A Study of Intelligent Design Debate

I'm afraid I've fallen down on the job regarding Forum guidelines. After the site redesign the guidelines no longer appear in any prominent place. Links to the guidelines are listed on the Navigation page, or you can click here:Debating GuidelinesPart of the problem is that the guidelines should be redesigned to be consistent with the redesign of the site and with the move in emphasis away from formalized debate, so for now let us use the guidelines from the Yahoo site:Yahoo GuidelinesI'll revise the guidelines and place a link in a place of greater prominence in the near future.--Percy

Hi, Retro!Kudos for reading up.Independent of arguments for and against Intelligent Design, it is already well established that numerical relationships exist throughout nature (eg, much of physics is just math). We must ask ourselves what conclusions should be drawn from the discovery of mathematical relationships for which there appear to be no underlying physical explanation, such as the ones described at The evidence is almost scary. Even if the mathematical relationships described at this site are as accurate and amazing as purported, what would it mean? Would it be an indication of intelligent design, or a hint at an underlying and as yet undiscovered physical relationship?It's also important to look at the claims carefully to check for accuracy. Here's the table from that site's overview:

Planet	Distance from the sun in km (000)	Distance where Mercury equals 1	Period where Mercury equals 1
Mercury	57,910	1.0000	1.0000
Venus	108,200	1.8660	2.5490
Earth	149,600	2.5833	4.1521
Mars	227,940	3.9365	7.8101
Jupiter	778,330	13.4399	49.2714

It then goes on to claim these relationships for distance:

( Earth ⁴ / Venus ³ ) + ( Venus ³ / Earth ⁴ ) = 7

( Mars ⁴ / Earth ³ ) + ( Earth ³ / Mars ⁴ ) = 14

Earth * ( 1 + 2 + 3 + 6 ) = Jupiter

There's no pattern in these relationships. First look at the first two equations. It's interesting that values for Earth/Venus and Mars/Earth are very nearly integer values of 7 and 14, and that one is double the other, but the value for Venus/Mercury, which the author conveniently ignores, is 12.2, while that for Jupiter/Mars is 534.8782. Plug these values into a table and it looks somewhat less than amazing:Further destroying any pattern is the relationship drawn between Earth and Jupiter, which uses an entirely different equation. Also, the number in his table for the distance of Jupiter divided by the distance of Mercury is 13.4399, but if you do the math it's actually 13.4403. 13.4399 is the value obtained from his Jupiter/Earth equation. Given that the distances one uses for the planets can be fudged somewhat (the orbits are elliptical) I think he's fiddled with his numbers a bit to make things all the more amazing.It is pretty amazing that this equation holds:

Distance of the Earth = Period of Venus * Phi

But this next equation is so far off that maybe there's a typo:

Distance of Mars = Period of Earth * Diameter of Venus' Orbit

The problem with the above is that the right hand side is 4.1521*2*1.866 which equals 15.4956, not 3.9365.But typo or not, the much bigger problem with these relationships is that they aren't continuous. If the distance of Earth is related to the period of Venus by Phi, then why isn't the same true for Venus/Mercury, Mars/Earth and Jupiter/Mars. Not to mention all the other planets.Given the number of mathematical operators and the huge number of measured values in nature, it's easy to find coincidental relationships that might seem amazing. The relationships described at this website don't apply consistently to all the planets, and so likely do not relate to any underlying physical reality. And how such relationships support ID is not clear either.--Percy

Hi, PhiGuy!You are indeed correct, I missed the square root signs in that last equation while punching the buttons on my calculator - thanks for pointing that out. But this was not why I thought the data in the table was "fiddled with." That was because 778,330/57,910, which is the normalized distance of Jupiter using Mercury's distance as a measuring stick, is 13.4403. But the value given in the table is instead 13.4399, which is what one gets from the very equation about which the amazing relationship is claimed:

Earth * ( 1 + 2 + 3 + 6 ) = Jupiter

That's not to say it isn't an amazing relationship. Like you, I consider the difference between 13.4399 and 13.4403 insignificant. But still, the normalized distance for Jupiter in the first table is wrong, and the incorrect value in its place is suspiciously that yielded by the very equation about which the relationship is claimed.I think Retro asks the right question, and it can be placed in a planetary context: Why look for relationships involving only some of the planets when physics provides equations that describe all of it? For example:

F = Ma

F = G (m₁m₂/r²)

