# Can God be a useful "scientific" hypothesis? Yes **URL:** \ **Category:** Side Conversation\ **Tags:** Science, Design\ **Created:** [May 9, 2021, 10:15pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/can-god-be-a-useful-scientific-hypothesis-yes/13699 "2021-05-09T22:15:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6

**Author:** ![RonSewell](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/ronsewell/32/6194_2.png) [@RonSewell](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/RonSewell)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2021, 4:36pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/can-god-be-a-useful-scientific-hypothesis-yes/13699/102 "2021-05-24T16:36:03Z")

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#): > > Moreover, I argue that harmful mutations that do arise are regulated in a way that ensures the timely death of individuals so that resources are available for the young and preserve a balance between predator and prey populations because too many predators or prey can cause a collapse of the ecosystem. Should I take it that you reject the notion that there was no death (logically or temporally) before the fall, and maintain that death is essential to the created natural order, and is not due to sin? ---

**Author:** ![Tim](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/tim/32/9381_2.png) [@Tim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Tim)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2021, 4:37pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/can-god-be-a-useful-scientific-hypothesis-yes/13699/103 "2021-05-24T16:37:44Z")

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#): > > I explained logically how and why God must be consistent with his nature based on the laws of logic. Do you want me to copy and paste this again? No. Because it is **beside the point**. Just because it is _at times_ consistent with God’s nature to do something (because of particular circumstances), **does not** mean that it is consistent with God’s nature to _always_ do it (no matter what the circumstances). The fact that it was (apparently) consistent with God’s nature to kill nearly everybody in a flood, does not mean that it is consistent with God’s nature to kill nearly everybody with a flood _at every opportunity._ You have _neither_ done a good job of demonstrating that God mimics humanity (at times) _nor_ have you demonstrated (at all, as far as I can see) that it is in God’s nature to _always_ do so. > [@Meerkat\_SK5](#): > > I already explained how all three observations COMBINED gives us reason to infer that it is probably personal like us. No. You _did not_ “explain” _how_ these observations “gives us reason to infer that it is probably personal like us.” You merely baldly asserted that they did. > [@Meerkat\_SK5](#): > > You have yet to explain why those observations do not show it. Yes I did: > [@Tim](#): > > They are simply a _non sequitor_ . I.e. these observations are _unrelated_ to the conclusion, in the same way as the following: 1. Roses are red. 2. Violets are blue. 3. Therefore I love peanut and jelly sandwiches. > [@Meerkat\_SK5](#): > > > [@Tim](#): > > > > I offered the article as a _refutation_ of your claim that theodicy was unrelated to the animal kingdom, **not** because I accepted its claims. > > No, this was not my argument. I merely responded to your assertion that our inability to comprehend, understand, and predict God’s actions applies to both nature and humanity. It has nothing to with Theodicy … Balderdash: > [@Meerkat\_SK5](#): > > > [@Tim](#): > > > > I would point out that there’s a whole body of theology: [Theodicy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy), Divine Ineffability, etc, that largely eliminate these purported constraints. If ‘God moves in mysterious way’, how can we tell if the hypothesis is disproven, or if God is just being mysterious again? > > That is in regards to God’s relationship with mankind NOT with his relationship with nature and the animal kingdom. It was _you_ who explicitly brought up “the animal kingdom” in response to an objection that explicitly included theodicy. > [@Meerkat\_SK5](#): > > …and even if it does, I already addressed it by explaining the Benevolent design hypothesis. Yes, and as I pointed out that “large screed of blather [is] utterly and egregiously irrelevant to the question of whether the theology involved is ‘NOT [related to God’s] relationship with nature and the animal kingdom.’” For a more detailed dissection of your purported ‘hypothesis’, I direct you to @Mercer’s [comment](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/can-god-be-a-useful-scientific-hypothesis-yes/13699/94). ---

**Author:** ![Jordan](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/jordan/32/756_2.png) [@Jordan](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Jordan)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2021, 6:02pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/can-god-be-a-useful-scientific-hypothesis-yes/13699/105 "2021-05-24T18:02:17Z")

This topic is getting a bit heated and without much ground gained. The options are to either close it down and have everyone walk away or to cool down a bit and try to refocus. I’ll try the 2nd first before pulling the plug. ---

**Author:** ![Jordan](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/jordan/32/756_2.png) [@Jordan](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Jordan)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2021, 6:03pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/can-god-be-a-useful-scientific-hypothesis-yes/13699/106 "2021-05-24T18:03:15Z")

