Intelligent Design

Juice · 2009-10-15T13:04:48-04:00

This thread is for those who wish to discuss and debate the science behind “Intelligent Design Theory” (ID). I would like to remind those, wishing to partici…

Re:#451372

By Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD - December 18th, 2023, 6:04 pm

- December 18th, 2023, 6:04 pm #451372

Meleagar wrote: ↑December 8th, 2009, 9:39 am
The idea of random mutations acted on by "natural" selection as being the engines of successful, functional biological diversity has been effectively dead for years.

There was absolutely no science or math that supported natural selection was a sufficient sorting process for what it was claimed to produce. Yes, you can observe it in action, but just because you can observe something doesn't mean that it can accomplish everything you attribute to it.

ID proponents have produced the mathematical analysis of evolutionary and ID processes that indicate evolution is entirely inexplicable via random and unintelligent components, and that only ID can provide the necessary active (target) information required by evolutionary searches to reach functional, specified biological targets.

The process of evolution is obviously intelligent, not blind, and not random. Formal examination via a statistical analysis of the capacity of blind and random processes to generate successful, novel biological features strongly indicates non-intelligent processes are not up to the task of creating or sorting the information required, while what we know of ID as expressed by humans is up to the coding and meta-regulatory system generation challenge, making ID the best scientific explanation available.