Why is the concept of Intelligent Design unreasonable?

Question

How can anyone assert that life arose spontaneously from non-living matter sometime in the unobservable past when it has already been scientifically proven by Louis Pasteur that this is impossible? Why do some people blindly accept the idea of spontaneous life sprouting up on Earth not only in the absence of empirical proof but in direct contradiction to current scientific findings?

Brett - I have made absolutely no assertion about evolution at all in this inquiry. I asked a question. Actually, I have also asked several followup questions in advance. Do you have any answers?

Also, I did not state that I am in opposition to evolution. I did not say that I agree with it either. The question directly addresses abiogenesis, not evolution. Although, indirectly it does address evolution since without life forms, there would be nothing to evolve.

Chippy - You pose three questions when I was looking for answers. You seem to have confused answers for questions.

NH Baritone - I find it presumptuous of you to assume you know my level of understanding of either I.D., abiogenesis, evolution or anything else. There have been many experiments done since Louis Pasteur and I was asking for a reasonable argument against I.D. I am not saying that I support I.D. as it is officially presented but since no one has been able to construct either DNA or RNA from it's base components then it might greatly incline a person to believe that a force which is not apparent by scientific observation is not only possible but very likely in the original formation of life. Life is currently very robust so it would seem the original chemical reaction to form life should also be robust and yet (while I would expect it to be difficult to prevent life from forming from base elements, it is has actually proven very difficult, even impossible to duplicate the event, to date.)

Answer 1

I believe that in your question lays the answer. spontaneous life generation is a faulty concept of junk science that has no way to be proven. Even the structure of life molecules scream that an outside intelligence is required to build such a organization. Jim

Answer 2

1. The concept of Intelligent Design might be correct. However, it is unscientific. That is the main reason why it isn't taught in public science classes.

2. Louis Pasteur disproved things like maggots arising spontaneously from rotting meat, for example, but did *not* disprove the concept of original abiogenesis. The simple fact is, at one point in time there was no life, and at another point there was. You can say it was a miracle, but that doesn't satisfy the truly curious types who would want to know exactly what form the miracle took. Did it occur on a macroscopic level? Microscopic? Atomic? What exactly happened? And if you don't really know exactly what happened, how can you say there's no scientific explanation? And if you admit that there might be a scientific explanation, why not look for it instead of dismissing the idea immediately?

3. There are unsolved questions, but current scientific findings increasingly support the notion of abiogenesis. See articles on the origin of life in wikipedia and talkorigins.org for in-depth coverage of this subject.

Answer 3

You are confusing the idea of spontaneous generation, which Pasteur refuted with the concept that life arose over 3 million years ago, over the course of perhaps one million years, from prebiotic chemicals.

Spontaneous generation, as it was understood in Pasteur's time, was the idea that maggots would be generated from a piece of old meat or that mice would spontaneously appear in sweaty underwear left in a jar with husks of corn. Pasteur disproved that micro-organisms could spontaneously generate from broth left standing.

This has NOTHING to do with the origin of life on earth.

The concept of intelligent design is unreasonable because it doesn't explain anything. Where did the designer come from? Who designed the designer? Where is he now? What did he design? Did he just give life a kick-start and let evolution take over, or did he design every detail of every organism we see plus all those that are extinct? Why did he do it?

Scientists in that past 50 years have formed some pretty decent theories about the origin of life. None have been proved and none have given rise to life. But in the next 50 years, they will undoubtedly get a lot closer.

