Can ID be applied to biology instead of artifacts?

There are a very large amount of potential scientific projects. If something pondered such as the origin of a living organism matches Behe’s criteria (a purposeful arrangement of parts) maybe that will help set the priority of that project vs another opportunity for both time and financial resources.

Then why don’t you describe the types of experiments that ID researchers could do in order to produce positive evidence for an intelligent origin of life? Note that I am not saying they do research to try and disprove other explanations. Rather, what research could they do to produce positive evidence for an intelligent origin of life or genes?


Have you watched this discussion between Mike and Josh? Examples of ID and the criteria for detecting it are pretty well spelled out.

What experiments can be done to determine how these features came about?

If life originated from a transcendent mind, no experiment can be done to determine how this happened. But it doesn’t follow that reason can’t come to this conclusion.

1 Like

In all cases Mike showed artifacts that contained parts arranged for a purpose. I just made a list of artifacts in my house that contained parts arranged for a purpose and here is the list.
-Vacuum cleaner
-Pool Pump
-Pool Cover
-Living Room Furniture
-Home alarm

How many of these exist absent a mind being involved?

I notice that your list doesn’t include anything living. Is that because no organisms live in your house or that you don’t count them as having parts arranged for a purpose?


That echoes what @RonSewell said earlier:

The question we are asking is if one can reach that conclusion through the scientific method.

We are talking about biology, and we are asking HOW those things came about.

1 Like

The discussion is about a mechanistic explanation when we see parts arranged for a purpose as we see in a lot of things including biology.

A computer program has bits arranged for a purpose.

Animal DNA has nucleotides arranged for a purpose.

Sorry Bill but no one has ever shown any biological systems with parts arranged for a purpose. “Purpose” assumed a consciously preconceived plan with a desired result. Biological systems have an evolved function, not a purpose. Mistaking function for purpose is one of the most common errors I see ID-Creationist make.


No Bill, it doesn’t. You’re still mistaking function for purpose. The two terms aren’t synonyms.


How do you know that?


There arrangement determines a functional output. In bacteria around 100k of organized nucleotides enable mobility.

I’d have agree that your assumption that function and purpose are the same thing either obscures your point or makes it circular, depending on exactly what you’re trying to say.


That doesn’t demonstrate any purpose Bill. Function still does not equal purpose.


How does that show it has a purpose?

1 Like

No, but who cares if the conclusion is based on sound reasoning.

Are you asking that because you personally don’t care?

I think you misread him. He means “If the conclusion is based on sound reasoning, who cares whether it comes through the scientific method?”

But what sound reasoning would that be?