@Meerkat_SK5 , you tend to say a lot but it’s kind of all over the place and you’re jumping to conclusions before demonstrating the validity of your premises. Let’s slow it down and work a bit at a time rather than an all-encompassing argument. Let’s start with you’re hypothesis: > [@Meerkat\_SK5](#): > > I am saying that God has directed mutations over the course of history to either choose beneficial, neutral, or harmful mutations in order to guide evolution to improvement of either survival, reproductive abilities or to fit ecological niches. So let’s get things more well defined. Do you have: 1. a mechanism by which God’s “choice” would be manifested biochemically? 2. a method to distinguish between “directed” and “undirected” mutation? 3. is mutation the only mechanism God would use to direct evolutionary outcomes? If so, why? 4. evidence, outside of the data used to distinguish between the two models, that God’s direction would be limited to “improvement of survival or to fit ecological niches”? > [@Meerkat\_SK5](#): > > I already I explained how we can theoretically test this additional mechanism to the evolutionary mechanism. I haven’t read _every_ post but I don’t think I’ve seen described a test that would actually distinguish between the ‘evolutionary biology’ mechanism and the ‘evolutionary biology + direction’ mechanism. A major hurdle is that by definition God’s choices or desires are not completely knowable. God’s decision making would not be a variable we could control. So I think we need to see a test of the form “if God directed evolution, then X will happen, and if God did not direct evolution then Y will happen” that actually distinguished between the two. ---

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2021, 6:24pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/can-god-be-a-useful-scientific-hypothesis-yes/13699/107 "2021-05-24T18:24:31Z")

> [@Jordan](#): > > > [@Meerkat\_SK5](#): > > > > I am saying that God has directed mutations over the course of history to either choose beneficial, neutral, or harmful mutations in order to guide evolution to improvement of either survival, reproductive abilities or to fit ecological niches. > > So let’s get things more well defined. Do you have: > > 1. a mechanism by which God’s “choice” would be manifested biochemically? > 2. a method to distinguish between “directed” and “undirected” mutation? > 3. is mutation the only mechanism God would use to direct evolutionary outcomes? If so, why? > 4. evidence, outside of the data used to distinguish between the two models, that God’s direction would be limited to “improvement of survival or to fit ecological niches”? 1. improvement of what, exactly? Survival, etc., of what, exactly? ---

**Author:** ![Michael\_Okoko](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/michael_okoko/32/13148_2.png) [@Michael\_Okoko](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Michael_Okoko)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2021, 7:49pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/can-god-be-a-useful-scientific-hypothesis-yes/13699/108 "2021-05-24T19:49:30Z")

> [@Jordan](#): > > So I think we need to see a test of the form “if God directed evolution, then X will happen, and if God did not direct evolution then Y will happen” that actually distinguished between the two. He has stated something to that effect with regards to design flaws. He says if God directed our evolution, then we shouldn’t find design flaws or sinister designs. I have repeatedly pointed that GULOP refutes his hypothesis because it is a serious disadvantage to those who have it and don’t get enough vitamin C in their diet. Mice have functional GULO, so when it is knocked out in the lab, the mice suffer scurvy-like disease and die afterwards. There is just no significant advantage to losing GULO activity. When he replies, he entirely ignores the serious challenge GULOP poses to his hypothesis and starts yapping something about the design of bronchial tubes as if it had anything to do with GULOP. He is here to do apologetics, not have a proper scientific discussion. Just watch his response to you later on or better still pull that plug and save us some brain power. ---

**Author:** ![Jordan](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/jordan/32/756_2.png) [@Jordan](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Jordan)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2021, 8:05pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/can-god-be-a-useful-scientific-hypothesis-yes/13699/109 "2021-05-24T20:05:06Z")

> [@Michael\_Okoko](#): > > > [@Jordan](#): > > > > So I think we need to see a test of the form “if God directed evolution, then X will happen, and if God did not direct evolution then Y will happen” that actually distinguished between the two. > > He has stated something to that effect with regards to design flaws. He says if God directed our evolution, then we shouldn’t find design flaws or sinister designs. Right, hence my “that actually distinguish” because I don’t know how you can actually determine what a design flaw or sinister design _is_. A general obstacle I see with any attempt at scientific hypotheses involving God (such as Intelligent Design) is that I don’t see how you get around the idea that you would have to _know_ God’s intentions, purposes, and design. _By definition_ we have incomplete knowledge and so you would never really be able to say something was demonstrably a flaw, or if it was just an intention we didn’t yet know (i.e. it could be a “feature” we haven’t discovered yet or an optimization for a future environment). We spot the “designed” watch because we have previous experience seeing watches as a whole, and seeing all pieces, and seeing it run as intended so we know what the parts do, etc. knowing beforehand that it was human designed. We could play with it and test this part or that. I don’t think any theist would say we can do similar things with God. ---