For velocities near light speed there are relativistic versions of these equations.So, what does it mean that the orbital motions and alignments of all planetary bodies can be described using a consistent set of mathematical relationships? Is the mere presence of a mathematical relationship sufficient indication of an IDer?--Percy

---

PhiGuy writes:
Stephen Wolfram, regarded by some as the next Isaac Newton, is using his theory of cellular automata to redefine science as we know it with an underlying structure of rules, and has shown Gould's work on evolution to be in error. (Wolfram article in Forbes) (Recap)

---

The Forbes article was interesting, but a bit fawning, don't you think? I'm sure Stephen Wolfram is brilliant, but isn't stuff like "He demolishes some of the foundational theories in many of the fields" a bit over the top?Perhaps Wolfram has identified an error in Gould's doctoral thesis on seashells, but isn't the traditional place to point this out in journals of evolutionary biology rather than interviews in financial magazines? Shouldn't the scientific community have the opportunity to review Wolfram's work? Is Wolfram perhaps taking his arguments to the public because of ongoing resentment "at how his theory [on cellular automata] was being perverted" in the scientific community?It might even be possible that either the interviewer or Wolfram or both have misunderstood Gould's doctoral findings. Contrary to the description in the Forbes interview, this excerpt from a Gould biography states that Gould's work did not find support for the view that natural selection is responsible for shell shape:

For his doctoral thesis he investigated variation and evolution in an obscure Burmudian land snail, anchoring his later theorizing in intense scrutiny of a single group of organisms, as Darwin had done with Barnacles.

​

At one point, he hoped to find correlation between variation and different ecologies within the creature's range, but the snails' sizes, colors and shell shapes seemed to vary quite independently of local environment. Impressed with the importance of nonselectionist factors in evolution, he also became interested in structural constraints: How slight changes in one feature must alter several others within definite limitswhat Darwin had called "correlation of parts."

You offer a good summary of the argument from design:

---

PhiGuy writes:
Life is not a mere assemblage of the right compounds or proteins. It's a dynamic system, with unparalleled precision in design, of interdependent systems (circulation, locomotion, respiration, ingestion, reproduction, MORE)and even the best Miller-Urey experiments produce nothing like DNA or even the molecules that hold DNA's more complex amino acids together. You could put a frog in a blender and have not only all the essential proteins for life, but complete cells that surpass any dreamed of by abiogenesis theory. What you won't have, however, is life.

---

There's little to argue with here, but how do you progress from the subjective impression of design to objective evidence for design?--Percy

SLP, John Paul,My experience in these discussions, and I'm sure your own isn't that different, is:

• Few, if any, participants actually have insincere motives.
  ​
• Accusations, even when accurate (not that any among us has ever issued an inaccurate accusation ), do nothing to move discussion forward, and often impede it.

Please turn the other cheek and follow the Forum Guidelines. Thanks!

--Percy
EvC Forum Administrator

Hi PhiGuy!That was a really well-written post. Sorry it's taken me a couple days to get back to you.I not only understand the point you're making, it may surprise you to learn I even accept God as our creator. Like you I see evidence of God's work all around us, but unlike you I reach no conclusions about how God designed. While I believe it is within God's power to yank inert matter about and imbue it with the qualities of life, indeed, within his power to do anything he pleases, I see no evidence of God's direct circumvention of physical laws.Since everywhere I look all I see is matter and energy obeying physical laws, I believe God must be extremely subtle. Though responsible for everything, he has somehow managed to avoid leaving detectable fingerprints.The argument from design is the answer to nothing because it is the answer to everything. Thousands of years ago the questions were how does the sun go across the sky, who made the mountains and who made the stars, and the answer was God. Today the questions have changed, but the answer is the same.My view of an all-powerful yet subtle God is that he created a universe where abiogenesis and evolution were possible, which is perhaps a better trick then just breathing life into clay.--Percy

I don't you to waste your time - I don't think I could even pin myself down on this one. The only thing I can say I believe with certainty is that none of the world's religions, either organized or personal and including my own, know God or anything about him. Anyone that becomes specific about God must be wrong. I'm wrong right now --Percy

---

John Paul writes:
What physical law states that life can arise from non-life? Or is that one of the 'as yet unknown physical laws'?

---

It's just chemistry with a dash of physics.

---

Seeing that we can only look so far and that your observations are being done now, we have no way of knowing how all we observe came to be in the first place.

