don't move. You are also mistaken altogether- you can remove parts from flagellum and they will still function; it's been done, look it up.
Calling something non-science implies the lack of science. This is not that case for ID since we are talking about scientific inquiry. I think the fact that such design is found within the complex organism of life; it doesn't take a genius to see a designer. Irreducible complexity as defined by Behe in this way;
"By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.
If you take a basic part away from a car for instance, the car will stop running, this is not theory, its fact. This goes for integral parts of life as well. The system breaks down if essential parts are removed.
"Calling something non-science implies the lack of science"
Notice Nelson said "pseudoscience" which means "false science".
"If you take a basic part away from a car for instance, the car will stop running, this is not theory, its fact. This goes for integral parts of life as well. The system breaks down if essential parts are removed."
It is also a fact that cars do not magically poof into existence but are built incrementally from the ground up. It is also a fact that cars do not reproduce and are therefore not subject to natural selection or other evolutionary mechanisms. It is also a fact that you can remove any part from any car and the car can still function in some other way and so can the part you removed.
You are either intentionally deceitful or you are have not read On the Origin of Species. You left out what Darwin says next-
Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound. (Darwin 1872, 143-144)
Darwin continues describing a sequence of plausible intermediate stages between eyelessness and human eyes, giving examples from existing organisms to show that the intermediates are viable.
Intelligent design is not an intelligent idea.
Is it complex? That’s an opinion. Some could argue…. Some will argue that life is not complex. By whom or what standard is life complex? To human standards? To your standards?
I nominate the above reply to be "Best reply to the ID vs abiogenesis question" in the category of "not just dismissing the ID hypothesis"
ID does not name a deity but it does imply one. The Discovery Institute used creation textbooks and simply removed god from the text and replaced it with ID. The court has found ID to be religious to it's core and ruled so.
Intelligent design requires a designer, i.e god. So I don't know where you're coming from saying ID is not religion & doesn't implies a deity.
I'd love to hear about your version of ID which it seems is sans a designer.