"Programming of Life" intelligent design video

Post Reply
User avatar
njd83
Posts: 213
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 12:45 pm

"Programming of Life" intelligent design video

Post by njd83 » Tue Oct 29, 2013 7:44 pm

If anyone hasn't seen it, being interested in the Creation/Evolution debate, you might like to check out this video on youtube. You can buy hard copies too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00vBqYDBW5s

Its not a Christian production but an intelligent design presentation about information theory. (and molecular biology)

Blessings to all

Noah

User avatar
njd83
Posts: 213
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 12:45 pm

Quote from Refuting Evolution (Sarfati) on "Design"

Post by njd83 » Mon Nov 11, 2013 10:23 am

Is the design explanation legitimate?

Chapter 9

As pointed out in previous chapters, Teaching about Evolution frequently dismisses creation as ‘unscientific’ and ‘religious.’ Creationists frequently point out that creation occurred in the past, so cannot be directly observed by experimental science—and that the same is true of large-scale evolution. But evolution or creation might conceivably have left some effects that can be observed. This chapter discusses the criteria that are used in everyday life to determine whether something has been designed, and applies them to the living world. The final section discusses whether design is a legitimate explanation for life’s complexity or whether naturalistic causes should be invoked a priori.

How do we detect design?

People detect intelligent design all the time. For example, if we find arrowheads on a desert island, we can assume they were made by someone, even if we cannot see the designer.1

There is an obvious difference between writing by an intelligent person, e.g. Shakespeare’s plays, and a random letter sequence like WDLMNLTDTJBKWIRZREZLMQCOP.2 There is also an obvious difference between Shakespeare and a repetitive sequence like ABCDABCDABCD. The latter is an example of order, which must be distinguished from Shakespeare, which is an example of specified complexity.

We can also tell the difference between messages written in sand and the results of wave and wind action. The carved heads of the U.S. presidents on Mt Rushmore are clearly different from erosional features. Again, this is specified complexity. Erosion produces either irregular shapes or highly ordered shapes like sand dunes, but not presidents’ heads or writing.

Another example is the SETI program (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence). This would be pointless if there was no way of determining whether a certain type of signal from outer space would be proof of an intelligent sender. The criterion is, again, a signal with a high level of specified complexity—this would prove that there was an intelligent sender, even if we had no other idea of the sender’s nature. But neither a random nor a repetitive sequence would be proof. Natural processes produce radio noise from outer space, while pulsars produce regular signals. Actually, pulsars were first mistaken for signals by people eager to believe in extraterrestrials, but this is because they mistook order for complexity. So evolutionists (as are nearly all SETI proponents) are prepared to use high specified complexity as proof of intelligence, when it suits their ideology. This shows once more how one’s biases and assumptions affect one’s interpretations of any data. ...
edit: link to Refuting Evolution (Jonathan Sarfati Ph.D) book http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-index

Post Reply

Return to “Creation/Evolution”