Answer 4

We think we are smarter than we actually are. We know for sure that we use such a small portion of our brains. I truly think that we CAN NOT understand because we are psychically incabable of understanding. For all we know the answers could be in a part of the universe that we can never and will never access. For all we know there's some pulsating purple planet spewing out life all over everything that can possibly be and it has a scientific and logical exsistence but we could never undertstand it. Our faith is what tells us there is God and our faith is what helps us to beleieve in the things that we as Christians call proof. But I do understand why there are non beleivers. They don't feel it. I feel it coursing through me every day (no agnostics, it's not gas) therefore it is impossible for me to deny it. For all we know the pulsating life spewing planet is God with a logical exsistence, and with our arrogance and little brain capacity since we don't understand it, we figure it don't exsist. No I don't understand it, but the proof that it exsisits is coursing through your body too. The heart pumping, the ears hearing, the skin on the bottom of our feet able to weather stress, unlike the skin in other places on our bodies. The umbilical cord sustaining life for a period of time. Can that really all be accidental? I just don't feel that. I feel someone, or soemthing is responsible. and I can still feel that something in us, and I can't deny it. All I know is what I feel and I know what I know and I know for a fact that we are not capable of understanding things on the level of a greater being. do I beleive in evolution? ofcourse. I'm not an idiot. Evolution is not up for debate. But the way this planet sustains life it's all too perfect, to seamless. Without the moon, the waters would be contsant tsumai's. Without the sun, this earth would freeze. The butteflies have a purpose as does a maggot. There's an intellegence behind this. just because WE don't understand it, don't mean it dont exsisit.

Answer 5

They do not blindly accept the idea of spontaneous life. Oh, and Pasteur's experiment was erroneous because he did not recreate the conditions of the time in which life would have arisen. His experiment is far from "current." Miller's experiment, which is more current, shows that the precursors to life, like amino acids, can be formed in a primeval soup. He did not actually create life, but it is now shown that life's complex molecules can be formed spontanously. There is much more empirical evidence (not proof) that life had formed spontaneously. To understand this well, you need to know quite a bit about organic chemistry, biochemistry, and evolutionary biology. It is really quite convincing, trust me.

Answer 6

Louis Pasteur performed his work 150 years ago. A lot has happened in the advance of science since then. The Miller-Urey experiment demonstrating the feasibility of abiogenesis was performed 50 years ago.

Which, by my calendar, is more current than Pasteur.

I have no issues with the concept of Intelligent Design, you are free to believe whatever you want. Just don't call it "science", it's not.

Answer 7

"Intelligent Design" claims to be a branch of science. It is not. It is a religious expression based upon faith. It does not even have a scientific hypothesis, it gives rise to no predictions that can be scientifically tested for. The thing that makes it most unreasonable is its false claim to scientific standing.

Pasteur did not test to see if it's possible for life to come from non-life. He tested a view that under current conditions that is where some advanced forms of life come from. The conditions of the early earth in terms of heat, chemical composition, radioactivity, etc. do not currently exist and thus Pasteur's experiment does nothing to show whether primative life could have arisen over millions or billions of years under early earth conditions.
As for the absence of evidence for abiogenesis, there is much evidence. This includes building blocks of life found in space and the way that complex structures form from simple ingredients under the right conditions. Evidence for divine creation from mud and bone? none.

Answer 8

You have an inadequate understanding of both intelligent design and evolution.

Evolutionary theory says nothing about spontaneous generation of life. It simply says that from earlier forms, more complex forms of life evolved based on environmental pressures and genetic variations. The origin of life itself is not touched upon by evolutionary theory.

However, intelligent design says that the evolution of life forms was not effected by environmental pressures and genetic variations, but instead by the handiwork of an intelligent designer. This is not credible based on the evidence. Francis Collins, the evangelical Christian who headed the human genome project, has noted that the evidence for evolution is incontrovertible. If you want a detailed explanation of evolutionary theory and the evidence disputing intelligent design (it's way too much for here), visit http://www.talkorigins.org .

^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^

Answer 9

ummm, which side are you arguing?

it seems to me that intelligent design or... any origin concept with a creative force, is exactly what *solves* the scientifically illogical "life arising spontaneously from non-living matter" issue.

the idea of an origin without a creator, inherently demands, essentially, life spontaneously coming out of non-living matter.

introduction of a creative force that is outside of/transcendant/beyond the "normal" laws, that would thus be able to bring such into existance through other means, is what *solves* this problem.

Answer 10

Louis Pasteur was a long time ago. Science has come a long way since then, and many other scientists have put their theories forward. Although none of said theories is definitive yet, at least they are searching for an answer beyond 'God did it'.

Answer 11

Pasteur has also been known to take another man's work, falsify it and take credit for it as if it was his own. Remember the "germ theory'?

For me it's more plausible to accept sponaneous life which has mounds of evidence than blindly accept that a creator created everything...which would prompt one to ask, who created the creator?