**Author:** ![Dan\_Eastwood](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dan_eastwood/32/2368_2.png) [@Dan\_Eastwood](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Dan_Eastwood)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2021, 8:15pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/can-god-be-a-useful-scientific-hypothesis-yes/13699/110 "2021-05-24T20:15:14Z")

> [@Jordan](#): > > I don’t think any theist would say we can do similar things with God. That pretty much defies any definition of God. ---

**Author:** ![Michael\_Okoko](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/michael_okoko/32/13148_2.png) [@Michael\_Okoko](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Michael_Okoko)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2021, 8:29pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/can-god-be-a-useful-scientific-hypothesis-yes/13699/111 "2021-05-24T20:29:49Z")

> [@Jordan](#): > > Right, hence my “that actually distinguish” because I don’t know how you can actually determine what a design flaw or sinister design _is_ A broken GULO gene with no significant benefit (and some serious disadvantages) linked to it’s loss of activity properly qualifies as a design flaw under his hypothesis. > [@Jordan](#): > > A general obstacle I see with any attempt at scientific hypotheses involving God (such as Intelligent Design) is that I don’t see how you get around the idea that you would have to _know_ God’s intentions, purposes, and design. _By definition_ we have incomplete knowledge and so you would never really be able to say something was demonstrably a flaw, or if it was just an intention we didn’t yet know (i.e. it could be a “feature” we haven’t discovered yet or an optimization for a future environment). Others have tried to make him see reason with this, but he won’t. Surprisingly, he employs this same reasoning when trying to deflect some critiques like what he is doing with John Harshman and extinctions. Its hopeless. > [@Jordan](#): > > We spot the “designed” watch because we have previous experience seeing watches as a whole, and seeing all pieces, and seeing it run as intended so we know what the parts do, etc. knowing beforehand that it was human designed. We could play with it and test this part or that. I don’t think any theist would say we can do similar things with God. Well, we have one theist named Meerkat, running in circles, trying to squeeze God into a test tube. ---

**Author:** ![Jordan](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/jordan/32/756_2.png) [@Jordan](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Jordan)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2021, 8:41pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/can-god-be-a-useful-scientific-hypothesis-yes/13699/112 "2021-05-24T20:41:10Z")

Hence: > [@Jordan](#): > > I’ll try the 2nd first before pulling the plug. ---

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2021, 9:06pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/can-god-be-a-useful-scientific-hypothesis-yes/13699/113 "2021-05-24T21:06:52Z")

> [@Jordan](#): > > Right, hence my “that actually distinguish” because I don’t know how you can actually determine what a design flaw or sinister design _is_ . A general obstacle I see with any attempt at scientific hypotheses involving God (such as Intelligent Design) is that I don’t see how you get around the idea that you would have to _know_ God’s intentions, purposes, and design. _By definition_ we have incomplete knowledge and so you would never really be able to say something was demonstrably a flaw, or if it was just an intention we didn’t yet know (i.e. it could be a “feature” we haven’t discovered yet or an optimization for a future environment). I agree the bad design argument is difficult because of our limited understanding of biological structures and our limited understanding of matter. > [@Jordan](#): > > We spot the “designed” watch because we have previous experience seeing watches as a whole, and seeing all pieces, and seeing it run as intended so we know what the parts do, etc. knowing beforehand that it was human designed. We could play with it and test this part or that. I don’t think any theist would say we can do similar things with God. The common thread with the design argument is that what we observe through inductive reasoning can be attributed to a mind. What @Meerkat_SK5 is doing is trying to be more specific which is a greater challenge. All that being said the counter arguments here don’t seem very constructive in helping him refine his thinking. ---

**Author:** ![Jordan](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/jordan/32/756_2.png) [@Jordan](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Jordan)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2021, 9:14pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/can-god-be-a-useful-scientific-hypothesis-yes/13699/114 "2021-05-24T21:14:49Z")