---

We dig from the ground and ferret out from the universe around us the results of experiments completed long ago. From the evidence available to us today we form theories and deem them tentative against the possibility that they may be altered or replaced in light of new knowledge or improved understanding.

---

Percy writes:
The argument from design is the answer to nothing because it is the answer to everything.

---

---

John Paul replies:
How do you figure? It does NOT answer how things function. It does not answer how do we maintain it. Well hey, there's 2 questions it doesn't answer just off the top of my head.

---

The problem for ID is that it removes from consideration such questions as you pose here. For example, you don't ask how various chemicals and compounds behaved during abiogenesis because for you the IDer did it and that's the end of the investigation.

---

Percy writes:
Thousands of years ago the questions were how does the sun go across the sky, who made the mountains and who made the stars, and the answer was God. Today the questions have changed, but the answer is the same.

---

---

John Paul replies:
That would be assuming that Adam (& Eve) did not have knowledge of such things. Is that a safe assumption?

---

I was simply mentioning what's already a matter of historical record, that the less the scientific knowledge of any civilization the more common it was for the various natural phenomena to be attributed to the supernatural. ID is just the latest incarnation of attributing what we don't know, which has now gotten microscopic, to God.

---

Percy writes:
My view of an all-powerful yet subtle God is that he created a universe where abiogenesis and evolution were possible, which is perhaps a better trick then just breathing life into clay.

---

---

John Paul replies:
That seems to be a round-about way of getting the desired results.

---

Perhaps, but who knows the mind of God?--Percy

---

John Paul wrote:
What physical law states that life can arise from non-life? Or is that one of the 'as yet unknown physical laws'?

---

---

Percy replied:
It's just chemistry with a dash of physics.

---

---

John Paul answers:
Nice baseless assertion. More evidence that evolutionists tend to oversimplify matters.

---

I wasn't saying anything controversial. The same laws governing life and non-life today would govern the transition between them, namely just chemistry and physics.

---

John Paul writes:
That is not true and is close to being a blatant misrepresentation. ID cares about function.

---

Creationists might care about function, but ID doesn't. Creationists in general want to know things like how the Grand Canyon was created and how the fossil progression came to be, but ID is a philosophy whose purpose is to assign divine origins to unanswered questions.My comments were made in the context of Behe style ID. Investigation ceases for those things ID believes were divinely accomplished. ID would never investigate how propeller propulsion or blood coagulation evolved, because it believes they are irreducibly complex and therefore divinely created.--Percy

---

Percy wrote:
I wasn't saying anything controversial. The same laws governing life and non-life today would govern the transition between them, namely just chemistry and physics.

---

---

John Paul replied:
However that is NOT demonstratable, not testable, not repeatable and not verifiable. That alone makes it controversial.

---

Your original question asked what physical laws would apply to life arising from non-life, and I answered chemistry and physics. I wasn't saying or implying anything more than that. I'm aware we disagree about abiogenesis, but that would be a topic for another thread.The reason ID using IR is not a scientifically valid approach is due to the inability to define objective standards by which something is deemed IR. For example, Behe deems blood coagulation IR, but he doesn't really know which of these four categories is the actual case:

1. It has a natural origin for which evidence exists, we just haven't found that evidence yet.
   ​
2. It has a natural origin for which evidence exists and has been identified, but we lack the intellectual horsepower to understand it.
   ​
3. It has a natural origin for which evidence existed at one point in time, but that evidence has since been destroyed.
   ​
4. It's IR and the product of an IDer.

Added to this is the fact that there is no objective evidence for an IDer, which is much different from the Paley example of a watch found during walk - the finder of the watch is quite aware of people and their capabilities, and so is perfectly reasonable in assuming a person made it. ID, on the other hand, attributes actions to entities for which we have no evidence.--Percy

---

Schraf writes in message 97:
That a organism or system found in nature is amazing to humans does not equal ID or God.

---

---

John Paul replies in message 98:
And it isn't evidence for materialistic naturalism either. Now what?

---

---

TrueCreation replies in message 99:
Amazing must not be too amazing to you then. This doesn't apply to the ID argument.

---

I think Schraf is saying that the tendency of ID adherents to attribute to God that which they don't understand or cannot explain has strong parallels in human history. Evolutionists believe that such an approach is unscientific and are therefore trying to understand how, for example in the case of Behe, attributing poorly understood microbiological evolutionary pathways to God is any different.--Percy