Let’s start from the scientific method. When we are observe data we are trying to find the cause of the effect we are observing. So let’s look at a big protein that is mission critical for the operation of a eukaryotic cell.
Prpf8 which is a piece of the spliceosome. This protein has around 2300 AA in its sequence and is very well preserved over evolution. So how do we explain the cause of this sequence? We know a mind can create a complex sequence of this length. So at least a mind is a candidate cause. What other causes can we come up with that we can create a model to generate this sequence?
Would you agree that those are viable “candidate causes”? They also have the advantage of enormous piles of evidence as described in the peer-reviewed literature.
I consider evolutionary processes to be the most amazing of all of God’s designs. That’s why I’m fine with intelligent design as philosophy and theology but not as science.
I agree with you here that these processes are amazing however they are limited to how much of living organisms they explain. A 2300 AA amino acid sequence protein that is well preserved is in the “hard to explain” category.
Imagine landing on a distant planet never trodden by humans and after an exploratory walk you come across a black monolith forming a perfect parallelepiped like this one:
What would you infer regarding its cause?
If you are a sane person, I have no doubt that you will conclude that the monolith was designed by some intelligent agents even if you know nothing about the designer, won’t you? And how will you arrive to that conclusion? Simply by following the logic presented at 95. You will first understand that no natural process can explain the monolithe. At the same time you will also recognize that intelligent agents are able to produce such things. Hence, you will infer design. No magic here, simply logic!
Do you think the fact that the monolith looks remarkably similar to structures designed and erected by humans might explain why your “sane person” attributes the monolith to an intelligent agent?
Yes, this argument is no better (and is actually just a type of recasting of) Paley’s Watchmaker Argument.
(Keep in mind that I’m a born-again, evangelical Christ-follower type of theist. So I’m fine with working on arguments for God and for “intelligent designers”—but when I see a poor argument for God or ID theory, I have to speak the truth.)
Actually, what we know is that no mind anyone is aware of is capable of creating a functional sequence of this length, de novo, without any information other than the activity desired.
So, by this criterion, design is pretty effectively ruled out.
It’s a perfectly valid argument for inferring the design of human produced watches because you have other known human produced watches to compare it against. It fails miserably as a mechanism for interring design in biological life because you have no known designed biological life to compare against.