> [@colewd](#): > > The common thread with the design argument is that what we observe through inductive reasoning can be attributed to a mind. What @Meerkat_SK5 is doing is trying to be more specific which is a greater challenge. All that being said the counter arguments here don’t seem very constructive in helping him refine his thinking. Inductive reasoning is fine … but it’s only as good as “data” you’re inferring from. For instance, a car motor or CPU fan are practically useless for determining anything about a biological molecular motor. Too many things are dissimilar. So even if you can establish car motors are designed by minds and CPU fans are designed by minds … that’s meaningless for determining if flagella or FTPase are designed by minds. Does that make sense? How could we be more constructive in helping refine his thinking? As a Christian I’m perfectly open to the idea that God designed things in biology, but I’m not seeing things here that would help me argue that we can “detect” it. ---

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2021, 9:25pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/can-god-be-a-useful-scientific-hypothesis-yes/13699/115 "2021-05-24T21:25:58Z")

**Author:** ![Michael\_Okoko](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/michael_okoko/32/13148_2.png) [@Michael\_Okoko](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Michael_Okoko)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2021, 9:34pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/can-god-be-a-useful-scientific-hypothesis-yes/13699/116 "2021-05-24T21:34:36Z")

> [@colewd](#): > > I agree the bad design argument is difficult because of our limited understanding of biological structures and our limited understanding of matter. Not so for GULOP. Its inactivity slowly and painfully saps away the life of any organism that depends on the product of its functional version’s gene product, if that organism cannot get that product from external sources. Only a psychopath deity mean would install such a feature in it’s creations and Meerkat’s claims his designer is not evil: so GULOP falsifies his version of guided evolution, as well as what he thinks of the character of his designer. > [@colewd](#): > > What @Meerkat_SK5 is doing is trying to be more specific which is a greater challenge. And has fumbled spectacularly. ---

**Author:** ![Rumraket](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/rumraket/32/9328_2.png) [@Rumraket](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Rumraket)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2021, 9:37pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/can-god-be-a-useful-scientific-hypothesis-yes/13699/117 "2021-05-24T21:37:22Z")

> [@Jordan](#): > > Inductive reasoning is fine … but it’s only as good as “data” you’re inferring from. For instance, a car motor or CPU fan are practically useless for determining anything about a biological molecular motor. Too many things are dissimilar. So even if you can establish car motors are designed by minds and CPU fans are designed by minds … that’s meaningless for determining if flagella or FTPase are designed by minds. Does that make sense? Yes, makes perfect sense. The “too many things are dissimilar” explains it well. The attributes of the constituents of biological molecular machines are simply not analogous to relatively inert macroscopic objects like CPU fans and car engines. Physics at the molecular level does not conform to our everyday intuitions. The magnitude of influence of things like surface tension, just to pick an example, completely changes the picture. I know of no analogous attribute in any part of a CPU fan or car engine. Things don’t meld together, jiggle around through multiple weak associations, aren’t conformationally flexible, or soluble, or anything like that. Not even macroscopic magnets are appropriately analogous because they’re not suspended in solutions with very little influence of gravity. At the macroscopic level you can’t just throw stuff together randomly and then it’ll sort of self-assemble into a coherent structure by having attractive and repusive surface properties, they don’t float around and bounce into each other and so on and so forth. I’ve tried to get these points across to ID proponents and their machine/computer analogies innumerable times but it doesn’t stick. They go right back to imagining what happen if you randomly toss large chunks of metal and plastic into a pile on the floor. ---

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2021, 9:41pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/can-god-be-a-useful-scientific-hypothesis-yes/13699/118 "2021-05-24T21:41:24Z")

> [@Michael\_Okoko](#): > > He has stated something to that effect with regards to design flaws. He says if God directed our evolution, then we shouldn’t find design flaws or sinister designs. Not so, actually. He only requires that the design flaw or sinister design should benefit some entity, perhaps a different species or the biota as a whole. And if we can’t find such a benefit we should instead imagine that such a benefit might exist. So, untestable. ---

**Author:** ![Michael\_Okoko](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/michael_okoko/32/13148_2.png) [@Michael\_Okoko](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Michael_Okoko)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2021, 9:48pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/can-god-be-a-useful-scientific-hypothesis-yes/13699/119 "2021-05-24T21:48:44Z")

> [@colewd](#): > > > [@Jordan](#): > > > > Too many things are dissimilar. So even if you can establish car motors are designed by minds and CPU fans are designed by minds … that’s meaningless for determining if flagella or FTPase are designed by minds. Does that make sense? > > Why is it meaningless? For example, you know humans draw faces and have done so in a wide variety of ways. That means if you walked into an abandoned house or cathedral and saw face paintings, you would immediately conclude humans did it. However, look at this cloud face below captured on camera and tell me how your knowledge about human-drawn faces helps you understand its origins in the clouds in the absence of human intervention. ![Cloud-Face-5](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/uploads/peacefulscience/original/2X/7/7068683496bf04580735e860818be1e5b739fb7d.jpeg) ---

**Author:** ![Jordan](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/jordan/32/756_2.png) [@Jordan](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Jordan)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2021, 9:52pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/can-god-be-a-useful-scientific-hypothesis-yes/13699/120 "2021-05-24T21:52:23Z")

> [@colewd](#): > > > [@Jordan](#): > > > > Inductive reasoning is fine … but it’s only as good as “data” you’re inferring from. For instance, a car motor or CPU fan are practically useless for determining anything about a biological molecular motor. Too many things are dissimilar. So even if you can establish car motors are designed by minds and CPU fans are designed by minds … that’s meaningless for determining if flagella or FTPase are designed by minds. Does that make sense? > > Why is it meaningless? For an inductive “argument from analogy” the power or persuasiveness comes from the shared properties or “connectedness” of the premises. If you have two things that are too dissimilar, you lose the ability to have a confident conclusion. If I argue: > 1. _Star Wars_ is a movie, and it’s a science fiction space fantasy about good and evil, a galactic empire and “the Force” > 2. _Groundhog Day_ is a movie, and it’s a fantasy comedy about a weatherman who wakes up every day repeating February 2nd. > 3. Therefore, all movies are fantasies We see a clear problem, we’re cherry picking. If I argue: > 1. _Star Wars_ is a movie, and it’s a science fiction space fantasy about good and evil, a galactic empire and “the Force” > 2. Newton’s 2nd Law states that the force is equal to the mass times the acceleration > 3. Therefore, Newton’s 2nd Law is a fantasy The problem here is that “the force” in one context is _completely_ different from “the force” in the other, making the argument absurd. I have worked on car motors and I have helped design molecular motors, I can tell you that they are very very different things. ID as a whole has not done _nearly_ enough to show how these things go beyond superficial similarity. We use “motor” for things like flagella, and FTPase, and heliotropism because they convert non-mechanical energy into mechanical energy … that’s it. I have not seen any argument as to why fundamentally all “conversion of non-mechanical energy into mechanical energy” requires a mind. All I’ve seen is “look, they rotate!” > [@colewd](#): > > I am struggling to see how you connect our Judaeo Christian God without mixing in theology. Just to clarify: Is this a question for me? And connect God to what? biology? history of life? ---

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2021, 9:54pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/can-god-be-a-useful-scientific-hypothesis-yes/13699/121 "2021-05-24T21:54:44Z")

> [@Michael\_Okoko](#): > > Not so for GULOP. Its inactivity slowly and painfully saps away the life of any organism that depends on the product of its functional version’s gene product, if that organism cannot get that product from external sources. Only a psychopath deity mean would install such a feature in it’s creations and Meerkat’s claims his designer is not evil: so GULOP falsifies his version of guided evolution, as well as what he thinks of the character of his designer. This is your opinion and reasonable people can disagree as Vitamin C has many external sources. Animals require outside sources of nutrition to survive. Is @Meerkat_SK5 eliminating deleterious mutations as possible? > [@Michael\_Okoko](#): > > And has fumbled spectacularly. What are you trying to accomplish with this statement? ---

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2021, 10:03pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/can-god-be-a-useful-scientific-hypothesis-yes/13699/122 "2021-05-24T22:03:07Z")

> [@Jordan](#): > > The problem here is that “the force” in one context is _completely_ different from “the force” in the other, making the argument absurd. I have worked on car motors and I have helped design molecular motors, I can tell you that they are very very different things. ID as a whole has not done _nearly_ enough to show how these things go beyond superficial similarity. We use “motor” for things like flagella, and FTPase, and heliotropism because they convert non-mechanical energy into mechanical energy … that’s it. I have not seen any argument as to why fundamentally all “conversion of non-mechanical energy into mechanical energy” requires a mind. All I’ve seen is “look, they rotate!” This is not the design argument. You have created a straw man IMO as the design argument is not based on motors. Motors are simply used in the discussion. Behe’s argument is about a purposeful arrangement of parts similar to Paley’s original argument. [Previous page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/can-god-be-a-useful-scientific-hypothesis-yes/13699.md?page=5) [Next page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/can-god-be-a-useful-scientific-hypothesis-yes/13699.md?page=7)